On the battle between beliefs and pragmatism

Believers have a tendency to polarize matters. Exactly what they believe in doesn't matter, since there is always an opposite belief that it can battle with. Between them are pragmatists squeezed.

Belief in Creation (ie, Creationism) is the opposite to belief in a single True Tree of Life (today called Cladism), both of which end in paradox. If God created life, who, then, created God? If there is a single True Tree of Life, how, then, did it originate? The former is an endless recursion and the latter is a self-contradiction. Between them stands Carl von Linnè's pragmatic (consistent) solution of the problem, ie, an orthogonal system of classification, but who cares when the battle appears to rage between two opposite beliefs?

These two opposite beliefs aren't, however, as incompatible as they may seem. God may well have created biodiversity via a "true tree of Life", although it doesn't agree with the scriptures, and a "true tree of life" does not exclude creation. Instead, there are actually more properties that unite them than that divide them. Both are inconsistent, although in the two possible directions we can be inconsistent, that is, invoking a "pushing power" (ie, God) and conceptual confusion, but the latter of which logically leads to the conclusion that there indeed is a "pushing power" of the former, but which it instead calls "natural selection". They can thus join if they agree to call the "pushing power" (ie, the "natural selection" of the latter) God.

The difference between these two beliefs and pragmatism is that whereas the "natural selection" of the former is a "pushing power", ie, enhancing the probability for survival of the fittest, it is for the latter rather a "filtering power", ie, just deleting what can't survive. God for pragmatists is thus not the "pushing power" it is for creationists and cladists, but just a "filtering power" of what can possibly exist. The difference between the two beliefs and pragmatism does thus reside in how they comprehend the notion of "natural selection". For the beliefs, it is a "pushing power" that "purify" races, whereas it for pragmatists is a "filtering power" that can't avoid to give rise of races. This difference may appear insignificant, but is, on the contrary, fundamental, since none of the two beliefs thus allow for intermediates between races, but which the latter, on the contrary, does. Pragmatism does thus leave an opening for the fact that intermediates between races do exist, which the two beliefs do not. Pragmatism does thus agree with facts, which the two beliefs do not.

Pragmatism thus has the advantage to all beliefs that it can agree with all facts, which beliefs can't. Its disadvantage is that it can't be believed in, since it has no opposites. This disadvantage is, however, also the advantage of it, by pointing to the truth. (The problem that the truth is relative is, however, another matter). 

The conclusion of this contemplation is that there are more properties that unite Creationism and Cladism than that divide them, and that they are actually opposite to the pragmatism they squeeze between them. And, that the pragmatism they squeeze between them actually is the only approach that can agree with all facts. It leaves pragmatism as the winner, although it can't compete with beliefs on the stage of beliefs, but insted is squeezed between them. Pragmatism is sense, whereas belief is feelings. Belief can thus defeat pragmatism only temporarily, since agreement with facts win in the long run.