TonyChanYT
Sophomore
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2024
- Messages
- 158
- Reaction score
- 40
- Points
- 28
Preamble: I am not against other scholarly or spiritual approaches to hermeneutics. I use them as well as the one I describe here. I weigh different approaches.
I propose a denomination-free, logical, and probabilistic approach to interpreting the Scripture. I have never been an official member of any denomination. This is my attempt to stop the arguing among the different denominations, provided the debaters adhere to the method here.
Axiom: The 66 books of the OT and NT autograph manuscripts were God-breathed.
To ensure everyone is discussing the same thing, it is important to have an agreed operational (algorithmic, procedural) definition of the key term. Arguing about freewill without first defining it wastes time. Also, Christians argue about once saved always saved without a common and precise definition. Arguing about words without their operational semantics will not be productive. I learned this while studying programming languages as an undergrad.
When it comes to doctrines, I try to stick precisely to the words and phraseology in the Bible. See Mother of God and My Take on Trinity. Sometimes, I do use a special term as a shorthand notation to denote a relatively simple concept.
I instinctively practice Occam's razor. I put more weight on simple arguments over complicated ones, direct statements over implied conclusions, and unifying explanations over ad-hoc explanations. I look for elegance. See Homosexual acts are sinful.
By nature, I am slow in generalizing. I avoid isms because they tend to over-generalize, e.g., Onanism, Calvinism, etc. People who like to generalize tend to over-generalize. Stay focused; stick with precision.
I use First-Order Logic for formal reasoning. I am slow because I'd like to see detailed step-by-step logical deductions without missing steps. People who are not trained in formal logic tend to jump to conclusions. They often conflate ∃-for-some with ∀-for-all.
Analogical reasoning is not a valid method within the FOL framework. I rarely use it. When others do, I give it little weight.
Many passages are symbolic and poetic, rich with figures of speech. They must be considered before applying first-order logic to the resultant proposition statements.
However, FOL does not always resolve a problem. Then, I employ probabilistic analysis. David did as well. This is where Subjective (Bayesian) Probability comes in.
Some paradoxes/contradictions, such as false dichotomy, can be nicely solved by Co-Reality Model, i.e., the horizontal perspective complements the vertical perspective.
Is it okay to speculate on the Scriptures?
Yes, but only if you can evaluate it in terms of weighting; "speculate" in this context doesn't mean randomness or baselessness. It means thoughtful analysis of the biblical passages. After my conjecture, speculation, or guessing, I assign a weight to the end result. The higher the weight, the higher my confidence. Unless you are God, everyone speculates—some more, some less.
Regarding eschatological stuff, I often take the lazy way out, i.e., wait until after the facts rather than speculating because of the lack of a coherent weighting scheme in these cases.
I use the following words only in their formal logical sense: prove, deduce, entail, conclude, imply, contradict, therefore, unique, etc.
I avoid frequent usages of these words and phrases of extreme: absolutely, certainly, obviously, clearly, very, merely, irrefutable proof, the only way, no doubt, nothing to do with, must, have to, of course, absurd, debunk, easily, simply, plainly, most, best, the true this and the true that, prooftext, theory, there can be little argument, suffice it to say, the Bible says, the Bible does not say, etc. Excessive use of intensifiers often indicates unbalanced and intellectual immaturity and extremism.
Some Christians often misuse these words: all, just, only, assume, conclude, only, just. They use them to overgeneralize and jump to conclusions. You will think better if you are more careful with these words.
Don't be defensive, but stay objective. When disagreeing, I try to accommodate and find common ground. I admit different options with probabilities. I'm happy when someone proves me wrong because I would have learned something new. I enjoy the freedom to learn from everyone in the forums.
Proverbs 18:
I have been reading the Bible every day since 1994. Familiarize yourself with the whole Bible by daily reading.
People tend to believe what they subjectively want to believe. This approach offers a degree of objectivity in biblical interpretation by adhering to mathematical precision and technicality. It will not resolve all differences, but it guarantees to terminate any arguments within a practical number of steps, provided the participants agree to bet based on their subjective probability.
This is how my brain works. This hermeneutic is what I have been practicing for years. Whenever I hear or read a comment, I assign a weight to it based on its merit and compare its weight with the highest one in my memory on the same issue. If this new weight is consequential in my brain, I will modify my existing post to reflect this new weight/understanding. Believe it or not: when I do, my brain releases dopamine/serotonin, and I feel high
The overall aim of this hermeneutic is to arrive at a consentaneous set of Christian beliefs by logical and probabilistic reasoning to Biblical hermeneutics. This can be a unifying force, but I prefer something other than building an echo chamber. I welcome anyone who is sincere, objective, and civil. The potential collective intelligence of this kind of community is unbeatable.
I propose a denomination-free, logical, and probabilistic approach to interpreting the Scripture. I have never been an official member of any denomination. This is my attempt to stop the arguing among the different denominations, provided the debaters adhere to the method here.
Axiom: The 66 books of the OT and NT autograph manuscripts were God-breathed.
To ensure everyone is discussing the same thing, it is important to have an agreed operational (algorithmic, procedural) definition of the key term. Arguing about freewill without first defining it wastes time. Also, Christians argue about once saved always saved without a common and precise definition. Arguing about words without their operational semantics will not be productive. I learned this while studying programming languages as an undergrad.
When it comes to doctrines, I try to stick precisely to the words and phraseology in the Bible. See Mother of God and My Take on Trinity. Sometimes, I do use a special term as a shorthand notation to denote a relatively simple concept.
I instinctively practice Occam's razor. I put more weight on simple arguments over complicated ones, direct statements over implied conclusions, and unifying explanations over ad-hoc explanations. I look for elegance. See Homosexual acts are sinful.
By nature, I am slow in generalizing. I avoid isms because they tend to over-generalize, e.g., Onanism, Calvinism, etc. People who like to generalize tend to over-generalize. Stay focused; stick with precision.
I use First-Order Logic for formal reasoning. I am slow because I'd like to see detailed step-by-step logical deductions without missing steps. People who are not trained in formal logic tend to jump to conclusions. They often conflate ∃-for-some with ∀-for-all.
Analogical reasoning is not a valid method within the FOL framework. I rarely use it. When others do, I give it little weight.
Many passages are symbolic and poetic, rich with figures of speech. They must be considered before applying first-order logic to the resultant proposition statements.
However, FOL does not always resolve a problem. Then, I employ probabilistic analysis. David did as well. This is where Subjective (Bayesian) Probability comes in.
Some paradoxes/contradictions, such as false dichotomy, can be nicely solved by Co-Reality Model, i.e., the horizontal perspective complements the vertical perspective.
Is it okay to speculate on the Scriptures?
Yes, but only if you can evaluate it in terms of weighting; "speculate" in this context doesn't mean randomness or baselessness. It means thoughtful analysis of the biblical passages. After my conjecture, speculation, or guessing, I assign a weight to the end result. The higher the weight, the higher my confidence. Unless you are God, everyone speculates—some more, some less.
Regarding eschatological stuff, I often take the lazy way out, i.e., wait until after the facts rather than speculating because of the lack of a coherent weighting scheme in these cases.
I use the following words only in their formal logical sense: prove, deduce, entail, conclude, imply, contradict, therefore, unique, etc.
I avoid frequent usages of these words and phrases of extreme: absolutely, certainly, obviously, clearly, very, merely, irrefutable proof, the only way, no doubt, nothing to do with, must, have to, of course, absurd, debunk, easily, simply, plainly, most, best, the true this and the true that, prooftext, theory, there can be little argument, suffice it to say, the Bible says, the Bible does not say, etc. Excessive use of intensifiers often indicates unbalanced and intellectual immaturity and extremism.
Some Christians often misuse these words: all, just, only, assume, conclude, only, just. They use them to overgeneralize and jump to conclusions. You will think better if you are more careful with these words.
Don't be defensive, but stay objective. When disagreeing, I try to accommodate and find common ground. I admit different options with probabilities. I'm happy when someone proves me wrong because I would have learned something new. I enjoy the freedom to learn from everyone in the forums.
Proverbs 18:
Proverbs 19:
Psalm 131:
Titus 3:
I visit Biblehub.com every day.
I have been reading the Bible every day since 1994. Familiarize yourself with the whole Bible by daily reading.
People tend to believe what they subjectively want to believe. This approach offers a degree of objectivity in biblical interpretation by adhering to mathematical precision and technicality. It will not resolve all differences, but it guarantees to terminate any arguments within a practical number of steps, provided the participants agree to bet based on their subjective probability.
This is how my brain works. This hermeneutic is what I have been practicing for years. Whenever I hear or read a comment, I assign a weight to it based on its merit and compare its weight with the highest one in my memory on the same issue. If this new weight is consequential in my brain, I will modify my existing post to reflect this new weight/understanding. Believe it or not: when I do, my brain releases dopamine/serotonin, and I feel high
The overall aim of this hermeneutic is to arrive at a consentaneous set of Christian beliefs by logical and probabilistic reasoning to Biblical hermeneutics. This can be a unifying force, but I prefer something other than building an echo chamber. I welcome anyone who is sincere, objective, and civil. The potential collective intelligence of this kind of community is unbeatable.
