A Disciplined Probabilistic Approach to Biblical Hermeneutics

[tonychanyt]

See A Disciplined Probabilistic Approach to Biblical Hermeneutics

 

[PloverWing]

I don't know how successful this undertaking will be. The attempt to rest mathematics on formal logic famously ran into problems, so resting Christian theology on formal logic may run into similar problems. But I love formal logic for its own sake -- I think it's my favorite area of mathematics -- and I'd enjoy seeing the formal system you're developing, even if it's not capable in the end of deriving the Nicene Creed from first principles.

(I enjoy reading St Thomas Aquinas, for example, because of the refreshingly logical approach he takes in his writing, even though he predates modern symbolic logic by many centuries. Imagine being a fly on the wall, and getting to hear Thomas Aquinas and Bertrand Russell discuss theology and philosophy!)

 

[tonychanyt]

I don't know how successful this undertaking will be. The attempt to rest mathematics on formal logic famously ran into problems, so resting Christian theology on formal logic may run into similar problems.

Right, formal logic has its limitations. I am not against other approaches to hermeneutics. However First-Order Logic can provide a unifying force.

 

[Clare73]

Right, formal logic has its limitations. I am not against other approaches to hermeneutics. However First-Order Logic can provide a unifying force.

Bless your heart! Let 'er roll!

We're reading from the same manual.

 

[Halbhh]

Since you have a logical and reasonable approach, let me offer something I've learned by experience (and scripture). There is a problem that will happen at times (or often) -- it's good to be prepared to run into plenty of doctrinal arguments of course. It's helpful to remember that a doctrine is usually a theory, often they were originated (elsewhere) in an attempt to either simplify something (or for better doctrines, to just summarize), but also many doctrines are attempts to fill in things not stated plainly in scripture. So, some doctrines are more misleading than other doctrines. (and most all doctrines can end up being misleading for some in that plenty of individuals won't realize a doctrine (even a correct one) is a mere simplification and think it's somehow sufficient to replace scripture or such)

The main antidote to doctrines (oversimplifications and mistaken theories both) is of course scripture, but while many will listen to scripture without arguing, we of course will encounter that some might not be willing to listen to scripture that contradicts their doctrine, so then that what is needed in that situation is foremost a lot of love and forbearance, in view of the instructions to precisely that:

Romans 14 NIV

biblehub.com

Literally our forum instruction, for believers.

And this isn't just some additional aid, or a good tip, Romans 14 as a chapter, but the key instruction for a discussion forum, really. After all, a forum is going to be where many will come to argue for their favorite theories (doctrines). And it seems like we can't help them at all if we only argue with them. ( by 'arguing' I mean that explicit or implicit forceful message 'you're wrong!' (you bad person) which is more about provoking or hitting someone than reasoning with them together)

So, it will often help if we can see what they have right and helpfully acknowledge the parts they have right.

Maybe then, perhaps, they will also listen to a passage that they haven't yet really read (or didn't really listen well yet), today or tomorrow or next week.... And if we just give a passage, I think we should not worry how soon they will hear it, in a way: either they will hear it sooner or later, or they won't, and it might be we cannot make them in any way. If they have faith, some day they may listen. To hear his words with ears that hear, instead of their own favorite doctrinal theory.

More broadly let me say that the problem with most doctrines that people argue for is they are oversimplifications, which also causes a lot of trouble because many know what is missing from a given doctrine, but not always the person stating the doctrine.... Another is that to anyone, any doctrine other than their own seems as if merely someone's opinions.

In contrast scripture itself without interpretations put on top of it is clearly more than just opinion. (while a doctrine can be wrong, scripture simply is both self-sufficient (in ways we can't always see) and correct always)

So, when possible, it good to just be friendly and occasionally just offer a passage that appears missing in a given doctrinal view. Then ideally don't get trapped into arguing over it. But occasionally there might be real discussion. It's just that we needn't worry whether someone will consider what they don't seem to have yet -- they will in their own time, or not.

So, it's back to just Romans 14/"the greatest of these is love", really, in most situations.

 

[tonychanyt]

More broadly let me say that the problem with most doctrines that people argue for is they are oversimplifications

So right, brother. First-Order Logic is a disciplined precise way of deduction. People who are not trained in FOL tend to over-generalize and jump to conclusions.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

I don't know how successful this undertaking will be. The attempt to rest mathematics on formal logic famously ran into problems, so resting Christian theology on formal logic may run into similar problem

- for "rest on" read "check against"?
- maths starts with the what and works towards the how
- bodies of knowledge start with matters of "seeming how" and attempt to seek out "perhaps what"
- to A N Whitehead, eternity is the backdrop against which possibilities map themselves
- Robert Leslie Ellis was into this sort of thing
- in my opinion the "first" three things were person, light and time: Genesis does not describe them, but the story is intended to be taught as carrying that meaning

 

[OldAbramBrown]

This what John Henry Newman calls degrees of inference. Wrong views of austerity portrayed inference as the sin of luxury.

My favourite logic text (in leisure reading) was Stanley Jevons. Since I have come across the phrase "first order" I don't know what that meant so I'll follow this up, thanks.

I am terribly blunt (about being middle-of-the-road), so I hope to crib some more suave phrasing off you.

 

[PloverWing]

- for "rest on" read "check against"?

"Rest on" is what I thought was being proposed, something like logicism in mathematics (Logicism - Wikipedia). I agree that "check against" is much more feasible.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

... something like logicism in mathematics (Logicism - Wikipedia) ...

Don't forget belief in Jesus Christ is also about ontology, since we are individuals of great worth.

- maths starts with the what and works towards the how
- bodies of knowledge start with matters of "seeming how" and attempt to seek out "perhaps what"

. . . among which I include positive sciences, historical sciences, and all varieties of theology . . .
. . . which is the other way round from maths . . .

what John Henry Newman calls degrees of inference

. . . which will never be complete (in any field or walk)

 

[OldAbramBrown]

Tony, I think we will work towards an arguably consent worthy partial framework for shared beliefs. There will always be major insights coming from all directions such as new members.

Semiotics show me that I can infer from meanings of wordings. Even such a bright spark as Russell sometimes seemed to think the word was the thing. I've only just begun working my way through your various posts BTW so we don't know yet, how our respective insights help each other along, yet.

My own gut feeling is that it is deplorable that some churches set the world a bad example in hermeneutics on any subject, leading to an "essentialist fallacy".

 

[trophy33]

Axiom: The 66 books of the OT and NT autograph manuscripts were reliable.

Why 66?
Only autographs, not copies?
Reliable in what way? This is quite a vague term.

to follow the logic objectively without positive or negative emotions using a first-order logical approach to Biblical hermeneutics.

First-order logic components:

1. Propositional calculus
2. Existential quantifier, for some
3. Universal quantifier, for all
4. Transitivity: x=y, y=z => x=z
5. Proof by contradiction

I avoid spaghetti logic, i.e., the kind of logic that goes all over the place all at once. I prefer linear logic and try not to miss any steps along the path. Only after one path has been exhausted do I start another path.

Why do you think biblical authors did not use this approach?

 

[OldAbramBrown]

...

More broadly let me say that the problem with most doctrines that people argue for is they are oversimplifications, which also causes a lot of trouble because many know what is missing from a given doctrine, but not always the person stating the doctrine.... Another is that to anyone, any doctrine other than their own seems as if merely someone's opinions.

In contrast scripture itself without interpretations put on top of it is clearly more than just opinion. (while a doctrine can be wrong, scripture simply is both self-sufficient (in ways we can't always see) and correct always)

So, when possible, it good to just be friendly and occasionally just offer a passage that appears missing in a given doctrinal view. Then ideally don't get trapped into arguing over it. But occasionally there might be real discussion. It's just that we needn't worry whether someone will consider what they don't seem to have yet -- they will in their own time, or not ...

This is so perceptive. Oversimplification = what was it that got taken out = which dog didn't bark in the night time. It's a fallacy to delete needed data from premises or other parts of an argument.

Example: eternal subordination of the Son = strengthening codependent behaviours by quenching distinct Holy Spirit knowledge and action in the daily lives of congregation members; learned in turn from those who taught that this must be taught that way.

(There are many OT and NT verses about sounding distinctly.)

I think that praying as we post, and praying as we read, helps. Also if we could, fairly frequently, relate any detail to the topic in the OP.

And if prospective responders would mull a while and perhaps research a little, and remain calmly curious, we can avoid causing those threads which grow by ten posts while anyone types a few sentences.

 

[tonychanyt]

Why 66?

66 books in the Protestant canon.

Only autographs, not copies?

No autographs have been found.

Reliable in what way? This is quite a vague term.

"Reliable" in the dictionary sense. Yes, it is a bit vague.

Why do you think biblical authors did not use this approach?

First-Order Logic was only codified a bit more than 100 years ago. The Bible is written to appeal to everybody, not a special group of trained logicians.

 

[trophy33]

66 books in the Protestant canon.

I know, my question was "why". There can be other canons or none strict canon at all.

No autographs have been found.

I know, my question was "only autographs, not copies"?

"Reliable" in the dictionary sense. Yes, it is a bit vague.

Not too helpful, then.

 

[tonychanyt]

I know, my question was "why". There can be other canons or none strict canon at all.

See How did the biblical canon come about? and follow up there.

 

[trophy33]

See How did the biblical canon come about? and follow up there.

The list of books aside for now, what axioms do you have for their content (and why). For example Isaiah, Jeremiah or Daniel have several significantly different textual versions.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I try to use the following words only in their formal sense: prove, deduce, conclude, imply, contradict, therefore, unique, etc.

I try to avoid these words of extreme: absolutely, certainly, obviously, clearly, irrefutable proof, the only way, no doubt, must, have to, of course, absurd, debunk, easily, simply, most, best, very, etc. I find people who overuse these words and superlatives are sometimes unbalanced and intellectually immature. How do I know that? Well, because I was like that in my younger hormonal days

That's something one of my brother's impressed upon me often. If a thing is true, you only detract from it to say that it is "so true", or "very true" or "absolute truth". That's language used to convince when logic is unconvincing.

"Wife, editing notes for her husband's upcoming sermon: 'Logic weak here —raise voice and pound pulpit.'"

 

[John Mullally]

That's something one of my brother's impressed upon me often. If a thing is true, you only detract from it to say that it is "so true", or "very true" or "absolute truth". That's language used to convince when logic is unconvincing.

"Wife, editing notes for her husband's upcoming sermon: 'Logic weak here —raise voice and pound pulpit.'"

Very, very so true - so raise your voice and pound the pulpit. Ha Ha

 

[John Mullally]

So right, brother. First-Order Logic is a disciplined precise way of deduction. People who are not trained in FOL tend to over-generalize and jump to conclusions

Are you trained in the word of God, or the word of Calvin (which scripture does not support)? Let it roll and present an actual argument that others can respond to! Dazzle us with your FOL.. Ha, Ha,