Socratic Method a Good Way to "Test the Spirits"?

[spockrates]

Any thoughts on whether this is a helpful way to figure out what the Bible teaches about some topic?

John writes:

1 John 4:1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.​

I know the scriptures help us "test the spirits," but Christians don't always agree on what some scriptures teach us.

So I wonder if using the Socratic Method is a good way to help two or more Christians figure out the actual meaning of a biblical passage. How the Socratic Method works:

The advocate = one who has an opinion about what the biblical passage means.

The questioner = one who doesn't yet have an opinion about what the biblical passage means, or is unsure about its meaning.

(1) The advocate of a specific interpretation of a biblical passage tells the questioner what she believes the passage teaches and why she believes it teaches this.

(2) The questioner never questions what the advocate believes.

(3) Instead, the questioner asks questions about why the advocate believes her reasons why she believes are good reasons.

(4) The advocate answers the questions.

(5) The questioner points out if any answers to the questions result in logical contradictions.

(6) The advocate tries to adjust her reasons why she believes to resolve the contradictions, or explains why there actually are no contradictions.

(7) If she cannot resolve the logical contradictions, she suggests a different reason why she believes what she believes, and the two return to step (1).

(8) If she can resolve the logical contradictions, or show there are none, the questioner stops asking questions and agrees that the advocate's reasons why she believes are good reasons why he should believe, too. So he accepts what she says believes the biblical passage says is truely what is says.

(9) If the advocate cannot resolve the contradictions and cannot at the moment think of a different reason why she believes what she believes the biblical passage says, the discussion ends. The questioner remains in the state of not knowing the true meaning of the biblical passage. The advocate goes back to studying the Bible to find better reasons why she believes so that the discussion may continue at a later date.

More information on the Socratic Method:

Socratic method - Wikipedia

 

[Dave-W]

Remember Socrates was a pagan and did not worship the God of the bible.

What comprises a "Logical contradiction" depends on the logical framework used; and the bible is NOT based on Greek (Aristotelian) logic. So its use in analyzing scripture is quite limited.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Any thoughts on whether this is a helpful way to figure out what the Bible teaches about some topic?

John writes:

1 John 4:1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.​

I know the scriptures help us "test the spirits," but Christians don't always agree on what some scriptures teach us.

So I wonder if using the Socratic Method is a good way to help two or more Christians figure out the actual meaning of a biblical passage. How the Socratic Method works:

The advocate = one who has an opinion about what the biblical passage means.

The questioner = one who doesn't yet have an opinion about what the biblical passage means, or is unsure about its meaning.

(1) The advocate of a specific interpretation of a biblical passage tells the questioner what she believes the passage teaches and why she believes it teaches this.

(2) The questioner never questions what the advocate believes.

(3) Instead, the questioner asks questions about why the advocate believes her reasons why she believes are good reasons.

(4) The advocate answers the questions.

(5) The questioner points out if any answers to the questions result in logical contradictions.

(6) The advocate tries to adjust her reasons why she believes to resolve the contradictions, or explains why there actually are no contradictions.

(7) If she cannot resolve the logical contradictions, she suggests a different reason why she believes what she believes, and the two return to step (1).

(8) If she cannot think of a different reason why she believes, the discussion ends. The questioner remains in the state of not knowing the true meaning of the biblical passage. The advocate goes back to studying the Bible to find better reasons why she believes so that the discussion may continue at a later date.

More information on the Socratic Method:

Socratic method - Wikipedia

Hi Spockrates,

I'd have to say that although I like various uses to which the Socratic Method can be put for the purpose of perhaps clarifying this or that concept, when it comes to interpreting the Bible we'll usually find that we'll have to go beyond deductive thinking itself to come to an understanding of its various texts...especially when "testing the spirits" of those who come our way with this or that 'new' insight about the Christian view of the world.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[spockrates]

Remember Socrates was a pagan and did not worship the God of the bible.

What comprises a "Logical contradiction" depends on the logical framework used; and the bible is NOT based on Greek (Aristotelian) logic. So its use in analyzing scripture is quite limited.

Hi, @Dave-W. Thanks for replying. I see from your signature you have six grand children. My wife and I are looking forward to the day one of our sons gives us our first!

I have a question: Since atheists rely on the scientific method to do scientific experiments, does that mean Christians who are scientists shouldn't use the scientific method?

 

[spockrates]

Hi Spockrates,

I'd have to say that although I like various uses to which the Socratic Method can be put for the purpose of perhaps clarifying this or that concept, when it comes to interpreting the Bible we'll usually find that we'll have to go beyond deductive thinking itself to come to an understanding of its various texts...especially when "testing the spirits" of those who come our way with this or that 'new' insight about the Christian view of the world.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

Hi @2PhiloVoid. Thanks for the reply.

You might be right. Still, I'd have to say that using the Socratic Method is a good way of avoiding debate. It's hard to argue with someone who never says what you believe is wrong, but only asks why the reasons why you believe it are good reasons for him to believe it, too.

Do you think, at the very least, asking questions helps the one answering stop trying to win some argument and start thinking about her reasons for believing what she believes?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

.

Hi @2PhiloVoid. Thanks for the reply.

You might be right. Still, I'd have to say that using the Socratic Method is a good way of avoiding debate. It's hard to argue with someone who never says what you believe is wrong, but only asks why the reasons why you believe it are good reasons for him to believe it, too.

Do you think, at the very least, asking questions helps the one answering stop trying to win some argument and start thinking about her reasons for believing what she believes?

Probably not. The reason being is that the Biblical, Jewish structure of thinking isn't quite like the Greek way of thinking, and the difference in methods and epistemology between the two will not typically allow complete resolution on the part of either interlocutor.

I usually find that in the context of Christian thought, asking questions is better used to prompt the search for evidence(s) for which further considerations may be made, rather than using questioning to finally stop one or the other from 'winning' a debate about the nature and person of God.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hi @2PhiloVoid. Thanks for the reply.

You might be right. Still, I'd have to say that using the Socratic Method is a good way of avoiding debate. It's hard to argue with someone who never says what you believe is wrong, but only asks why the reasons why you believe it are good reasons for him to believe it, too.

Do you think, at the very least, asking questions helps the one answering stop trying to win some argument and start thinking about her reasons for believing what she believes?

...we might also have to think about how Immanuel Kant handled what he saw were integral nuances regarding the nature of deductive thinking, which comes out in what he calls the Analytic/Synthetic distinction. If Kant is right, then some of our deductive statements may not be necessarily leading us to higher levels of understanding truth; on some things we might just be redefining the same thing over in a different way.

Just something to think about ...

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[spockrates]

Probably not. The reason being is that the Biblical, Jewish structure of thinking isn't quite like the Greek way of thinking, and the difference in methods and epistemology between the two will not typically allow complete resolution on the part of either interlocutor.

Sorry for sounding so ignorant, but in what way are they different?

I usually find that in the context of Christian thought, asking questions is better used to prompt the search for evidence(s) for which further consideration to be made, rather than using questioning to finally stop one or the other from 'winning' a debate over the nature and person of God.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

Sorry for being clear as mud! I didn't mean to say the Socratic Method is a way of preventing someone from winning a debate. I was trying to say it's a way of avoiding a debate in the first place.

But perhaps you can help me out? I find that I'm unsure about the meaning of certain scriptures, but would like to know what they mean. If I shouldn't ask questions about why someone believes a scripture teaches what the person believes it teaches, then what other method should I use to find the true meaning of the specific biblical passage?

 

[spockrates]

...we might also have to think about how Immanuel Kant handled what he saw were integral nuances regarding the nature of deductive thinking, which comes out in what he calls the Analytic/Synthetic distinction. If Kant is right, then some of our deductive statements may not be necessarily leading us to higher levels of understanding truth; on some things we might just be redefining the same thing over in a different way.

Just something to think about ...

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

I was thinking more about using inductive reasoning in an attempt to find an author's intended meaning of some ambiguous biblical passage.

I'm looking for what interpretation of specific biblical passages is most probable, rather than what interpretation is certain.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sorry for sounding so ignorant, but in what way are they different?

No need to apologize; we're all exploring this together as brethren in Christ.

In a nutshell, the difference between the Greek way of thinking verses the Jewish way might be seen in comparing two different fields of thought with each other: Logic (vs.) Semiotics. Greek thought tends to be more prone the the former, while Jewish thought is more prone to working within aspects of the later. Furthermore, New Testament epistemology adds to the overall epistemic structure the complexity of God's necessary involvement in the process of Illumination. So, without God somewhere in the interpretive equation, we can apply Logic or Semiotics all day and only go just so far with understanding the Bible or with 'believing' it.

Sorry for being clear as mud! I didn't mean to say the Socratic Method is a way of preventing someone from winning a debate. I was trying to say it's a way of avoiding a debate in the first place.

I'd like to think that the Socratic Method could be used in that way...but more often that not, the results will depend on the actual openness to truth the person being asked actually has.

But perhaps you can help me out? I find that I'm unsure about the meaning of certain scriptures, but would like to know what they mean. If I shouldn't ask questions about why someone believes a scripture teaches what the person believes it teaches, then what other method should I use to find the true meaning of the specific biblical passage?

In addition to deduction, we've got induction and abduction as methods by which we can explore the meaning of the Scriptures.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I was thinking more about using inductive reasoning in an attempt to find an author's intended meaning of some ambiguous biblical passage.

I'm looking for what interpretation of specific biblical passages is most probable, rather than what interpretation is certain.

...yep! We'd all like to be able to peel away the vagueness and/or hidden meanings of some passages of Scripture... I know I would.

 

[spockrates]

...

No need to apologize; we're all exploring this together as brethren in Christ.

In a nutshell, the difference between the Greek way of thinking verses the Jewish way might be seen in comparing two different fields of thought with each other: Logic (vs.) Semiotics. Greek thought tends to be more prone the the former, while Jewish thought is more prone to working within aspects of the later.

Please briefly define Semiotics. Are you talking about Jesus' use of parables and figures of speech?

Furthermore, New Testament epistemology adds to the overall epistemic structure the complexity of God's necessary involvement in the process of Illumination. So, without God somewhere in the interpretive equation, we can apply Logic or Semiotics all day and only go just so far with understanding the Bible or with 'believing' it.

Yes, let's assume for the sake of discussion both I (who finds a biblical passage ambiguous) and the one I speak to (who has a firm opinion about the meaning of the same passage) both have God involved in our illumination.

I'd like to think that the Socratic Method could be used in that way...but more often that not, the results will depend on the actual openness to truth the person being asked actually has.

Yes, Socrates himself had the same misgivings about Stohic philosophers who adopted his methods to win arguments rather than discover the truth. He even went toe-to-toe with a few of them from time to time. Let's say I'm interested in using the method the way Socrates intended.

In addition to deduction, we've got induction and abduction as methods by which we can explore the meaning of the Scriptures.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

I didn't know this was possible. Please give one example of deductive reasoning showing no doubt about the meaning of an ambiguous biblical passage.

 

[Dave-W]

I have a question: Since atheists rely on the scientific method to do scientific experiments, does that mean Christians who are scientists shouldn't use the scientific method?

The scientific method is necessary for analyzing the physical world. So in their role as scientist or engineer (which I am by training) they MUST use it.

But where it falls down is in application to matters of a spiritual nature. There one must use a different framework which goes by a few different names:

Hebrew Logic
Block Logic
Adductive Logic

 

[Dave-W]

Sorry for sounding so ignorant, but in what way are they different?

You seem to be aware of Aristotelian logic - deductive and inductive reasoning.

Here are some descriptions of the Biblical/Hebraic logic framework:

http://theologylog.8.forumer.com/a/hebrew-block-logic_post8.html
http://www.hoshanarabbah.org/pdfs/heb_grk.pdf
2 Adductive Logic in Torah
BLOCK LOGIC (An Introduction to Hebrew Thought) - Sermon Index
Judaic Logic

 

[Dave-W]

In addition to deduction, we've got induction and abduction as methods

But the one to use is Adduction.

 

[spockrates]

The scientific method is necessary for analyzing the physical world. So in their role as scientist or engineer (which I am by training) they MUST use it.

So if it's OK for a Christian to use an atheist's method for scientific inquiry, why is it not OK for a Christian to use a philosopher's method for philosophical inquiry?

But where it falls down is in application to matters of a spiritual nature. There one must use a different framework which goes by a few different names:

Hebrew Logic
Block Logic
Adductive Logic

Edit: Please explain why adductive reasoning is superior to using the Socratic Method and inductive reasoning, as they relate to interpretation of scripture.

 

[spockrates]

You seem to be aware of Aristotelian logic - deductive and inductive reasoning.

Here are some descriptions of the Biblical/Hebraic logic framework:

http://theologylog.8.forumer.com/a/hebrew-block-logic_post8.html
http://www.hoshanarabbah.org/pdfs/heb_grk.pdf
2 Adductive Logic in Torah
BLOCK LOGIC (An Introduction to Hebrew Thought) - Sermon Index
Judaic Logic

Thanks, I'll check those out. I have a basic education in logic and I enjoy reading Plato's dialogues from time to time. Think of me as a novice logician, and please correct me when I make any factual or logical errors.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But the one to use is Adduction.

Yes...we can add that one in as well; in fact, since we're dealing with mainly Jewish Scriptures, I'd say we'd have to give it priority over the others, while not dismissing the use of the others.

Thanks for the additional info.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Dave-W]

So if it's OK for a Christian to use an atheist's method for scientific inquiry,

Socrates and Aristotle were not atheists; rather they worshiped Zeus and the rest of the Greek pantheon.

why is it not OK for a Christian to use a philosopher's method for philosophical inquiry?

One must use the method appropriate for the subject matter.

In the case of studying and drawing conclusions from the Bible, you should use the same method used by the biblical authors - Hebrew Block logic.

Edit: Please explain why adductive reasoning is superior to using the Socratic Method and inductive reasoning, as they relate to interpretation of scripture.

Because it is the method used by the authors - and has been in use in Jewish academic and theological circles for over 2500 years.

 

[spockrates]

Socrates and Aristotle were not atheists; rather they worshiped Zeus and the rest of the Greek pantheon.

My apologies for being clear as mud, again! I was comparing the scientific method (used by atheists) to the Socratic Method (used by philosophers). I assumed you were saying the reason for not using the Socratic Method is that pagans use it, so Christians should never use it. So I wondered why you advocated the use of the scientific method, since atheists use it. No worries! The rest of your reply, below gives me a better reason to consider.

One must use the method appropriate for the subject matter.

In the case of studying and drawing conclusions from the Bible, you should use the same method used by the biblical authors - Hebrew Block logic.

Because it is the method used by the authors - and has been in use in Jewish academic and theological circles for over 2500 years.

Yes, makes sense to me. So would it be OK to consider a specific passage of scripture so I may see for myself how adductive reasoning is more useful than inductive reasoning and the Socratic Method in discerning it's intended meaning? If so, I have one in mind.