NN

To Susanna (252),
I will say this as nicely as I can…
Your grasp of the concept of formal proof is completely incorrect.

Formal proof is any logical proof developed from axioms (‘first principles’ – truly fundamental first principles, by definition cannot be proven). This is quite as true of science as of theology (though of course what each considers “first principles” are quite different)

What you call “the scientific principle of a hypothesis” – is also a poor understanding of the scientific approach to discovering things. In science the best practice is to determine a hypothesis from the most straightforward interpretation of some fact and then to determine what ‘data’ would show the hypothesis to be false – and then examine this ‘data’.

Which incidentally is exactly the approach that my original post details:

A straightforward reading of passages such as Col 3:18, Eph 5:22, 1 Pet 3:1, etc. suggests a hierarchy implicit within the nature of the marriage relationship.
What could make this hypothesis untrue? Well if we misunderstood the nature of the instruction given – for instance if ‘hupotassoe’ didn’t really convey the ideas of obedience. Or if the command was given because of a specific cultural condition which is no longer true.
Then we examine both of these falsification conditions (as discussed in my original post – http://nuallan.livejournal.com/52878.html, and throughout this comment thread, including (239)). And both of these falsification conditions are shown not to be the case – as such the original hypothesis is demonstrated from first principles.

When I say that I have proven something (theologically); the presumed first principles are that the Bible is inerrant (true in all it espouses and does not contradict itself); and that it may be understood in context of the text itself.

Finally, as an aside which I should have asked many times over now: what would the falsification conditions be for your theories? I know that most people do not naturally think this way but it is essential to being able to identify when things are true & false (based on certain axiomatic presumptions), proven & unproven.

As an example consider (250 – my apologies Mara but it really makes a great example)
“Authoritative and erotic combined (by which she means ‘the fusion of erotic pleasure with the domination of females’) lead to pornography.” This implies that pornography is the result of a “male dominant – female subjugated” sexual mindset. But if this were true then we would not expect to find pornographies (and illicit sexual practice) in which the two partners were “equal” or in which the female were dominating over the male, and yet this is empirically observed to be the case.

Always look for falsification conditions – without them we can never recognize a proof and tell it apart from a hunch.