I think it would be more like “here’s the correct way to interpret these stories, in contrast to these other interpretations that a majority of people currently used to interpret them”.
So like, there’s already a whole cottage industry of interpretations of religious texts. Jordan Peterson, for instance, gives a bunch of “psychological” readings of the meaning of the bible, which got attention recently. (And notably, he has a broadly pluralistic take on religion).
But there are lots and lots of rabbis and ministers and so on promoting their own interpretations or promoting interpretations, many of which are hundreds of years old. There’s a vast body of scholarship regarding what these texts mean and how to interpret them.
Alex, it sounds like you hope to add one more interpretation to the mix, with firmer mathematical rigor.
Do you think that that one will be taken up by some large fraction of Christians, Muslims, Jews, or Buddhists? Is there some group that will see the formalizations and recognize them as self-evidently the truth that their personal religious tradition was pointing at?
My sense is that Alex feels the relevant thing is that speaking to people from his interpretation of religious texts is a more effective way of communicating with many/most people in the world than not-doing that, which isn’t quite the same as saying “and it will definitely become the most widespread interpretation of these texts”, though is a part of a path toward having the most widespread interpretation.
So like, there’s already a whole cottage industry of interpretations of religious texts. Jordan Peterson, for instance, gives a bunch of “psychological” readings of the meaning of the bible, which got attention recently. (And notably, he has a broadly pluralistic take on religion).
But there are lots and lots of rabbis and ministers and so on promoting their own interpretations or promoting interpretations, many of which are hundreds of years old. There’s a vast body of scholarship regarding what these texts mean and how to interpret them.
Alex, it sounds like you hope to add one more interpretation to the mix, with firmer mathematical rigor.
Do you think that that one will be taken up by some large fraction of Christians, Muslims, Jews, or Buddhists? Is there some group that will see the formalizations and recognize them as self-evidently the truth that their personal religious tradition was pointing at?
My sense is that Alex feels the relevant thing is that speaking to people from his interpretation of religious texts is a more effective way of communicating with many/most people in the world than not-doing that, which isn’t quite the same as saying “and it will definitely become the most widespread interpretation of these texts”, though is a part of a path toward having the most widespread interpretation.