We should track which scriptures can be said to support or oppose each belief

A Tool for Evidence-Based Dialogue, Religious Self-Understanding, and Automated Conflict Resolution

This would create a transparent, structured way to evaluate moral and doctrinal claims across religious and secular traditions.

Why?

1. Tracking which scriptures can be said to support or oppose each belief would Improve Societal Debate

• This would replace vague appeals to divine will with measurable analysis (e.g., "63% of this tradition's scriptures support nonviolence").
• This would surface competing teachings within traditions (e.g., justice vs. mercy) to promote epistemic humility and structured disagreement.
• This would ground policy, education, and public ethics in shared values and logical coherence.
• This would allow belief claims to be evaluated through evidence-based reasoning rather than ideological assertion.

2. Tracking which scriptures can be said to support or oppose each belief would Help Understand Others

• This would reveal why people believe what they do based on scriptural sources.
• This would identify which scriptures serve as obstacles or bridges to particular causes (e.g., gender equality, environmental responsibility).
• This would help secular audiences understand religious worldviews, and vice versa.
• This would foster empathy by showing how different communities prioritize or interpret their scriptures differently (e.g., progressive vs. conservative uses).

3. Tracking which scriptures can be said to support or oppose each belief would Drive Religious Self-Understanding

• This would reduce manipulation by surfacing neglected, inconvenient, or contradictory scriptures.
• This would discourage cherry-picking and promote full-spectrum scriptural engagement.
• This would show how traditions internally reconcile doctrinal tensions (e.g., ahimsa vs. dharma in Hinduism).
• This would encourage a more reflective, informed form of religious belief over dogmatic selectivity.

4. Tracking which scriptures can be said to support or oppose each belief would Achieve Conflict Resolution

• This would identify shared values across traditions (e.g., care for the poor, compassion, dignity).
• This would highlight high-universality scriptures as productive starting points for dialogue.
• This would allow compromise proposals to be built from overlapping moral teachings.
• This would support the creation of peacebuilding, legal, or educational frameworks grounded in scripture-backed shared ethics.

How It Would Work: Core Analysis Tools

1. Linkage Score (0–100%)

• This would measure how directly a scripture supports or contradicts a belief.
• This would be updated in real time through argument trees and community-reviewed interpretations.
• Example: "Turn the other cheek" = 100% linkage to de-escalation; "Eye for an eye" = 100% linkage to retributive justice.

2. Significance Score (0–100%)

• This would measure the historical and current influence of a scripture within a tradition.
• This would reflect shifts across eras, sects, or interpretive schools.
• Example: Mormon polygamy texts = 90% significance in 1850, 5% today.
• This would be scored through pro/con debates over relevance and usage frequency.

3. Consistency Score (0–100%)

• This would measure how well a scripture aligns with other teachings within the same tradition.
• This would include internal consistency (with other scriptures or commentaries), community consistency (with common beliefs among adherents), and external consistency (with modern ethics and logic).
• Example: Jain ahimsa teachings have high consistency; violent Old Testament laws have low consistency with Christian teachings on peace.

4. Universality Score (0–100%)

• This would measure how commonly a belief appears across major religious and secular traditions.
• Example: Compassion = 85% universality; ritual purity = 15%.
• This would be used to identify common ground for dialogue and collective ethical frameworks.

5. Logical Validity Score (0–100%)

• This would evaluate how well the scripture logically supports the belief.
• This would flag fallacies like circular reasoning or unsupported analogies.
• Example: "Love thy neighbor" scores high for validity; "Stone adulterers" scores low for human rights contradictions.
• This would be based on reasoning standards applicable across religious and non-religious perspectives.

6. Internal Resolution Index

• This would measure how a tradition reconciles internal contradictions among its scriptures or doctrines.
• This would capture resolution tools like narrative authority (e.g., Jesus > Moses), textual rank (e.g., Quran vs. Hadith), or interpretive layers (e.g., Talmudic rulings).
• This would help users see how contradictions are managed and which principles are prioritized.

7. Fallibility Score

• This would measure how often a scripture is deprecated, reinterpreted, or rejected by adherents.
• Example: Slavery-permitting verses in Abrahamic traditions score high in fallibility today.
• This would help identify texts that are now seen as problematic even by believers.

8. Pedagogical Utility Score

• This would measure how useful a scripture is for teaching empathy, moral complexity, or ethical debate.
• Example: The Good Samaritan scores high, even in non-Christian contexts.
• This would support educators in selecting texts for interfaith ethics and moral reasoning.

Web Platform Features

Core Capabilities

• This would include a searchable database of scriptures, beliefs, and arguments by religion, denomination, era, and theme.
• This would enable dynamic scoring tied to argument strength and consensus.
• This would provide filters for cross-tradition or intra-tradition analysis.
• This would incorporate a peer-reviewed contribution and credibility system.

Advanced Tools

• Semantic Similarity Engine: This would cluster equivalent teachings across traditions (e.g., metta, daya, "love thy neighbor").
• Automated Argument Builder: This would generate GPT-based suggestions for pro/con analysis.
• Scripture Suppression Tracker: This would flag verses commonly ignored or avoided.
• Scriptural Weight Visualizer: This would show frequency of use in sermons, laws, and media.
• Reinterpretation Watchlist: This would highlight live shifts in how verses are understood.
• Contextual Alerts: This would warn against anachronistic or literalist misuse.
• Timeline Visualizations: This would track scores (e.g., significance, linkage) over historical eras.

Risks Addressed

• Cherry-picking: Full-spectrum view would require inclusion of supportive and opposing scriptures.
• Dogmatism: Fallibility and consistency scores would expose rigid or selective readings.
• False Equivalence: Logical and consistency scoring would distinguish strong arguments from weak ones.
• Misinterpretation: Community-scored interpretations would ensure transparency and quality control.

Expected Outcomes

• For Believers: This would provide a fuller, deeper, and more honest understanding of their tradition's moral landscape.
• For Educators: This would offer tools for teaching comparative ethics and religious literacy using critical thinking.
• For Policymakers: This would create a structured ethical database of shared values useful for legislation and mediation.
• For Dialogue Facilitators: This would map scriptural agreements and disagreements to guide real-world peacebuilding and conflict resolution.