Re: At What Point Do Poythress’ Concerns Matter
I’m not sure if the math reviewed in school borders on anything that could be considered “entire.”
I guess we’re getting into murky territory here, but I figure when you talk about the same subject for 12 years, that’s close enough to the “entire” category to be an appropriate analogy.
I think to be fair to my analogy, we need to restrict “discussion of the spouse” to a single subject (going to the movies), just as we are exploring God as related to a single subject (math).
I’m not so sure this is the case. If you add up the amount of hours that we spend talk about one subject in the course of public education, it’s a lot higher than the total amount of time it would take to discuss “going to the movies with friends”. There’s a lot more time and deliberate thought and formation (through repetition) in math than in any casual discussion about the movies. And surely, if you talked for 1 hour x 5 days x 10 months x 12 years about movies, and never mentioned once that, for example, the whole reason you love movies and view them so much is that your spouse has taught you to love them, and explained the significance of movies to you, I still think it would seem very wrong and disproportionate.
Yes. And again, I agree with you as far as meaning or significance is concerned. But I’m simply focusing on function
I don’t see what the distinction between function/use and significance/application is. If you don’t know how to use something, you don’t know its meaning, and vice versa. Thus, the more you know about its meaning, the more you know how to use it.
I feel that since this discussion has become somewhat separated from my original point, that I should bring it up again: even if we think the effect of teaching math in a religiously-neutral” way is negligible, certainly this could not be the case about, say, history.
I just meant it in proportion, and how the amount that is learned in school relates to the field as a whole.
Yes, but again it’s a matter of proportion. The analogy falls apart when directly importing the terms and conditions to a different field, so let’s not ask to much of it.
Consider: it takes a year of learning for grade 1 students to get a functional knowledge of, say, 2 mathematical operations (addition and subtraction), and only with positive integers.
It takes about 30 seconds for my friend to understand I’m going to the movies tonight, at a certain theater, at a certain time.
Since we can’t interface the two examples perfectly, so I don’t think applying equal time to both situations is appropriate.
It’s hard to draw hard lines between these concepts. I’m using a computer. I don’t understand how logic gates work and I don’t know what a “floating point” is.
But you might say that meaning isn’t really involved here (some would say the same of math, but I’ll go on).
Regarding math: 2+2=4 is possible by mere existence, apart from us to observe the phenomenon. Now, yes, I suppose some degree of meaning is necessary for us to be able to:
- recognize objects
- distinguish multiplicity
- recognize separation
- recognize groupings
And this extends into math. But one does not need to understand the spiritual meaning to perform a mathematical function. Computers perform operations, and they have no spiritual capacity, no conscience, no sapience, etc.
So I’ll concede that awareness of some meaning is required, simply in order to be a thinking entity. But I think one would be hard pressed to prove that a certain spiritual meaning is required for function.
The computer analogy works here as well: yes, a certain understanding is required to use the computer: I touch a button, and something shows up on screen). But the electrical impulses being sent and the processing that takes place is entirely unknown to me, and is irrelevant — my awareness of these frameworks do not modify my ability to press the @ key and have an @ show up on screen.
In the same way, I can perform functions on numbers — very much in the way a computer does — without awareness of what principles might make operations possible, even though they are at work in me or enabling me.
* * * * *
For the sake of interest, practically, what does a Faith based math education look like? What is the Biblical significance of 2+2=4?
* * * * *
I fully agree. Once we introduce intention, gradation, and interpretations regarding human behaviour and the human condition, we venture into far wilder territory.