Re: Why ICR "wins"

Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU)
Wed, 28 Jan 1998 15:38:28 -0500 (EST)

At 01:27 PM 1/27/98 -0500, D. Eric Greenhow, M.D.,Ph.D. wrote:
>I have lurked on the sidelines of this discussion because I am overwhelmed
>by the knowledge displayed by so many participants, and am afraid to show my
>ignorance. I am a simple country doctor who somehow found my way into an
>Ivy League medical school, and worried for the 29 years before I retired
>that they would find out about me. While there I became interested in
>education, and so was prevailed on to get a Ph.D. in that field.
>
>I would like to make two observations that have helped me in my struggle
>with reconciling conflicts I have had.
>
>1. Years ago someone made the following comment, and I found it strangely
>useful:
> The Bible does not always say what it means,
> Nor does it always mean what it says,
> But it always means what it means.
>
>I guess that's why God has given us hermeneuticians.
>
>2. Someone said, (perhaps Descartes?, and if anyone can give me the citation
>I would be appreciative) that when our understanding of God and our
>understanding of truth are in conflict, then either our understanding of God
>or our understanding of truth, or both, need to be reexamined.
>
>Because I can often understand things better mathmatically, I pose this in
>the form of an equation.
> let G represent our understanding of God
> and T(1) through T(inf) our understanding of the truths of subjects
>1 through inf.
>
> then G = f[T(1) + T(2) + ... T(inf)] where f = a factor.
>
> now our understanding of God is the sum of our understanding of God
>from the Bible and from other sources.
>
> let B represent our understanding of God from the Bible
> and S represent our understanding of God from other sources
>
> then B + S = f[T(1) + T(2) + ... + T(inf)]
> and our understanding of a given science t(z)
> would be B + S = f[T(z)/k] (where k is the sum of all other T's.)
>
>However for each of us B and S will vary, and for some B will be very large
>and S infinitesimally small. For some B will be not only large, but
>invariable and possibly dependent on a fixed interpretation of the Bible,
>perhaps even a given translation of the Bible. (I understand that there are
>some who feel that the translators of the 1611 KJV were inspired by the Holy
>Spirit as they translated, and thus this translation is THE inspired Word of
>God.) For these people, changes in T(z) will either not be tolerated, or
>require involved explanations. An intolerance for change will characterize
>the science of these people.
>
>If anyone feels it worthy of a response, I would appreciate criticism of
>these ideas.
>
>Eric

Dear Eric,

I enjoyed your post which reminded me of something I have often told
students in my classes: Learning is the sum of two positive numbers, one of
which I supply and the other which they must contribute. I just have a
comment about your analysis. Can some of these numbers be actually negative,
that is to say, there may be misunderstanding rather than understanding in
some cases?

Take care,

Moorad