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.