Learning

[Roland]

Since one of the problems seems to be the open ended questions, I'll
relate a story. :)

I went out for breakfast with my 7 year old daughter. While we were
talking, I noticed a print on the wall that had the US flag with 48
stars. I had my daughter count them.
I asked her, "Why do you think there are only 48 stars?"
She said, "Shouldn't there be 50?"
Me, "Yes. But why?"
"One for each state?"
"Good."

At this point, I was thinking I could just tell her and that would be
that. But in learning (we homeschool), we gain more when we have to
get the answers. Having the info fed to us works, but there are ways
that stick better.
We talked about what the last two states might be. And even when they
could have been admitted. I never told her the answers. When we got
home, she looked them up on the web. She answered the questions.
I asked. She answered.
She asked. She answered.

Bell is using the same kind of way. Ask, seek, knock. Hmmm... sounds
familiar. :)
I could just told her. I could have. But what would benefit her
more?
I am glad that when we ask, there are answers. Usually a lot more
questions as well, but there are answers.
I am glad that when we seek, things are found. There usually ends up
with more things that need to be sought, but findings happen.
I am glad that when we knock, someone answers. And we usually end up
surprised at how many people answer the door.

Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to
fish...,
well you know how it goes. :)

[Michael Krahn]

Hey Roland,

That helps. I hope many people see it as just such an exercise.

The difference in your scenario is that there is a confirmation of
certainty, of truth, at the end of the lesson. You moved from object
lesson to challenge to confirmation without stopping to elaborate on
various theories that may or may not be true about how many states
there actually are (hypothetically these theories exist).

At the end of Bell's scenario there is no learning other than he tells
us he believes in the virgin birth ( and for the record, I truly
believe he does). But he just gave us a number of compelling
arguments NOT to believe, so why in the face of these compelling
arguments does he still believe? I wish he'd used something more
debatable, or conversely, if this is only a lesson in constructive
thinking, why not use a much more debated and controversial? Why not
use the resurrection? That too has been debated and attempts at
refuting it have been numerous.

We must also be wary of the despair found in uncertainty. I have
experienced that despair. We must not love mystery so much that we
create it where there is none. I am not uncomfortable with Bell's
book because I am afraid to challenge my own beliefs. On the
contrary, I am cautious about hyperextending my doubt at the expense
of weakening my faith because I have been down that road a few times.
It leaves scars. Balance is needed.

What can be known for certain, if not empirically then because
scripture says it is certain, should be stated as such. This is
another aspect in which I have a problem with Bell's virgin birth
scenario. The line of reasoning he uses as an example is an old one,
one used, it should be mentioned, in the past by liberals as a way of
bastioning themselves against the possible refutation of the doctrine
by science.

>From similar lines of reasoning come claims that Jesus did not really
walk on water or perform other miracles that scripture says he
performed.

Quite honestly, I feel like I'm over-analyzing the whole thing at
times, but then the discomfort hits me again. Thanks for walking
through it with me. Let's keep walking - I believe we're getting
somewhere.

[Roland]

I may have been able to arrive at answers with my daughter, but new
questions could have come up.

What is required for statehood?
Why is that painting in the restaurant, instead of one with 50 stars?

I could go on. The point I am making, Rob covers in his book. (Can't
tell you where, because I gave my copy away and am awaiting my new
copy) He points out that answering a question, will raise even more
questions. At least if you're interested. :)

You could be "over-analyzing" Michael, but I would rather see you do
that than be complacent about it. After all, would you be able to
trust the trampline if there were no springs? Or would you just be
jumping on the ground? I don't have all the answers. And to be
honest, I'm glad I don't. God allows us to have a sense of wonder,
each and every day.