Abstract
The author responds to Wong's (1984) critique and caution about what is “known” in neuropsychology as the basis for correlating empirical and theological understandings. The issue of insufficient caution, the nature of the evidence, definitions and supporting data, and the recommendation to ignore lateral differences are examined in light of what is known and how it is interpreted. Wong's critique permits the author to qualify the interpretation more carefully and to indicate his own convictions about faith.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
