Postmodernism is not a religion
It is not an amalgamative religion that incorporates all beliefs. That's called Universalism and is extremely old. If you want to get laughed at just approach a philosophy major and tell them your religion is called postmodernism - you will look very silly. Can you imagine Descartes saying, "I worship at the church of modernity?" I hope not. Our religious views are influenced by our approach to understanding - but that approach is not a religion in itself.
Likewise, it does not oppose any religion.
Unless you go to The Church of pre-Socratic Zeus Worship than postmodernism is not a problem for your faith. Naturally, you don't get to say that it is incompatible with someone else's faith and act superior to them because you are a precious postmodernist.
It does not prove anything.
You didn't prove Christianity or socialism wrong through postmodernism. It is a point of view and not a science so it can't be used as evidence in an argument.
It does not mean that "nothing is true."
Postmodernism does not translate into "there are no absolute truths." An old friend of mine had a response for anyone who told him "there are no absolutes" - he would ask, "are you absolutely sure?"
"Well - THAT was embarrassing!Who knew a home-owners association could ban post-modernism?"
It is not infinitely mysterious
Postmodernism is not "one of those things we will never understand." It is a vast subject but not a terribly difficult one. If you want to read about something complicated then read about quantum physics. Compared to the phenomenon of quantum entanglement postmodernism is just peanuts.
Read about Modernism first.
I struggled to understand these things until a good friend explain modernism to me. Suddenly, everything I had heard about postmodernism made sense! It is easier to study the road to contemporary philosophy rather than to tackle it head on.
It is morally ambigious...
Postmodernism is not a good thing. Postmodernism is not a bad thing. It's an approach that has developed in our minds and it shouldn't be decried nor put on a pedestal.
How do you think Post-modernism is already affecting your view on religion? (There are no wrong answers to this question. Just our own observations.)
9 comments:
In my opinion, postmodernism has helped popularize skepticism and relativism as natural presuppositions when approaching the topics of religion and spirituality. This has changed the framework in which Christians can do evangelism. The days are gone when we can assume that the person we are sharing with already believes in God and finds the Bible to be trustworthy. This throws out the effectiveness of many evangelism paradigms that have you just quote Scripture to people. We are now required to answer questions of God's existence, faith vs. science (as if they're mutually exclusive), the existence of miracles in a naturalistic framework, the trustworthiness of the Bible in its current form, etc etc. It causes people to actually take serious the myths in The Da Vinci Code (a novel for crying out loud). Then throw in the Jesus Seminar, and now we have to answer why we're sure Jesus didn't come from aliens and respond to claims like, "You know, Jesus never ever actually claim to be God." In fact, William Lane Craig (who is without question the greatest living Christian apologist on the planet) believes that, in our current context, "historical" apologetics is largely ineffective now due to the crazy beliefs that people hold with such rampant skepticism and relativism that has permeated our culture. He believes a more appropriate response is "philosophical" apologetics.
We are in a more difficult context for those who choose to share Christ (even if it's just with the coworker in the next cubicle). Nevertheless, a positive side to all of this is that it forces Christians to be more cognizant of their personal beliefs, which I think will only deepen personal faith.
I agree that postmodernism can deepen our personal faith. Thanks for the comment!
For those of us who are lazy and never took a philosophy class, your next post must needs cover modernism in brief.
I look forward to this series.
That's a good point, Jared, I'd better be sure to practice what I preach.
At first I had a small epistemological crisis with postmodernism: How do we know anything? I say small, because fortunately, I'd already had a couple of significant seasons of "working out my faith with fear and trembling," so I had lots of practice. :)
Then when I learned that subjectivism/relativism is not really post-modern at all, I was able to step back from that ledge my friend (./'./') and slowly work through what I understood knowledge to be. I realized that my desire for full certainty had been cultivated by modern expectations derived from empiricism (specifically, my crisis began with historical empiricism, but there was also a bit of existential spirituality thrown in there too---How do I know that what I'm experiencing as true is true?).
Post-modernism freed me from this Modern epestimology where knowledge equals (empirical) certainty, and I feel much more comfortable in the tension between objectivism and subjectivism. It's helped me embrace my humanity, which in turn causes me to embrace God's deity: to trust his fullness in my finitude.
A word of, hopefully, clarification. Postmodernism is not evidence in an argument; but it may be an opinion on the use of evidence in arguments. Postmodernism does not prove anything; but it may be an opinion on the nature (or availability) of proof.
Good start, Adam; keep it up!
Mark Boone
Wonderfully said.
However, being the pedantic linguist that I am, I would suggest replacing "morally ambiguous" with "morally ambivalent."
The difference is subtle, but significant, I think.
Great post. I hope you don't mind if I use some of your information in my lesson on Postmodernism, Atheism and Christianity tomorrow. I teach at a small school on the Near West Side of Chicago. You do a great job explaining what postmodernism is and is not.
I don't mind at all - that's why it's here!
Post a Comment