The Dangers of Postmodernism

Introduction

Postmodernism is a form of Relativism that has permeated much of the modern, western, world. The effects of it have not been lost on the Christian community. In a surprising turn of events from the religious wars of centuries gone by, many Christians wish to unify together under the love of God. Instead of focusing on denominational differences, Christians are being encouraged to look at the commonalities among themselves. While existing together in peace is desirable, to ignore differences is both unrealistic and dangerous.

Are Distinctions Really Necessary?

Aristotle once said, “All men by nature are actuated with the desire of knowledge.” But, what do they desire to know? Men want to know the truth. Truth has an inherent value to people. All forms of philosophical inquiry, be it rationalism, empiricism, fideism, or combinationalism, have truth as their ultimate goal. Truth is divisive by the nature of what it is. It distinguishes what is real from what is not. Without truth, one cannot have any degree of certainty that their beliefs correspond to reality. Without getting heavily involved in the complicated and controversial field of epistemology, it is easy to see a very obvious problem with Relativism. Relativism destroys itself because it cannot satisfy its own criterion. One may ask the Relativist, is the statement “Everything is relative” relative? If they answer no, then it is an objective statement. And so the Relativist is contradicting themself. For they are stating that everything is relative, yet they do no believe Relativism is relative. If they answer yes, then Relativism is also relative. And if Relativism is relative, there is no reason for anyone to believe it. Thus, if Relativism is true, then it is false, and if it false then it is still false. In either scenario, Relativism is false. This is the inescapable contradiction for the Relativist.

Perhaps the Relativist will adopt a softer position, and say that he does not actually believe truth is relative. However, given the finite -- and therefore limited -- knowledge humans possess, no one can ever be sure that what they believe is true. Unfortunately, this soft version of Relativism does not escape the problem. It may still be asked if the idea that humans cannot know what is true, is known to be true? The Relativist is certain that no one can be certain of anything. But, if this were true, then it applies to the Relativist as well. Thus, Relativists cannot really believe everything is relative or that truth cannot be know. The conclusion then, is that distinctions are necessary and unavoidable. Additionally, distinctions are (at least to a limited degree) knowable.

Where Does One Draw the Line?

If it has been established that distinctions are necessary, then it may be asked where the distinctions should be made. For orthodox Christians, one may never yield to heresy. Any teaching that is opposed to a clear and essential Biblical truth must be opposed at all costs. However, this should not be taken to imply that sincere believers will not disagree on more ambiguous passages of Scripture. Additionally, personal convictions are an area where Christians will simply not always agree. So where is the line? What is the best way to handle these differences? For the Christian, there should be two distinctive lines drawn. The first is that of Biblical soteriology. Any person who holds beliefs that are contrary to the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith (salvation by works, baptism, or another religion) is not saved according to Scripture, and as such is not a fellow Christian. The second distinctive line is that of conviction. When a Christian feels led of the Lord to partake or abstain from certain activities, people, or practices he should obey. However, if it is not a clear Biblical truth, then he needs to allow others to hold their own personal conviction (Rom 14:3).

Conclusion

Distinctions are the very things that make knowledge possible. They cannot be rationality denied. This makes them important. Therefore, Christians are quite justified in making distinctions clear. That being said, Christians must also be careful that they are not being unnecessarily divisive and separating over non-issues. Doctrine is not negotiable, however, personal convictions can allow for disagreements for the sake of unity.

Bibliography

Aristotle. The Metaphysics. (Mineola, NY: Dover Publications Inc., 2007, originally published circa 350 BC) Translated by John H. McMahon.

Bonjour, Laurence. Epistemology: Classic Problems and Contemporary Responses. (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc., 2010)

Descartes, Rene. Meditations on First Philosophy. (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, 1993, originally published in 1641)

Haack, Susan. Philosophy of Logics. (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1978)

Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. (Chicago, IL: The Open Courthouse Publishing Co., 1912, originally published 1748)

Erickson, Millard J. Postmodernizing the Faith: Evangelical Responses to the Challenge of Postmodernism. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1998)

Erickson, Millard J. Truth or Consequences: The Promise & Perils of Postmodernism. (DownersGrove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001)

Fumerton, Richard. Epistemology. (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2006)

Fumerton, Richard. Realism and the Correspondence Theory of Truth. (Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2002)

Groothius, Douglas. Truth Decay: Defending Christianity Against the Challenges of Postmodernism. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000)

Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. (London, UK: Macmillan and Co, 1881, originally published 1781) Translated by F. Max Mueller.

McCallum, Dennis editor. The Death of Truth. (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1996)

McGrew, Timothy and Lydia. Internalism and Epistemology: The Architecture of Reason. (New York, NY: Routledge, 2007)

Moser, Paul K. Knowledge and Evidence. (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1989)

Plantinga, Alvin. Warranted Christian Belief. (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2000)

Priest, Graham, J. C. Beall, and Bradley Armour-Garb, editors. The Law of Non-contradiction: New Philosophical Essays. (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2004)

Porter, Steven L. Restoring the Foundations of Epistemic Justification: A Direct Realist and Conceptualist Theory of Foundationalism. (Plymouth, UK: Lexington Books, 2006)

Rasmussen, Joshua. Defending the Correspondence Theory of Truth. (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2014)

Swinburne, Richard. Epistemic Justification. (Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 2001)

Van Til, Cornelius. The Defense of the Faith. (Philipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 1967)

Vision, Gerald. Veritas: The Correspondence Theory and Its Critics. (Cambridge, MA: A Bradford Book, 2004)

Wood, W. Jay. Epistemology: Becoming Intellectually Virtuous. (DownersGrove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998)

Wykstra, Stephanie L. “A Defense of Cartesian Certainty,” (Doctoral Dissertation) (New Brunswick, NJ: University of New Jersey, 2008)