Refining thought…
Okay, well good chunk of homework done for the day, so I guess I have more time tonight than I thought, which is really nice.
So I’m going to try to rewrite the post I was working on when my computer died the last time. If it dies again, I’ll know I’m not supposed to be writing these thoughts down 
I think this is my second big post on postmodernism, and I think there’s a huge gap from what I thought about it last time and what I think now. Perhaps its because I’ve become a lot more embedded in it than I was before. Who knows. So to start, there’s a few assumed givens that I think need to be challenged and rethought when we speak of postmodernism and Christianity, maybe just Christianity alone. Here they are, as I remember putting them down:
- Uncertainty or doubt is always assumed to be a sin. Why? A healthy amount of doubt is a good thing. We have doubts about plenty of other things in this world, which can often keep us from making decisions we will regret later. Can we not have the same mindset towards our theology? It makes you continue to reevaluate the things you hold to, continue to test them to find out if they still fit. Without doubt, you are blind to the fact that you could be wrong. If you are not willing to critically evaluate ideas, you are accepting ideas blindly as truth.
- Often those within the Christian rationalist school of thought assume this argument:
- Human beings are rational
- We are created in the image of God
- Therefore God is rational
- Because God is rational, the model of knowledge God gave us is rational.
- Rational knowledge can be discerned in its entirety by rational means.
- Man, as a rational being, can therefore come to a rational understanding of all rational knowledge.
There is a non-sequitur argument made in the idea that because God is rational, he created a rational system of knowledge that can be discerned entirely by rational means. Why is it a given that that is what he’d do? Because it makes sense to be that way? Because its comfortable to believe that? A second item is that this is backwards reasoning, in starting with man, we assume that the way he made us is the way He is and is the way he created knowledge. Is that a valid line of reasoning? I wonder (and I don’t have a good answer) why these assumptions are made. My guess is that it is more comfortable to think we can get to all knowledge through reason and that somehow that it is this “view from nowhere” or an unbiased viewpoint simply because it is rational. We are more comfortable thinking God is like us, rather than believing that God is so much more than us, so much more beyond us. It also seems to overlook man’s finiteness in the face of an infinite God. Did God give man a means (reason) to come to the knowledge of all truth? If, given enough time, could man discover and document all truth? Saying all truth is rational would indicate that perhaps, yes, we could discover all knowledge. I question this assumption a lot.
- This line of reasoning is assuming that the way we propositionally define truth is unbiased and that man is coming from pure reasoning for defining it the way he has without any motive for defining it in that way. Scott brought out a good point in saying that I have perhaps defined my position on swearing because I have first gotten comfortable with the idea, then looked for someway to justify it. How is this not true of much of what we define as truth? How much of it is constructed the way it is because that’s how we’re comfortable with it being defined that way? This plays into a large part of the “language game” aspect of the postmodern view of truth, even more so in that truth is simply what we are comfortable with, only what we allow authority, only as much as we feel needed to get across what we understand. More on this in a bit.
- We assume that our view of truth is how God views truth. I think this connects with the above point, that somehow our line of reasoning is also going to be God’s. Now there’s an interesting turn that this argument usually takes and it comes out of my favorite book of all time, kinda the postmodernist’s handbook to the Gospel: 1 Corinthians. Here’s what is usually used:
-
For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.
People will say that, because this verse tells us we have the mind of God, that our mind is God’s mind because we have God’s mind. Why do we assume this: That our thoughts are now God’s thoughts? How do we know our sinful minds are not skewing things to read the way we want it? That even in having the mind of God, we twist it in our sinfulness to fit what we want? It seems a reversal of what is said in the verse. I think, yes we can come to some understanding of what God is trying to get across in His word, that we can see what God is communicating. But to say we have *gasp* the forbidden word, with certainty a perfect and unbiased knowledge of what God is trying to get across, that the meaning we derive from Scripture is THE meaning, seems very prideful and arrogant, assuming that our thoughts are God’s thoughts. Hmm, another verse about that idea from Isaiah 55:
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD.
“As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
How do the two verses reconcile? Is that even a grammatically correct question?
- We think (even if we would never say it) that truth is truth/true because we’ve placed it within nice, neat propositions. Oh, we’ll never say that, but we’ll fight to the death over what definition is ‘right’. Is that really what truth is? I’m beginning to wonder (again) about what is truth ’cause I really don’t think that truth is true because we define it or document it somehow or lay it down in stone. I’m coming to the conclusion that we can only speak of truth, we can never actually create it or even define it absolutely or objectively. Truth is fluid, always on the horizon, always what we are looking towards, but never actually reaching. Truth is something found in the development of it, in the arriving, but never being in the state of “arrived.” It isn’t one thing and not another. It changes constantly as we speak of it, come to new ideas about it. This is a hard one to get around and see the benefit of, especially for Christianity. Keep reading!
- To claim absolute truth from a singular position, that it is the absolute truth, means to change anything about that view, means either truth has changed or we were wrong and had to reevaluate our position to what was actually true and NOW what we have is truth. Wait, what? This is what I find interesting about those who claim absolute truth, and then change their views on something like predestination and free will, or perhaps the permanence of salvation. Truth doesn’t seem to be a stable thing to me. It is always being revised. It seems to follow, then, that we don’t have a certain/objective/absolute view of truth, but that we are always evaluating truth, always redefining it according to what fits our current line of reasoning.
So now I can’t deviate any longer from the view I’m trying to get at from all of these assumptions I’m questioning: Truth is only what we make it. A ’set of truth’ only holds value for those who give authority to it. For people on the side of absolute truth who say: “Truth is true wether you like it or not” are basically saying the same thing as the postmodernist who is saying, “What is true for you isn’t true for me” and I would argue both are wrong. To say one is more logical or makes more sense to you than another way is a cop-out. As Kallenberg says in his paper on Relativism:
“The phrase ‘compelled by logic’ has no more teeth than to say that, in point of fact, we happen to accept certain conclusions; it is to say that our social framework requires of us these constraints as the conditions for continued participation in the language-game.”
Again, we go back to the thought that modernists and rationalists still exist inside the postmodern viewpoint. To say one is more ‘logical’ than the other simply means it makes more sense to you in the paradigm you are within. They are, in fact, just another view among many. Neither of them are holding to a view of truth that really holds any meaning beyond itself and the way they (and the social culture they reside in) defines it. So what is truth then?
Truth perhaps is only what you are able to say it is within the society you are within allows you to say its true. Truth is what you are comfortable calling truth, what you allow yourself to say and accept about truth, what you allow yourself to be governed by. Maybe the crudest way of putting it is truth is what you say it is. (Heretical, huh?) And it isn’t just you, but what your society is accepting of as truth. If you define truth for you and you alone, nobody is going to give you any credence. You have to be part of a “social model of knowledge” or truth, otherwise, you’re out in the cold alone.
And here is where it turns interesting (actually downright cool!) for Christians. To participate in a group or a set of belief, you must accept how it speaks of truth. You must change how you choose to define truth to fit with this group, otherwise, you’re somewhere out on your own again. This seems exactly what those who desire to follow the teachings of Christianity are called to. We are called to change how we speak of truth to fit that which God speaks of, or at least to seek to come as close to it as we humanly can. This is conversion: a redefinition of what truth for us is.
A few thoughts along the way on this: first of all is the question comes up, if truth is only what we are saying it is, is truth worth anything? Are we actually speaking about anything? Here’s where I’ve come down on this question of late: even in saying that we are speaking of what we know, what is this knowledge based off of? Speak again of the Christian context, can we speak of eternal life, of heaven, of the existence of God, (and on the list could go) of from a standpoint of knowledge, of proof? I would say no, we cannot. This is why Christianity leans (or should lean) so heavily on faith. The basis of anything in a relativistic world is faith: Faith that the things we believe in are actually true. Look at Hebrews 11:
“Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. [...] And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.”
What I find interesting about reformed theology is that it calls Christianity back to salvation by faith alone and then turns around and begins trying to document theology in order to have a solid proof or a basis for why we have faith. And I suppose we are still taking the fact that all of those propositions are in fact true, but usually it seems to becomes an assumed fact, not an issue of faith. Sorry, side point
And an idea that crosses many people is the idea that we cannot have certainty means we can somehow not be convinced of what we believe. I think that is the very essence of faith: the idea that we have no hope of what we are hoping for to be fulfilled, and yet hoping against hope, hoping for the impossible. In fact, an excellent point is brought up by Caputo in his much referenced (by me) book What Would Jesus Deconstruct? that hope is not hope if we have some guarantee of what we are hoping for. If we have some form of proof that we are getting what we are hoping for, hope is simply us waiting for that thing to happen. Hope is waiting for what we should be impossible. That sounds exactly like what we have in Christianity: A conversion to a language God is speaking, a set of truth He speaks of, in fact is by His very essence, a conversion of now seeking to speak of truth as He does, to hope that what we are speaking of is in fact what God is saying is truth. Does that make sense? Its a very difficult concept to get around, but it makes all the sense in the world once you do. Once again, a part of this language game thing: truth is only what you are comfortable with saying. If you can’t make this turn, if its too uncomfortable or unnatural for you to be able to speak of truth this way, then it isn’t going to be true to you.
Anyways, those are my thoughts once again. Hope there was some semblance of sense in that. Respond as you will! Love you all and look forward to the firestorm of condemnation 
Luke,
Hahaha! “Firestorm and condemnation.” Sounds like you’ve been through it before. I don’t have any of that right now – fresh out using it all up on a potential false prophet named “Bobby” on the streets of Indianapolis. Apparently if anyone doesn’t give money to him when he asks for it they are not “true Christians” ((he is a beggar and yet very outspoken about the gospel and though potentially a false prophet, I don’t count out that he may be sincere in trying to bring people to Christ)).
I am always – to my own dismay – a little confused when I read through some of the points you make about truth, but it seems like every time I pin you down on what you personally believe it falls within a reasonable distance of what I think are the ways of Christ. Because of this ((because you have dealt with some of my red flags)) I have really enjoyed reading what you have to say because I am at least mostly convinced that you are trying to convey something you consider a neat idea, but every time I read it all I can see is: “truth is whatever you say it is” and at the moment it isn’t that I can’t accept it but that it doesn’t make sense to me yet. For clarity – not for argument, I just can’t get a grasp on it yet – I personally hold “truth” to be that which really is regardless of perception. Thus, we find that really no one has the whole truth because our perception is too limited. But we do believe that Christ and His ways are knowable within reason so that man is held accountable, which I think you agree with, and not only is he held accountable, but he has such tremendous joy in coming to know and live like Christ!
So for the sake of clarity in my own mind, since I don’t yet understand: no matter what you call gravity we know that if you jump off a building you will fall. If someone does not believe it, the truth that gravity exists still effects them when they jump. The man who believes the truth doesn’t jump/wears a parachute or something ((or is just mad and jumps anyway ^_^)). It would help me understand a little better if you could explain how what you’re saying would apply to something like this. I understand the truth in this situation to be: if you jump you will fall, we explain the phenomenon by gravity. How can someone else’s perception, therefore, be truth? Thanks Luke!
-Scott
Scott M
April 29, 2008 at 12:21 pm
“‘truth is whatever you say it is’ and at the moment it isn’t that I can’t accept it but that it doesn’t make sense to me yet. For clarity – not for argument, I just can’t get a grasp on it yet – I personally hold “truth” to be that which really is regardless of perception.”
Totally understand where you are coming from. Here’s my answer: is there really a view of “truth” that is “regardless of perception”? Isn’t everything viewed from behind some perspective? Usually these perspectives are built from your personal history and experience. If this is the case, truth is only what you are saying it is. And as far as the gravity example goes, you’re welcome to say gravity doesn’t exist, but in order to be relevant to and be able to keep playing the language game we all play, you are still going to have to account for the fact that you are pulled downward when you jump up. Otherwise you aren’t making sense to me (or almost anyone else) and we have no basis for communication on that topic. That’s a tough one to get the mind around. Think about it for a bit and let me know what you think.
Peace.
plukevdh
April 30, 2008 at 11:13 am
Ok, I think I see what you’re saying. In THAT case I would define truth as “perceiving things the way God sees them.” And of course the logical thought after that is: how do we know that we are perceiving things the way God sees them? My answer would be that the Bible is written in plain language so that the majority of what it says is easily perceived – and that which is hard to understand, of course, has been debated since its delivery to men and we can’t be certain we have it right, though we can make strong conjectures one way or the other. Then one would ask: how do we know that the Bible is the way God perceives things? And I would answer: thank God that He included distinct prophesy concerning the nations of Israel, Judah, Edom, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Media, Rome and also the kings and peoples thereof that were made before hand and came to pass years, sometimes centuries later. That sort of historical accuracy in predicting major events is uncanny. But how does that prove that it is, indeed, the word of God and not just a collection of “basically good people aware enough of the times to understand what was going to happen?” Or some other explanation as in the case of Daniel’s prophecy about Rome. Let me think on that. I want to see where you will find weaknesses in my thought process so that I can correct them so respond and let me know if I have correctly understood what you are saying.
Scott M
April 30, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Actually I can do better than that – I know I’m not going to be able to prove that God exists through logic, science, prophecy, and history. I even realize that my definition of truth above assumes that there is a God so that my trying to prove truth to being what God says begins to be cyclical. My faith is unshaken, though, because that has always been the case – we cannot prove there is a God. We just have strong evidence, evidence that demands a verdict – like prophecy and the Bible’s mysterious affect on people and how they live their life, and how those who adhere to this book DO find enjoyment of life. Its so great! YEAH! Response? How does postmodernism differ from what I am saying here? Have I understood correctly?
Scott M
April 30, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Well done on following your thought process! Thats mostly where I would have taken you. All those classes in Engineering have shaped your critical thinking and they’ve done you well
Questions: “My faith is unshaken, though, because that has always been the case” is that the reason you believe? Because you always have? Why? I may be misunderstanding your meaning here.
Question: “We just have strong evidence” Maybe we do. Its the conclusion we can come to if we choose to take things like “prophecy and the Bible’s mysterious affect on people and how they live their life” as the power of God. At the same time, you can make plenty of other excuses for that kind of thing if you like. It really just depends on what you make of it. I, you, and many who call themselves “Christian” definitely point to God and his working when we see things as you’ve described. Many can and do say its something else; chance, other gods, whatever. So my question becomes: is it really evidence demanding some verdict? Is what we say about something like that what it really is or is it just what we are saying it is? Is that verdict objective or do we come to such conclusions because of who we are or what we want to see in it? We have faith, hoping beyond hope that when we speak of God, speak of salvation, speak of heaven, it is all really there and going to happen. I’m not really interested in what evidences you can give me or what conclusions you are going to draw. Not to be mean about it, I’m just not. What I want to know is does it work when practiced. Only one way to find that out…
Welcome to postmodernism.
And by the way, I think Christianity does live out better than anything else. Granted I’ve never known anything else, but what I’ve seen in real Christianity, I like it. Take that for what you will…
plukevdh
April 30, 2008 at 2:07 pm
I thought I’d join in the discussion of philosophy and attempt to help discover some things. I to, want to know what is true. Even if that means discovering that there is no truth! (as illogical as that sounds). As small as my mind is, I believe I have some thoughts you will find interesting.
First, picture a horizontal line. Below the line is “natural”. Above the line is “meta natural” or “supernatural”. I will assume that you believe in supernatural and I will call it God. I have hypothesized 4 thoughts that explain the gap between us and God that bring light and more meaning into the word “Truth”.
1) Absolutes cannot exist for a being with Will.
2) There are no absolutes in a natural world except those that are defined by supernatural Will.
3) Absolutes defined for the natural law, have zero influence on the supernatural Will.
4)Therefore we, under natural law, are completely unable to define Truth. We are, however, able to understand Truth; given we understand that there IS supernatural Will.
Based on this, we must be handed truth from God. Our Truth comes directly from God. Any truth that we define for ourselves is subject to law, therefore is no truth at all.
My friend, I respectfully say that when you say there is no truth except that which we define as so, you are lost. We have truth and are able to understand it because it comes from God. He has defined it as so and only He can “undefine” it as so.
The Bible is that truth. Nothing in the Bible contradicts itself. You mentioned in your earlier post that in Isaiah, God said ” My thoughts are higher and you’ll never know them”, but in 1 Corinthians, the Holy Spirit is introduced as the interceder that makes God’s things known. That is how the two verses are reconciled.
Let me know your thoughts, man. Fire and brimstone dittos!
John H.
May 1, 2008 at 11:52 am
Luke,
Ok – I think I am finally beginning to understand what you are saying. As you can imagine, I have more than just a few days of thinking and reflecting to do on this, since I feel like I’ve just entered into a huge cavern I have yet to explore. For the moment, the next question I see coming is – if all you’re saying is “true” ((^_^ for lack of better terms)) – why do you personally believe what you believe? I would ask, “Why should anyone believe anything if that is the case?” If someone fully embraces what you’re suggesting why should they believe a certain set of views over another? I don’t just want a theoretical answer – I want to know why you personally believe in Christ if your view of truth is as it is.
((Disclaimer: not trying to be mean here. When I first got into your vantage point I knew that would be my own question for myself if I accepted these views, which I don’t think I will, but I do think you are making more sense than I originally thought you would concerning truth)). So there’s the next step in understanding: if you accept that no one can have the truth and no proof can ever be offered that doesn’t come out of one’s own perception, why do you personally believe in Christianity?
Scott M
May 1, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Gentlemen…I am proud of your discusion and how you are handling yourselves. Continue the debate in the godly manner in which you are conducting yourself!
However, I am not going to offer much input into your discussion of truth for a couple of reasons. One, I find myself a bit lost in the point that Luke is trying to make. Afterall, I made a “C” in philosophy class in college : (
And second, as a result I have found myself getting tense and irritated. For that I am ashamed of and I apologize for…esp. to you Luke. To me it is like the rubber band on the back of the hand thing. I can’t get it off with just my one hand.
However, Luke, I do like your discussion thread concerning our response to God’s great love for us…the practical side of these blog posts. I am finishing up reading Shane Claiborne’s “Irresistable Revolution”. Now I don’t agree with his whole assessment of the Gospel, justice, war and what our response should be toward the “least of these”…but I do like his creativity and imagination and his willingness to do some “holy mischief” (chap 10).
On page 295 he says “and I think that’s what our world is desperately in need of- lovers, people who are building deep, genuine relationships with fellow strugglers along the way, and who actually know the faces of the poeple behind the issues they are concerned about.” He goes on but that was a pretty cool statement because I see several gathering around you Luke to offer their support and love even though they may fall on the other side of the “issue” (whatever it may be). The church should be about building each other up for their benefit. I believe that is somewhere in, oh yeah, right there in Ephesains 4:29.
Labels will come and go. Doctrines will be refined, redefined, and transformed. But we are the body of Christ. People of the Word. Gospel people. How we love one another will show the world that we are His disciples (John 13:34-35).
If you come home over the summer let’s discuss some of the things Shane proposes in the book. Good food for thought. But even more so, let’s find ways of creatively reaching our community for Christ. And get off our “duffs”.
Dano
Dan Oberg
May 1, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Scott: Answer tomorrow hopefully. I plan on having time to write here tomorrow. Also, love the big cave analogy. Thats where I felt about 4-5 months ago. So its encouraging to here you’re understanding and willing to keep exploring these ideas. Thanks for the graciousness in conversation.
John: Response to you soon too, also hopefully tomorrow. Good questions and glad to hear you’re open to thinking about stuff, regardless of the implications.
Much love to you all (including you Dano! Love to see you around soon!)
You guys are great and its been good to have this interaction. Definitely sharpens me.
plukevdh
May 5, 2008 at 12:59 am