i know this much is true
With apologies to all those sane souls who find this kind of discussion dull, this is a response to Zoomtard’s recent post about post-modernism. I don’t want to write about post-modernism. Really. But he provoked me and now I need to write or I shall not sleep.
Zoomie suggests that what we call post-modernism is really just ultra-modernism – that is, modernism taken to its logical extreme. We have a very smart Professor who is our resident expert on such issues, and he agrees (he calls it hyper-modernism). And I partly agree too.
Most of the people you and I rub shoulders with each day are relativists when it comes to questions of religion and morality (you have your view and I have mine) but not when it comes to questions of science. Religion and morality deal with values, which are personal, subjective, and relative. Science deals with facts, which are impersonal, objective, and true-for-everyone. Something like this view is held by most people in our supposedly post-modern world – and it is also the view most commonly attacked in Christian seminars about post-modernism.
As Zoomtard and the Prof both insist, this is simply modernism-to-the-max. The underlying assumption is pure Enlightenment rationalism – only what can be logically and empirically proved using scientific methods can be known as a fact. Everything else belongs to the more wishy-washy, arty-farty, airy-fairy world of “values,” which can be believed but not known. Richard Dawkins is the high priest of this ultra-modern nonsense.
BUT (and here I tentatively dip my toe into possible disagreement with my smarter friend and teacher) I’m not sure this is all we can say about post-modernism. There are lots of thinkers who in recent decades have been questioning this ultra-modernism as just described, and it is their ideas which I think deserve to be properly described as post-modern. The heart of their critique of modernism has been to show that the idea of “neutrality” and “objectivity” is pure myth, even in the hallowed realms of science. All knowledge is personal knowledge. Everything that we know, we know from within a particular context, a web of relationships, a limited and finite point of view. We can’t escape from subjectivity because we can’t escape from our humanness. (I posted something about this part before here.)
This kind of post-modernism is our friend. It demolishes the arrogance and pretentiousness (and blasphemy) of our claims to detached and objective knowledge. It calls for a humbling of ourselves, an awareness and embrace of our limitations. It calls for us to enter into dialogue with others who see things from a different point of view.
It’s here that I think the story can branch in two very different directions. These wise insights can lead to a kind of radical relativism which says that we can’t really know anything with any confidence. We can’t know anything about science because scientists are human beings who look for evidence to match their hypothesis which they formulated to gain the approval of their peers in the scientific community. We can’t know anything about historical events because history is written by the winners who pick the facts that suit their story. We can’t know anything about what this book in our hand means, because reading is a picnic to which the author brings the words and we bring the meaning.
This kind of radical relativism is disastrous for Christian faith, since it undermines all confidence in the historical events of the life and death and resurrection of Jesus, and in the particular ancient books that we call Scripture. Thankfully this kind of radical relativism is also utterly unlivable, which is why it remains largely a discussion among tedious academics.
The other way to go is to accept our limitations, embrace the subjectivity of our perspective, and move forward in a humbled and chastened way – but to still insist that some kind of real knowledge is possible. By becoming aware of the baggage we bring (our presuppositions and prejudices and cultural conditioning) and listening with humility to others, we can come to provisional but real knowledge – in science, history, literature… and also in the world of religion and ethics, since this healthy post-modern view breaks down the artificial wall between facts and values. There is objectivity and subjectivity in both worlds, there is a need for humility in both worlds, and there can be real knowledge in both worlds.
The wisest and most refreshing implications of all this are spelled out in the area of mission and apologetics by Lesslie Newbigin in his stunning book, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society. A lot of traditional apologetics has tried to combat ultra-modernism on its own terms, by providing irrefutable logical arguments and objective evidence for everything from the creation of the world to the resurrection of Jesus. Newbigin suggests that we should accept the limitations of this kind of argument. We will not batter or coerce or argue anyone into faith.
What we can do, is get on with living out the gospel in the midst of our culture. We can keep singing the songs and telling the stories that express what we believe, what we know – in our heads, our hearts, our experience – to be true. We can be a community that lives and loves and celebrates the story of Jesus. And as people are drawn in by the beauty of that story, we can enter into dialogue with humility – listening to their story, learning from them, and continuing to tell the truth about Jesus (in a reasoned, thoughtful, humble, joyful way).
We believe the gospel is true for all people at all times. We hold it with “universal intent.” But we only tell it truthfully when we tell it from within our limited, subjective, human perspective, within this local community, with a humble openness to being stretched and corrected and enriched, to learning and growing as we listen to others and share life with them.
This is my truth. Tell me yours.
Manjo says:
July 8th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
JC – What an informative post. I found myself nodding all the way along. I wholly agree – we must recognise the limits of what we say and of what frames our references (and of those we are engaging with) to best convey our message.
smooth stones says:
July 10th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
I’m nodding assent to so much of what you say here, but also struggling to get my head around one phrase in particular. ‘We can come to provisional but real knowledge’
I ‘get’ the concept of personal knowledge; subjective readings of history, literature, scientific facts and Scripture. I see how two views can co-exist, but part of me wants to know which one is the ‘real’ truth or knowledge – does that make sense?
I guess what I’m really wondering is what does ‘provisional but real knowledge’ look like in my, or your, real life?
zoomrealist says:
July 10th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Newtonian physics is real but provisional knowledge…
jaybercrow says:
July 10th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Manjo – thanks for the positivity. When are you going to start a non-music blog to share your wisdom about the rest of life?
Smooth stones – great question. To take a real example, lets imagine your prestigious book club is discussing a particular work of literary genius. People bring different views about what they think the novelist is trying to say. For the radical relativist, that’s all you can do, since your views say more about you than they do about the novel.
I’m suggesting that by moving forward with humility you can come to real knowledge about what the novel means. Moving forward with humility means being aware of your personal baggage and limited perspective, listening to the views of others, maybe finding out more about the author’s other books, life story, or recorded opinions. Not assuming that your initial, instinctive reaction to the novel is completely reliable.
The knowledge we come to in this way is real – but also always provisional, i.e. always open to being corrected, improved, enriched in the future. We don’t claim that our present understanding is complete or infallible.
The same approach can be applied to reading the Bible. Except that, crucially, we also ask the Spirit to give us wisdom and lead us to a true understanding. (Maybe you do that in book club too for all I know.)
And yes, it also applies to Newtonian physics.
smooth stones says:
July 11th, 2008 at 7:35 am
OK – so I get it in literary terms (and if I understood Newtonian physics was I might get that too). Maybe I should have been more specific that I’m not sure I can get my head round it in spiritual terms.
Your last paragraph helps me understand it better, but why is it I still want to know there actually is an absolute truth when it comes to God?
QMonkey says:
July 11th, 2008 at 8:34 am
As you say, all knowledge is provisional, in-built updatability.
QMonkey says:
July 11th, 2008 at 11:28 am
>>>The same approach can be applied to reading the Bible. Except that, crucially, we also ask the Spirit to give us wisdom and lead us to a true understanding. (Maybe you do that in book club too for all I know.)
Do you not see anyting remotely circular about asking ‘the spirit’ to help you understand the bible, when you only know about ‘the spirit’ from the bible?
Like praying to Zues to ask him for advice on which god is real… or being ‘angry with god for not existing’, all cognitive circular reasoning, surely?
What happens if ‘the spirit’ tells me that the bible means that women shouldn’t speak in church… and it tells you that they should… or if it tell’s me that the bible says I should kill gays.. but ‘it’ tells you that we shouldn’t. Who’s interpretation should we go with – maybe the smartest mind or the oldest person?
Humbly submitted (on way to Friday pub lunch)
Wee Irish Breakfast says:
July 12th, 2008 at 10:02 am
I agree but what I found is that once I stopped working for the church is I started talking and thinking less about Richard Dawkins and post modernity and hearing more discussion about how much managers got on our wick and how our jobs might go and about our weekend getting blitzed.
I guess I’m getting a long and awful tutorial on trying to ground my faith thanks to my awful lecturer Mr B&Q…
jaybercrow says:
July 12th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Smooth stones – your question has been following me around and could spawn a lot of words in response. Here’s a brief summary of my thoughts:
1. When we talk about “absolute truth” I think what we really mean is that we want “absolute certainty” that our knowledge about God is reliable. Does God guarantee us, in relation to spiritual things, a level of certainty that is not possible in other areas of human knowledge?
2. Christians have tended to look for certainty in different places. Protestants tend to look for it in an infallible Bible. But then an infallible Bible can’t provide certainty without an infallible interpretation. So in practice, we look for certainty in the teaching of a particular pastor or author or famous Christian leader.
3. Which is really a weaker version of the traditional Catholic view, which looks for certainty in an infallible Pope or Church or Tradition, which provides a reliable interpretation of Scripture.
4. Some forms of charismatic Christianity look for certainty in the inner witness of the Spirit, who directly gives us wisdom and insight and spiritual knowledge.
5. You’ll not be surprised to hear that I think we need a synthesis of all three. The Bible is no ordinary book. We read it within the community of faith (both those here with us now and the those who have gone before). We ask for the Spirit to give wisdom and insight.
6. All of this allows us a high degree of confidence in what we believe to be true about God and the life he is calling us into. But in practice I think this means a lot of confidence about the core things, and a lot more tentativeness about secondary things.
7. I find myself using the word “confidence” rather than “certainty” because I keep coming back to the fact that Christian faith is a relationship. It is knowing a personal God, not simply knowing certain facts about him. The key thing is a confident trust in him, in his character and heart towards us.
8. I wonder if our search for “certain knowledge” (or “absolute truth”) betrays our reluctance to trust him. We would rather make an idol out of a pastor or pope or the Bible or an intense spiritual experience, than surrender to a journey into the unknown with the God we love and trust.
I warned you a lot of words were coming! Please come back at me and thanks for making me think…
jaybercrow says:
July 12th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
QM – of course there’s an element of circularity… but I’m OK with that. I think all human knowledge goes in circles, or rather in spirals, since we do develop and change our views. The Cartesian idea that we can build knowledge in a linear way starting with self-evident first principle is a delusional illusion…
WeeIrishBreakfast – thanks for bringing us back down to earth. Though I do think it’s worth remembering that your esteemed colleagues have an epistomology, even if they don’t like to discuss it. By the way, I like some of the new tunes on your site – would you be insulted if I suggested I hear a slight Ricky Ross vibe…?
QMonkey says:
July 13th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
‘Constantly adaptable understanding’ is a view I can coalesce around. Self evident in many ways, but I completely understand why lots/most religious people reject in favour of, as Smooth says, ‘Absolute Truth’.
isn’t the real danger of ‘delusional illusion’ (as you put it) , people thinking that they hear mystic forces in their heads guiding them, revealing truth… and seeing purpose and guidance in every day events… or who get paranoid delusional about ‘evil’ forces at work.
Is this not a real danger? (at least in other people/faiths/demonimations – not you I’m sure)
(I’m for assessing the evidence we have and basing all decisions on that, and accepting the limitations of current knowledge, declaring theories and trying to disprove them… i’m perfect but i would submit that its brought more good to the world in terms of economics/medicines/technologies than most things.. entering algebraic gods into the equation can, I admit sometimes help, as long as we don’t get attached to them (but that’s just me))
QMonkey says:
July 13th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
“imperfect” rather than “i’m perfect”
…telegram from Mr Freud, he wants his patient
jaybercrow says:
July 13th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
QM – of course what you describe is a danger. Which is why in the approach I outlined above the inner witness of the Spirit is held accountable to both Community and Scripture.
Economics, medicine, technology – these in themselves do the world no good, and in the wrong hands can do it much harm. They are morally neutral. They only do good when used in the service of Justice, Equality, Compassion, Mercy, and other such high ideals. And these things can’t be derived from logic or laboratory experiments. They are received and believed as something given. (I’m not even claiming that they are unique to Christianity – just that they come as something given, not derived by logic).
I just read a lovely analogy in GK Chesterton – he talks about how the armies of Napoleon tore the lead from the churches to make their bullets, and how this is a perfect symbol of the French Revolution. “The very shots that shattered the old order came from the old order. Democracy was only the fulfilment of ideas that had been believed for ages; divine justice and the dignity of men.”
QMonkey says:
July 14th, 2008 at 8:32 am
That’s a fair point re:the use of tech rather than invention. I guess I was making the point that I haven’t see much evidence (I’m sure you will enlighten) of any mystical spirits whispering previously unknown knowledge to people. I know of course when I personally ‘felt’ the spirit leading me… although it felt real at the time… in retrospect it didn’t take any mental gymnastics so retrospectively see it as delusional. That of course doesn’t negate anyone else’s experience.
You recognize the danger of relying on mystical voices in ones head… but in the light the huge variance on biblical interpretation, is the ‘accountability’ thing really working? You do I’m sure accept that some (good , family, loving) people who are convinced the spirit is guiding them to do/think something are- incredibly deluded (even though they are also convinced its inline with bible/community). I think this is an important point… if someone is genuinely convinced after prayer and study that the spirit is guiding them to do x/y/z, which you happen to fundamentally disagree with… how can you be sure that its they who are deluded and not you (or both)?
Wee Irish Breakfast says:
July 15th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Ricky Ross is much better than Diana Ross-thanks:)
smooth stones says:
July 15th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Thanks for your thoughts jaybercrow, I agree that confidence is a more apt word than certainty; because it is all about relationship. I think this is why I often shy away from philosophical/theological ‘debates’ – they too often cause me to lose focus on the personal relationship.
I imagine that a sceptic might say this means that the relationship on which my faith is based doesn’t exist – that if Christianity can’t engage with philosophy, science etc it’s not valid, so I want to make it clear that’s not what I’m talking about. There are lots of people (Jayber for one!) who can grapple with abstract concepts and also keep their focus on the reality of life as a follower of Christ. For others, including myself, grappling with such concepts becomes too much of an academic exercise and doesn’t make a difference to the relationship with God or how I live my life.
I think a lot of us need to discover how to think about ‘deep’ things in a way which engages our intellect, our hearts and everyday lives. Thanks for helping me do that Jayber – can’t wait till you guys come home!
charles says:
November 26th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
have you left your furious thoughts in canada? some more soon please!