If you want to learn
about Islam from a one-time insider:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2u9BNpLThqA&feature=youtu.be
Your Brother Daniel
For more great blogs as
this one go to Daniel’s blog site at: www.Mannsword.blogspot.com
Postmodernism,
Logic, Love, and Truth
As soon as you mention
something about “truth,” feathers begin to fly. You’ll hear responses like:
1. The only truth is change itself.
2. Everyone’s got their own way. It’s not a matter
of one-size-fits-all!
3. The idea of truth is just too rigid.
4. The only truth is what is true for you alone!
We live in a postmodern
age. Consequently, these statements seem to be so well-established that they
are beyond questioning. They are as acceptable as the statement, “I exist” or
“I like chocolate.”
However, postmodern
thinking has become so much a part of our culture that it is as familiar and
unnoticeable as the ocean is for a lobster. We have become so comfortable with
this worldview, we fail to see that these assertions are illogical.
For instance, if the
only truth is change itself (#1), then this statement is also subject to change
and therefore contradicts itself. Therefore, this assertion cannot be true, at
least not for long!
Statement #2 also
contradicts itself. If “everyone’s got their own way” and there is no truth
that is common to all of us, then this statement also is illogical, because it
too is a statement of truth that pertains to all. Meanwhile, it rejects the
notion that there is any truth that does pertains to all, while asserting the “truth”
that it is all simply relative.
Statement #3 is equally
illogical. If “the idea of truth is just too rigid,” then this statement is also too rigid, since it too is a
statement of truth.
Statement #4, while
claiming that we cannot assert what is true for other people (only what is true
for us), implies that this principle is true for everyone, thereby contradicting itself.
The problems of
incoherence do not stop in the realm of ideas. They also infiltrate our lives
like stealth ninjas. For instance, just about everything that we say is a truth statement. Just think of the
following instances:
1. That was a great movie.
2. My son goes to a wonderful school.
3. Bill is really a nice guy.
All of these statements
have embedded value judgments. They suggest that, according to a universal
standard, there is something objectively of value about the movie, school and
Bill. However, if you were to press the postmodern about these implicit
objective standards, she would retreat and redefine what she had stated:
· I only meant that I really enjoyed this movie.
I’m not implying that there is anything superior about this movie.
However, this is the
very thing that her statement implied. In fact, we cannot but speak in terms of
objective truth statements. If we instead reduce all of our statements to
merely personal feelings and tastes, we also reduce life and make it unlivable.
One guy tried to do this
in regards to our conversations. When I would make truth statements, he would
correct me:
· You can only speak for yourself and your own
feelings. You can’t speak of truth in general, because, when you do this, you
are also speaking for me, and I won’t allow you to do this!
Do you see the
incoherence here? While forbidding my truth statements, he invoked many of his
own, even requiring us to submit to the same rules. He eventually terminated
our conversation.
However, the problems
don’t stop here. One postmodern young lady informed me that she had recently
found the meaning of her life. She would now devote herself to loving others.
I applauded her
commitment to this noble cause. However, she then reassured me that her
decision had nothing to do with truth or the inherent virtue of love. Instead,
it was all about what personally worked for
her! Consequently, she refused to say that what she had found had any
relevance for anyone else, since everyone had to find what was right for themselves.
I therefore asked her:
· Since you do not believe in any objective moral
law or the inherent goodness of love, do you tell these people that your
intention is not really to love them but love yourself? After all, you stated that you committed
yourself to this cause because it works for you
and not because of any higher calling. Therefore, isn’t you commitment
inherently selfish? And, in order to
be transparent, wouldn’t you have to tell the “objects of your love” that you
are merely acting out of selfish motives?
How can love be love if
it is done primarily out of selfish concerns? Can I pledge myself to my wife
for only as long as the marriage works for me? In a world where there is no
truth, there is also no real virtue, integrity, honor, justice or anything else
that we cherish. Instead, everything is reduced to whether or not it works for us.
When I contrasted her
stance with my Christian orientation, she replied, “That’s just too rigid for
me.”
In a sense, she is
right. Truth is rigid. It makes demands on us and tells us when we go astray,
but we need truth nevertheless. I need to know
that, when I’ve morally failed and feel the weight of guilt, that my Lord
forgives and cleanses me from all of my filth (1 John 1:9). Without this
confidence, I would remain consumed by my feelings of guilt and shame.
When I share this with
others, they usually respond, “Well, that’s just your faith!” I retort
that it’s not a matter of blind faith but substantiated
faith. I need evidential assurances that God forgives me. I cannot believe
simply because it makes me feel good. For my faith to give me the joy and
confidence that I need, I have to be assured of its truth.
How will this postmodern
young woman be able to maintain her love commitment once it stops feeling good
to her and no longer works for her? I don’t think that she will be able to! We
need to not only feel that something
is “right”; we also need to be convinced
that it is truly right. Only this kind of conviction will carry us through!
Otherwise, we retreat into the unstable and juvenile life where feelings alone reign.
(see the movie The
Identical!)
No comments:
Post a Comment