Which is more dangerous to the message of Jesus Christ (or to society), modern or postmodern approach to the truth? Are we in a pursuit of Truth or rational construction of knowledge?
I’m not sure I could say that one or the other epistemology is more dangerous than the other, as there are great dangers in both approaches to knowledge and truth. I can say, however, that like it or not, we are in the times of postmodernity (some say even something beyond it) and there is great danger in not adapting and growing in science or faith. (for more on this in the scientific realm see the works of Thomas Kuhn)
“Postmodernism poses certain dangers. Nevertheless, it would be ironic – indeed, it would be tragic – if evangelicals ended up as the last defenders of the now dying modernity. To reach people in the new post modern context, we must set ourselves to the task of deciphering the implications of postmodernism for the gospel.” (Stanley Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism
, p 10)
I have set myself to the task because I believe the gospel (good news for all peoples) is important, life-transforming, and transcends human trends or systems of thought. I believe that through the postmodern structure, one can actually strengthen the concept of Truth and bring some people back into the conversation who have dismissed the biblical faith as implausible. I think postmodernity is bringing “reason” to question more than it is bringing “truth” to question. It seems the modern thought structures gave human “reason” a sacred place of ultimate proof. Christian faith has an opportunity to grow stronger.
“Ironically, [Christians] who denounce postmodernism imply that Christian dogma cannot withstand rough handling, betraying perhaps a subconscious fear that the structure of Christianity might prove flimsy or false. Postmodernism, however, has exposed the flaws not of Christianity but of modernism, arguing that the modernist line of thought – which disdained Christianity – is “out of true.” Modernism therefore lasted only three hundred years, while Christian orthodoxy has stayed true for over two thousand years.” (Crystal L. Downing, How Postmodernism Serves (My) Faith; p229-230)
It is interesting to take a look back to a time before modern epistemology and read the words of one of the great theologians and see how he thought. Martin Luther certainly had some choice words to say about reason as he lived in the pre-enlightenment era and was possibly resisting the encroachment of new ways of thinking:
Image from Wikipedia
“Reason is the Devil’s greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil’s appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom… Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism… She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets.”
—Martin Luther, Works, Erlangen Edition v. 16, pp. 142-148.“Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but—more frequently than not—struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”
—Martin Luther, Table Talks in 1569.(quotes used from: Joshua Sowin’s blog)
Don’t get me wrong, I think human reason is a great tool, and I certainly wouldn’t go to the conclusions that seem to come from Luther’s words (perhaps even they are misunderstood out of original context). Reason is a very strong tool and necessary for science, faith and the rest of life. I believe we have a rational faith, that we can “prove,” through reason, many beliefs/doctrines, and can arrive at a strong historicity of the biblical texts we read today, but there must be room for something more, for supernatural, for mystery, for the unknown and unreasoned. There are things that we don’t yet know and some things we won’t know. We must be on the pursuit of truth through all disciplines.
On either side of this conversation we can get out of balance and be over taken by hubris attitudes, thus solidifying the divide and continuing the disconnection of some between faith and life. I believe that the recently deceased, outspoken author and self described antitheist, Chrsitopher Hitchens, is a person who took the enlightenment/modern epistemology to its logical end. You can hear both his huberistic disdain for faith/god andhis search for truth through human reason alone (along with a hint of postmodern openmindedness).
Christopher Hitchens
“Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake. We do not hold our convictions dogmatically…but we shall resolve [our disagreements] by evidence and reasoning and not by mutual excommunication…
One must state it plainly. Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody…had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge (as well as for comfort, reassurance, and other infantile needs). Today the least educated of my children knows much more about the natural order than any of the founders of religion…
All attempts to reconcile faith with science and reason are consigned to failure and ridicule for precisely these reasons.”
-(Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything; 2007, p64,65)
I leave you with those thoughts for today…more of Hitchens, Truth, and Christianity to come in the following days.
Good stuff again, Brian.
I’m curious to see the context of Luther’s words about reason, but can’t find anything but non-contextual quotes and passionate tirades online.
Hitchens’ combination of these thoughts is curious:
“we shall resolve [our disagreements] by evidence and reasoning and not by mutual excommunication…”
“Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody…had the smallest idea what was going on… All attempts to reconcile faith with science and reason are consigned to failure and ridicule for precisely these reasons.”
I’m biased, but that sounds like excommunication to me.
After I wrote that I realized my blindness to my own bias in that I want to see the context of Luther but not that of Hitchens.
In realizing that I also confess my own hypocrisy in light of my earlier comments about the need for virtue, especially humility, in the pursuit of truth.
Experiences like these keep me a persuaded Christian more than empirical examination of anything outside myself.
Sounds like Hitchens had a tremendous appraisal of himself vs. his great, great, great, great grandfather and earlier. In fact, it sounds like anyone that does not agree with his premise is actually a baby, or has an immature mind.
Are we really coming down to a vaulted view of man and a limited view of God? Hitchens has a vaulted view of man, like his friend Ayn Rand and others who feverishly desire the trajectory of their lives to make the largest contribution to the mist because there is obviously nothing else after death. The mist being only what happens in this lifetime. Whereas Luther seems to have a vaulted view of God and man is not that much in the scheme of things but since God has spoken and we can know it then we must and nothing else matters. His presupposition is the Bible is the word of God.
A question that seems to be begging to be asked is, “What are the epistemological epochs that have been experienced From the Table of Nations to the 400 silent years and then from Christ to now?” Seems like we are only dealing with Modern and Post-Modernity? Some say Paul experienced a Post-Modern audience…so are there really only two epistomologies repackaged over and over again?
Brian you have a ton in your brain…I’m doing my best just to keep up. Thanks for your work.
I will be bold here: regardless of context, I would not go as far as either Luther or Hitchens. Anything that is considered true by a human being is considered true on the basis of a combination of reason and faith. Rational and empirical evidence can only take us as far as probability. Faith assimilates probability into assurance.
To put it in a very simplistic and boiled down way, modernism made the error of trying to remove faith from the way we understand truth; postmodernism kicks back against the failures of modernism by casting doubt on the role that reason plays in understanding truth (hence truth becomes seemingly un-objective).
Faith and reason should not be pitted against each other, but understood to work together.
@Greg – there are other epistemologies, mainly found in Eastern philosophies. Some authors have described Western philosophy as a sort of flip-flop between what we call modernism and postmodernism (I think Brian McLaren is an example).
Ben, what a succinct way to put it and a great comment for the first comment of 2012!
I especially appreciate your phrase, “Faith assimilates probability into assurance.”
Andrew, thanks for your questioning and acknowledging your bias and then an inconsistency. I really appreciate when conversations can be back and forth and even allow for some self-correction.
Greg, your synthesis to a vaulted view of man or God is right on in my belief. For one who starts with the notion that there is no God has no other option but to exalt his/her view of humanity. I do believe that the Bible also teaches a high view of humanity also, for it teaches that we are the special creation of God, with whom God desires to be in relationship with. But humanity is not more lofty than God…”Who knows the mind of God…”
I of course agree that reason is a powerful tool. However, I disagree that it is necessary for faith. Faith operates when reason is not used or usable. It seems Luther understood just how dangerous reason can be to faith.
Kudos Andrew regarding the self examination! Keep it up.
Hitch’s remark about excommunication referred to the settling of disputes. Those without faith will do it through argumentation and persuasion rather than mutual condemnation to hell. A break in the text then separates that from his description of religion as an artifact from the civilization’s infancy. He’s saying that religion pertains to a time when we didn’t have the tools of reason and science that we have today. To use it to persuade others is like bringing spearmen to a tank battle.
Hitch’s appraisal of himself vs ancient ancestors simply acknowledges that progress has been made.
I disagree that faith beyond trust in our senses is needed to consider truth. Empirical evidence and reason can get us far, then more experimentation takes place. Based on the accumulated evidence, engineers/inventors take over. This leads to tools that work and make life better and easier. This outcome gives us assurance that the underlying perceptions and results are true.
The Bible contains a mixed view of humanity at best. God commanded genocide, slavery, stoning of nonvirgin brides…etc tells me humans have little/no value. Without God, we are all there is -exalted in relation to what?
Ok, submitted a response but don’t see it posted. Brian, do your admin controls show it floating out there?
Clint, I found your 9:56am comment in my spam filter, but not sure why as it is set up to allow any comments from someone after I have allowed a first comment. Again, thanks for your input in this conversation.
You are correct in the context of Hitchen’s remarks about excommunication. It does seem, however, that he only extends that courtesy to those who are anti-theist or complete rationalists. He writes on the assumption (probably from his experience) that all those of faith simply resort to mutual condemnation to hell. Additionally, this book seems to be an excommunication (or condemnation to prehistoric, infantile, idiocy) of those who believe in God.
Also, my apology is needed, because I somehow left off the page number from the first Hitchen’s quote. You rightly note there is text between them (60 pages of text). The excommunication quote comes in the first chapter on page 5. I was not intending to make them look like they were in the same thought. The second quote was from the middle of his book (the reference in the post).
In fact, today I am going to consider more of Hitchen’s opening chapter comments.