More about that in a bit, but first, let's talk a little about what 'postmodernism' is. Do these characteristics sound familiar?
1. No single world view captures reality. There is no master story or meta-narrative that underlies humanity.
2. Reason is to be distrusted because there is no way of knowing which individual's reason is reliable.
3. There is no such thing as objectivity.
4. There is no 'truth' to appeal to for understanding history and culture.
5. There are no moral absolutes.
6. The West, with it's colonial heritage, deserves ridicule.
7. Texts, whether religious or philosophical or literary or legal, do not have intrinsic meaning.
8. Ideas are cultural creations.
9. Everything is relative.
10. We need to be deeply suspicious of all ideas, given the way ideas are used as tools to oppress and confuse people.
Looks a lot like the culture we live in now, doesn't it? Well, this isn't the first time this has happened. This is the same basic description of the presocratic world. Remember, it is hard to talk about 'what the Greeks thought' because there were Greeks who thought just about everything. Before Socrates there was Protagoras, who was the first to say, "Man is the measure of all things." It was also a very relativistic culture. The sophists (from whom we get the words sophistry and sophisticated) were intellectual guns for hire, who really believed in nothing, but would take any side in a debate. The more skilled at it they were the more money they made. But it was all just a game, a way to coerce as many people as possible. It is no wonder reason was distrusted and truth was viewed as relative.
Then came Socrates. Socrates said, "God is the measure of all things," and stood up for truth. His 'God' was an unknown god to him (see Acts 17), but he made a remarkable stand for a pagan.
Socrates' ideas and those of other Greeks contributed significantly to Judeo-Christian thought. Then the modern thought came along seeking to have "Good without God." Human reason alone was supposed to supply us with all we needed to govern ourselves. The problem there, as we've discussed already, was the 'good' we were trying to demonstrate through reason was largely imported in from the Judeo-Christian ethic. Nietzsche and others showed there was no foundation for right and wrong if the Judeo-Christian God was dead. We tried to be our own gods.
The fruits of that endeavor were clear enough. WWI and WWII, and numerous other atrocities. In short, the bloodiest century in history. Next time someone tries to tell you that all wars are the result of religion, and religion is therefore bad, remind them of the legacy of humanism.
It was obvious that the goal of "Good without God" was untenable. This brings us back to the syllogisms we talked about:
If God does not exist, then morality cannot be justified
But morality can be justified
Therefore, God must exist
(modus tollens)
or
If God does not exist, then morality cannot be justified
God does not exist
Therefore, morality cannot be justified
(modus ponens)
Remember that it was the end of modernism when thinkers started to realize the truth of the first premise. What if they had then gone back to examine if there really could be "Good without God"? Finding the answer to be, no, why didn't they go back and embrace Christianity? Why didn't they realize they were wrong to dismiss Him and run back to Him? If only they had. A few did of course, but the overwhelming response was just to look into the abyss and try to be our own gods.
But what happened is just what we should expect, isn't it? Mankind couldn't resist the temptation to be his own god.
This brings to mind some Chesterton said somewhere (paraphrased): "The doctrine of original sin is the only doctrine of the church that can be empirically proved." The truth of original sin is staring everyone in the face, but no one wants to see it.
While on the subject, here's another quote from Chesterton:
“Once abolish the God, and the government becomes the God.” - Christendom in Dublin, 1933
No comments:
Post a Comment