Tuesday, June 26, 2007

Postmodernism's Delimma: Part 1

I was going to write this paper back in September. I started on it and worked on it for about a week and then I kind of hit a roadblock and totally stopped. Well, I have started to work on it again and I'm going to start posting parts of it. Hopefully this will inspire me to complete the work as best as I possibly can as soon as I possibly can. This first installment deals only with the philosophical propositions that hold postmodernism up, namely that of relativism. Also, I should note that, although the thoughts are my own, I am a philosophical second-hander and am basing most of my assumptions in this paper on the work of David Wells and his book "Above All Earthly Pow'rs" and my experience in college as a philosophy minor and hearing my professor describe his own relativism. I also realize that this is only a brief handling of the subject and could us a great deal more depth, so I would appreciate any comments anybody has on the subject. Anyway, without further ado, here is part one:

The Definitional Impossibility of Relativity

As our world moves farther along the road of post-modernism, we must consider whether or not its guiding principles are valid or not. Post-modernism relies very heavily on relativity. Postmodernism is a move away from modernism and the enlightenment and the belief that there is absolute truth. Truth is relative and is defined by the self, now. Whatever is true for you is what truth is. We must be tolerant of everyone else’s beliefs and “truths” because there is no set truth that we must believe in. The only thing that we can be intolerant of is the forcing of our own “truths” onto someone who does not accept those truths, and therefore, is not held to them. That person is only held to the truths that he or she accepts. Therefore, postmodernism can be defined as the rejection of absolute truths (hence the "post" modern) and the belief that truth is now relegated to the individual and cannot be universally applied.

This belief is founded upon the fact that many people have very differing views of what truth is. I believe that such and such is truth, but someone else believes that the opposite is true. How can we determine who is right? What determines absolutes? Instead of wrestling with these questions, the postmodern turns to the answer that there must not be any absolutes because we can’t seem to agree on what truth is and who determines it. Truth is relative. But can this be possible?

In a word, no. Relativity is definitionally impossible. Relativity is founded upon the principle that there are no absolute truths. This is an absolute statement. But we’ve all heard this objection before. It usually goes something like this:
Professor: There is no such thing as absolutes!
Smarty-pants Student: But isn't that an absolute statement?

Why hasn’t this derailed post-modernism? Is this objection a correct one? I believe that it is a correct objection. We’ll deal with why it hasn’t derailed this dominant belief system later. For now, I will deal with the philosophical problems that relativism must face. I believe it is a correct objection because for postmodernism to be true it must be the case that there are no truths that are absolute, otherwise, we could hold all people to the same absolute truths. If there are absolutes, then postmodernism fails because its guiding principle, relativity, crumbles. To put it in a classical argument it would go as follows:
1. If relativism is true, then there must be no absolutes.
2. There are absolutes (as demonstrated by the above statement)
3. Therefore, relativism isn’t true
Relativism is, therefore, definitionally impossible.

But are there ways around this? Postmoderns can’t say that there are no absolutes because that would be an absolute statement. They can’t say that there are absolutes because that denies relativity and is an absolute statement. But can we say that there might be absolutes? This is not an absolute statement, because it doesn’t say that absolutes exist or not, it only allows for the possibility. But it is this very possibility that denies relativity. Relativists cannot allow for the possibility of absolutes because that would mean that truth is not always defined by ourselves, but that there can be (or at least might be) objective truths for all people. So relativity in general is impossible. But can we allow for ethical relativity? This is where postmodernism hangs. After all, a postmodern relativist would still claim that 2 + 2 = 4 in all cases, but they would deny that what is ethically true for me must be ethically true for others. So postmoderns wouldn’t deny absolutes absolutely, but they would deny them in ethical matters and matters of religion.

However, the same problem crops up in this area as well. Definitionally, a relativist cannot claim that there are no ethical absolutes because that is an absolute statement. However, it could be objected that the above absolute statement isn’t an ethical statement and therefore does not fall into the same trap as before. That is to say, you can make absolute statements about ethics because those absolute statements only negate general relativity, not ethical relativity. Therefore, I can say there are no ethical absolutes without denying my original premise. This is an untenable position. In this scenario absolutes are allowed but only in regard to general matters, not in regard to ethical maters and then trying to differentiate between ethical relativity and general relativity. If general relativity doesn’t exist, then how can ethical relativity? We cannot make absolute statements about ethics and still hold on to ethical relativity. I cannot think of any argumentation that would support this without becoming absurd.

There is another problem with ethical relativity. Relativity itself isn’t the only force behind postmodernism. Moral elitism, or rather, the repugnance of it is also a driving force behind postmodernism and the relativity that is its bedrock and cornerstone. Postmodernism rejects the idea that we can impose our ethics and morals on another culture. How dare we claim that we know the only right way to live and act and then expect all other cultures and persons to ascribe to it. This is one of the main criticisms of religion in general and Christianity in particular. It is okay (indeed, even encouraged) to have and hold certain religious beliefs. The problem comes when we attempt to change the worldview and ethics of those who don’t believe the way we do. How can we possibly say that we have the right to try and convert other religions and peoples to our way of thinking. There are so many different religions and faiths, how can we claim to have the best one? Therefore, ethics (and religion, morals, etc.) must be relative. How can we impose our ethics on one another?

But in saying this, they deny their own ethical relativism. They have made supposed moral humility an absolute moral good (not to mention that their moral humility turns into pride when confronting those seeking to impose ethical absolutes). They also commit the same error as general relativity because it declares there can be no moral absolutes. This, obviously, is an absolute statement. Postmoderns cannot cling to moral relativity and then declare tolerance of other religious views an absolute moral good. You cannot attack those who are intolerant of other religions and then say that morals and ethics are relevant. Ethical relativity in the postmodern worldview is impossible.

Sunday, June 24, 2007

Really quick

If you haven't visited desiringGod.org recently then you need to know that this coming Wednesday and Thursday all books in their store are only $5, no exceptions. I know I'm going to be getting a whole bunch of them :)

Saturday, June 23, 2007

A much needed update

I just became a man today! I shot a bunch of guns :) I went with my pastor and some friends and we shot a couple of shotguns, a pistol, and a couple muzzle-loader rifles in a ravine near the Salt Lake. It was a lot of fun. We were throwing skeet and trying to shoot them. I was by far the worst, but, in my defense, all the other guys had a lot more experience shoot various things than I did. They all know what they're doing. I'm pretty good at shoot a pistol or rifle at a stationary target, but trying to blow something moving out of the sky is a bit more tricky. It was a lot of fun though. My shoulder will probably hurt for a week now.

Anyway, a lot has happened over the last month or so. A few weeks ago I road-tripped to Las Vegas with a friend of mine in order to visit some friends, Andy and Annie, that were there for a few weeks training at the Air Force base near the city. We had a really good time. The trip was really good and we listened to some good sermons. The first night we were there we ate dinner at In 'n out, which is the best fast food place of all time and I haven't had it for about three or four years or so (we don't have one in northern Utah). We then went to a massive Pro Bass Shop in one of the casinos (my friends are big into hunting and fishing). They had a pretty big aquarium in there with some various rays and some small sharks along with a bunch of cool fish. After we had seen our share of outdoors stuff we went to the Belagio and walked around inside a little bit (very fancy and upscale) and then we watched the fountain show. If you've seen Ocean's Eleven, at the very end of the movie all the characters stand around the fountain and watch the show. That's kind of like what we did, only with a lot more people around us. We watched two shows and my friends' baby, Henry, demanded that we go back to their room. It was a really fun night. The next day we went to Hoover Dam and took the tour. It was amazing. The dam is massive. I'd post some pictures, but I'm too lazy to upload them to my computer. That night we went to the Stratosphere, which is the Space Needle looking thing, and went to the top and checked out the strip at night. We got some really good views, the night was clear, and everything was brilliantly lit up. Before we did that, though, we went to the Saturday night service at the local mega church, Central Christian Church. Surprisingly, it wasn't half bad. They only did three songs (instead of spending all their time on songs) and the sermon attempted to exposit scripture and actually lasted longer than 30 minutes. The sermon could have been better, but it wasn't as bad as I was expecting. All-in-all, a good night and a really good trip. And much to the chagrin of Vegas (and its nickname) we did it all without partaking of the vast amounts of sin available. That was the beginning of my summer. More to follow...

Thursday, June 14, 2007

Interview

I have had a great couple of days. I think I may just have to post about them. Which I guess would be the exception given my current lack of posting. But for now, I will post an interview courtesy of Laur.

1) Have you ever gotten a ticket? Tell us about it.
Twice. The first time I was driving to work and I was going 47 in a 35. However, the other side of the road had a 50 mph speed limit so I thought it was crazy that I got a ticket (but I didn't say that to the cop. It kind of came to me sometime after). To make matters worse, they changed the limit about two weeks later. But I didn't fight it because I had been speeding in the previous section and figured it was my just deserts. I ended up going to traffic school though and the ticket is still not on my record :) The second time I was trying to stay behind my brother-in-law and rolled a stop sign pretty badly even though I knew that there was a cop on that road. That was a pretty stupid ticket :) I think that was about 3 or 4 years ago. Since then - ticket free!

2) When you were small, say 7 years old, what one food would you have wanted to have if you had to pick just one to eat for the rest of your life?
Hands down, pizza - pepperoni only. I thought that was God's gift to mankind. I could eat pizza all the time.

3) Pets as a child? (Not a yes or no question.)
Yes :) ...But seriously, my family had a dog and a cat when I was a kid. Our dog was named Uriah and was about the ugliest mutt you have ever seen, which actually made him rather adorable. He was a great dog. Very devoted and very protective, which was his unfortunate downfall. Because he was so protective he ended up biting a few people that he thought were threats to us kids. So my parents ended up taking him to the pound. As a family we never had a dog after that, although my younger sister now has a basset hound named Phebe. My cat was named Emily (although the name Bathsheba was jokingly kicked around) and we got her when I was 3 or 4. She was a great cat. Very personable and enjoyed being around you, but wasn't too needy. She lived for about 14 years and died of natural causes. Since then my family has gotten two more cats named Shylock and Othello.

4) If you could own a plane or a boat (for personal operation, not just to have a lear jet and a pilot to fly you around), which would you pick? What would you christen it?
Interesting... That's a tough one. I would probably go with a plane. That way I could use it to visit my friends and family, whereas a boat would probably end up being more recreational only. Plus with a boat you then have to get a trailor and a new truck. And although the new truck sounds tempting, I'll have to go with the plane. You could also use the plane for mission trips and, if big enough, perhaps I could even get to Europe with it. As for the name, I only have two options. One is Sola Deo Gloria for obvious reasons. The other would be Diana. The reason for this is that after I read Jane Eyre I really liked the name Diana and for a long time wanted to name my first daughter that. So I think those would be my two options.

5) When were you baptized and why then?
I was baptized when I was about seven. I can still remember sitting in my pastor's office with my dad while he explained what baptism was. He said something like "baptism is a little like taking a bath. When you take a bath you wash all the dirt off of you. Baptism is an outward demonstration of when our sins were washed off of us." Or something like that. I knew that when we are baptized we are proclaiming that we are Christians and I wanted to do that. My dad ended up baptizing me and I remember giving an account of my salvation and who I believed Jesus was and my dad asked me what my favorite Bible verse was. It was Phil. 4:13. I thought that was about the coolest verse in the Bible. Back then I thought that meant that if God wanted me to, I could outrun my dad's truck. My dad tried to dispell that notion and give me a more biblical view, but I still believed that if God really wanted me to, I could :)

If you would like to be interviewed and join in the fun than just follow these directions:
1. Leave me a comment that says "Interview me."
2. I respond by emailing you five questions. I get to pick the questions.
3. You update your blog with the answers to the questions.
4. You include this explanation and an offer to interview someone else in the same post.
5. When others comment asking to be interviewed, you ask them five questions.