Post-Modern Society

Conclusion

In view of the great difficulties that are evident within postmodernism, I conclude that it's world view of truth is a faulty one. Relativism, which is the premise upon which all postmodernism is built, cannot even assert itself without defeating itself. The coherence view of truth fails as it is non-foundational and has no independent reality in which it's claims can be measured to determine whether they are true or false. Many consistent statements clinging together do not prove something to be true since it is possible to have many false statements clinging together that are internally consistent. Pragmatism, religious pluralism along with the various other ideologies of postmodernism, break down when they are examined in the light of logic and reason. It is my conclusion that the correspondence view is the only satisfactory view of the nature of truth . That is, a statement or idea can be determined to be true if it corresponds to objective reality. The way that we know reality is by "first principles", which are the self-evident starting point for all knowledge. The things that we know are true, are absolutely true for all people, places, and times.

1 Simon Blackburn, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press,1994), 262

2 Francis Selman, St. Thomas Aquinas: Teacher of Truth (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 4.

3 Herman Reith, The Metaphysics of St.Thomas Aquinas (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing, 1958), 142.

4 Ibid.

5 Selman, 5

6 Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999), 250.

7 Reith, 145

8 Timothy R. Phillips and Dennis L. Okholm, Christian Apologetics in the Postmodern World ( Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 163-64.

9 Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks, When Skeptics Ask (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1990), 260.

10 Mortimer J. Adler, Truth in Religion (New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1990), 133.

11 Ibid.

12 Ibid, 12.

13 Geisler, 743.

14 Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999), 613

15 Harold A. Netland, Dissonant Voices: Religious Pluralism and the Question of Truth (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1991), 119.

16 Ibid, 118-119

17 Geisler, 742.

18 Netland, 26.

19 John Hick, Problems of Religious Pluralism (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1985), 47.

20 Geisler, 599

21 Netland, 163.

22 Geisler, 599.

23 John Hick, The Metaphor of God Incarnate (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1993), ix.

24 Hick, Religious Pluralism, 12.

25 Geisler, 744

Religious Pluralism

A popular world view in postmodernism is that of religious pluralism. This is the belief that all religions are true. Christianity on the other hand is exclusivistic. This is the belief that only one religion is true and all other opposing belief systems are false. It holds that various religions have incompatible truth claims and consequently they cannot all be true. In examining the belief system of pluralism Netland expounds: "All religions are in their own way complex historically and culturally conditioned human responses to the one divine reality." 18 Pluralists believe that all major religions are connected to the same ultimate divine reality and are simply viewing this reality through their own lenses which are tinted by their culture, traditions and languages. Consequently, all religions are just viewing a different facet of this same reality. Pluralist John Hick argues:"By this I mean the view that the great world religions embody different perceptions and conceptions of, and correspondingly different responses to, the Real or the ultimate from within the major variant cultural ways of being human; and that within each of them the transformation of human existence from self-centeredness to Reality-centeredness is manifestly taking place-and taking place, so far as human observance can tell, to much the same extent. Thus the great religious traditions are to be regarded as alternative soteriological 'spaces' within which, or 'ways' along which, men and women can find salvation/liberation/fulfilment."19

Hick begins his premise with the presupposition that all religions are responding to the ultimate reality. On what basis can Hick make such a statement? It is certainly possible that the worship of many religions is idolatrous as they may not correspond to the true God. In the Old Testament, God gave the commandment "You shall have no other gods before Me." (Ex. 20:3 NKJV). If religious pluralism were true, it would be impossible to break this command since all worship would correspond to the same ultimate. It is also possible that deception is taking place. Jesus Christ said "Then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'There!' do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect." (Matt. 24:23,24 NKJV). Again, if all religions are true, then there would be no false christs, but only different perceptions of the "ultimate christ reality".

Secondly, pluralism actually assumes a particular view of God known as pantheism which states that "God is all and all is God". This view is in opposition to the Christian theistic concept of God which believes that there is one true creator God who exists outside of His special creation. Consequently, pluralism is actually exclusivistic as it declares that pantheism is true and that all non-pantheism is false. Norman Geisler states, "To assume this kind of pantheistic position as a basis for one's analysis of all religions, including nonpantheistic ones, simply begs the question."20 In reality, pluralism simply prefers the exclusivistic truth claim of pantheism over the exclusivistic truth claim of Christian theism. Consequently, pluralism is not truly pluralistic as it's claims are self-defeating.

In addition, Hick wrongly assumes that religious systems which hold opposing fundamental doctrines can be true at the same time. For example, Christianity proclaims that Jesus Christ is God who has come in the flesh, while Islam completely denies the deity of Christ. Hinduism teaches the concept of reincarnation while Christianity teaches that a person has only one life to live and then the judgment. These are all mutually exclusive concepts which cannot be true at the same time. Therefore, pluralism violates the law of non-contradiction.

Hick also assumes that followers of all religions are being transformed from self-centeredness to Reality-centeredness and that they are experiencing an equivalent degree of change. However, this begs the question since this assumption could only be true in the event that all religions are actually connected to the same ultimate reality. It is also questionable whether all religions promote the same standards of love, justice and righteousness. Harold Netland writes regarding John Hick's argument: One cannot escape the suspicion that he has simply taken the emphasis within the Judeo-Christian tradition upon justice and concern for the oppressed and read it into other religious traditions as well."21 To illustrate, Hinduism may not demonstrate the same level of compassion for the poverty stricken as Christianity since it believes that an individual's circumstances may be due to a "bad karma". A person is simply getting what he deserves because of a previous wicked life.

Finally, a religion is not proven to be true simply because some of it's followers have experienced an increase in morality and goodness. Rather, it is proven to be true if it's foundational doctrines correspond with reality. If Jesus Christ actually died on the cross and then resurrected bodily from the dead, then Christianity is true for all people, all places and all times. As Norman Geisler states, "...the moral superiority of Christianity does not rest on our imperfections as Christians but on Christ's unique perfection as our exemplar. It is not based on our fallible moral character but on his impeccable character."22

At the heart of Pluralism is an opposition to the central tenets of Christianity. John Hick gives us some revealing insight into the motivations of Pluralism. While referring to Jesus Christ he states: "If he was indeed God incarnate, Christianity is the only religion founded by God in person, and must as such be uniquely superior to all other religions."23 Hick is correct in understanding that the deity of Christ deals a death blow to religious pluralism since Christ's claims are incompatible with the pluralistic world view. Hick further reveals his true agenda, "...my own special concern, that to see the language of divine incarnation as metaphorical, or mythical, makes it possible for Christians to come to a genuine acceptance of religious pluralism."24 Hick's alleged pluralism is not all-embracing and all-accepting as it claims when it comes to religious thought. Since the Biblical doctrine of the deity of Christ is incompatible with pluralism, Hick chooses to eliminate this problem simply by redefining the person of Jesus. Given that the facts of Christian doctrine do not harmonize with pluralism, Hick decides to change the facts. Rather than pulling out of the scripture the true meaning intended, Hick chooses to put into the scripture the meaning preferred. This is dishonest and a classic case of eisegesis which is a violation of proper Biblical hermeneutics.

Pluralists often charge that the exclusivistic view of Christianity is narrow-minded and intolerant since it declares that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation. With so many religious ideas in the world, this seems to be an unreasonable proposition to the pluralist. However, this view is based on a misunderstanding of truth. Truth by it's very nature is narrow. For instance, it is absolutely true that George Washington was the first President of the United States. There is no other person in the history of the entire world that could have made an authentic claim to have been the first President of the United States. A person is not intolerant if he believes this exclusivist claim to be true but rather he is simply correct as to who was the first president of the United States. In addition, it is not intolerant to disagree politely regarding the truthfulness of an individual's position on a subject matter. After all, if someone agreed with another person's position then there would be no differences of opinion to tolerate. Post modernists have redefined the meaning of the word "tolerate" to mean that every other person's viewpoint is equally as true as your own. Norman Geisler shows the fallacy of this logic: "In the religious realm it would mean that Billy Graham is telling the truth when he says 'God exists', and Madalyn Murray O'Hare is also right when she claims, 'God does not exist'. But these two statements cannot both be true. If one is true, then the other is false. And since they exhaust the only possibilities, one of them must be true."25 A world of relativism is the equivalent to a world of confusion since everyone is always right and no one is ever wrong. Lastly, pluralism is just as exclusivistic as Christianity since it asserts that pluralism is true and that all non-pluralism is false. Pluralism is nothing more than another exclusivistic truth claim. It simply hides under the disguise of "openness" and "fairness" while at the same time excluding other claims that are contrary to it's own. As a result, pluralism is a self-defeating concept.

Postmodern Views of Truth

The coherence view of truth is one which suggests that a proposition is true if it consists of a group of internally consistent statements. There must be a coherence or unity of ideas that fit together in order to show something to be true. Timothy Phillips and Dennis Okholm, proponents of this viewpoint state, "With regard to the relationship between truth and belief within this new paradigm, truth becomes internal to a web of beliefs; there is no standard of truth independent of a set of beliefs and practices. This means that instead of asking whether one's language hooks up to reality, one is encouraged to ask: what web of convictions, beliefs and practices must be in place before one can make the judgment that a certain statement is true or false? 8. This view prescribes that it is not relevant to examine whether or not an idea corresponds to reality but suggests that an idea only has to be internally consistent in order to be true. But this logic falls short as it is possible to have an internally consistent set of false statements that cohere as a unit. Many false statements that are clinging together do not create a truth just as two wrongs do create a right. Coherentism is also non-foundational as it does not connect to an outside objective reality by which a proposition can be judged to be true or false. Dr. Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks write, "The latter compares truth to a web hanging in space so that its own network of connections upholds it. Like a chain, each link is dependent on the others to hold it together."9. Consider a group of skydivers clinging tightly together while falling through the sky as they attempt to establish stability among themselves: no matter how tightly they cling together, they will never find stability until they have landed on an absolutely firm object outside of themselves, namely earth. Without an outside foundation of reality, a group of coherent, dependent statements clinging together can never be used to establish truth. Therefore, the implication of the coherence theory is that all truth is relative. But as discussed earlier, some statements such as "I do exist" are absolutely true and undeniable since I would first have to exist in order to affirm my existence. Consequently, the coherence view proves itself to be faulty since we know that some things are absolutely true and that first principles do exist.

A popular view of truth in postmodernism is that all truth is based on individual perspective. What is true for one person is not necessarily true for another. However, truth is not determined by what a person thinks. Mortimer Adler points out two assumptions that were made by Aristotle and Aquinas regarding this issue: "The first is that there exists a reality that is independent of the mind, to which the mind can either conform or fail to conform. In other words, what we think does not create or in anyway affect what we are thinking about."10 For instance, a passenger flying in a jet airliner with a destination for Los Angeles, California may believe that he is bound for Miami, Florida. However, when the plane lands he will find himself in Los Angeles despite his perception of traveling to Miami. One's belief does not determine reality or truth. A person may have a sincerely held belief and be absolutely wrong if the object of his belief does not correspond to the facts of reality. "The second assumption is that this independent reality is completely determinate. This is Aristotles' metaphysical principle of contradiction. Nothing can both be and not be at the same time."11 For example, if one person affirms that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and another denies it, this principle of logic states that we should not both affirm it and deny it at the same time. It is either a true or false statement. If it is true, then it is true for all people, for all places and for all times regardless of an individual's perspective or belief system. Mortimer Adler argues that there must be a distinction made between the proposition that is being evaluated and the judgment or conclusion that is drawn regarding the proposition. "The truth or falsity of entertained propositions is absolute and immutable. The correctness of judgments we make about them is relative and mutable. The failure to make this distinction leads to such unguarded and incorrect statements as 'This may be true for you but it is not true for me and that is all there is to it' or 'This once was true, but it is no longer true and that is all there is to it."'12

Other relativists argue that truth is relative because it changes over time. What people once believed to be true may no longer be true. For example, it was once believed in Greek and Roman times up until the 1860s that "spontaneous generation" was a reality. This idea that microbes could arise spontaneously from putrefying matter was dealt a final blow when French chemist Louis Pasteur discovered that microscopic beings cannot come into the world without the causation of outside "like germs" (pasteurization).). However, it should not be construed that the truth of spontaneous generation changed over time to a new truth known as pasteurization. Rather, the false belief in spontaneous generation changed to the correct belief in pasteurization.

Another argument of relativists is that what is true in some geographical locations may not be true in other places. For example, temperature may be relative since it varies in degrees according to geographic location. To show the error of this logic Dr. Geisler writes: "The statement: 'It is relatively cold for earth at the North Pole' is true for people in Arizona in the summer, or on Pluto where it is colder than on the North Pole. Truth is what corresponds to the facts, and the fact is that it feels cold at the North Pole."'13 Error is often the result when the context of the discussion within a statement is overlooked. For example, the statement: "George has the flu in Atlanta, Georgia on January 1, 2000" is absolutely true and will continue to be true when even George is feeling well on March 1, 2010 while living in Birmingham, Alabama. It is absolutely true because the context of the statement specifies the place and the time that George has the flu.

Some post modernists hold to the view that truth is determined by pragmatism. According to this theory, something is shown to be true simply because it works. Pragmatist Richard Rotry places truth in a purely subjective light as he writes regarding the pragmatist: "He drops the notion of truth as correspondence with reality altogether, and says that modern science does not enable us to cope because it corresponds, it just plain enables us to cope."14 The wide acceptance of this ideology is very alarming as many throughout history have committed great atrocities in order to expedite an objective. The end justified the means for Adolph Hitler as he exterminated millions of Jews in order to help him cope with his desire to create the "perfect race". If truth is relative and does not correspond to any outside moral standard, then there is no basis by which we can declare anything as being wrong. Many have performed human sacrifices because they claim that Satanism works for them and that it accomplishes the desired results. The truth of the matter is that most pragmatists would agree that human sacrifices are wrong. By drawing the line and making a moral judgment, they consequently are acknowledging some standard of objective truth. By doing so, they prove that pragmatism is a self defeating concept in that all that works is not true.

Post modernists often state that truth is not propositional or objective but rather it is that which is personally relevant. Harold Netland evaluates this perspective: "Truth is not a static property of propositions or doctrines but rather a dynamic product of human involvement with what is said to be true. Personal truth is not something detached from actual life; it demands existential appropriation."15 For instance, when examining religious truth, it is not necessary to evaluate whether or not a particular belief or doctrine is objectively true. Rather, it is understood to be true by it's internalization or transformation of the religious person. Netland gives further insight, "Religious truth does not reflect correspondence with reality so much as it signifies integrity, sincerity, faithfulness, authenticity of life, and existentially appropriating certain beliefs in one's life and conduct."16 Given this understanding of truth, religion could not be judged to be true or false based on it's own merits. It would only be true to the degree that it is relevant to a particular individual's life. The result Netland concludes, "... it would make little sense to speak of one religion being true and others false, for presumably there are devout believers who are transformed existentially by their respective traditions. In this sense all religions could be considered 'true."' While it may be true that a certain religious belief may seem to be appropriate for an individual given his personal needs and desires, this cannot determine the truthfulness of that particular religious system. For example, hundreds of people claimed to have been positively transformed existentially by the teachings of cult leader Jim Jones only to have later been led to their death in a massive suicide. As Norman Geisler points out, "What is true is relevant, but not everything relevant is true. A pen is relevant to an atheist writer. And a gun is relevant to a murderer. But this does not make the former true nor the latter good."17

Relativists argue that relativism is the correct view of truth to the exclusion of the absolute truth. However, this very statement is self-defeating since there would be at least one idea that we know of to be absolutely true, namely relativism. Secondly, if relativism is only a relative truth, then there is no motivating factor connected with reality to convince anyone to accept it's premise. It is simply one idea among a myriad of other ideologies with nothing to substantiate it as being true.

Introduction

Today we live in a time of epistemological confusion as the nature and knowability of truth is under attack from the academics. The philosophy of relativism and pluralism are rapidly gaining acceptance throughout our educational system as well as our popular culture. Those who cling to the idea of absolute truth are often labeled as intolerant, bigoted and narrow-minded. Christianity, which holds an objective and exclusivistic world view, is often considered to be out-of-step with society and too narrow to be relevant in today's culture. This new world view known as "postmodernism" is the reaction from the disillusionment of modernism, the humanist philosophy of the European Enlightenment. Postmodernism sprang forth from the emptiness of modernism's world view philosophy of "reason alone". Modernism was built upon the ideology that man is the ultimate foundation and it rejects any need of God or divine revelation. This philosophy is the focus on rational reason, scientific method, and empirical evidence to the exclusion of the supernatural. Friedrich Nietzsche, the seventeenth century atheist existential philosopher foresaw the logical outcome of modernism. "In particular, he anticipated many of the central tenants of postmodernism: an aesthetic attitude toward the world that sees it as a text; the denial of facts; the denial of essences; the celebration of plurality of interpretations and of the fragmented self; as well as the downgrading of reason and the politicization of discourse."1 As Nietzsche proclaimed the death of God, he also undermined the foundation for understanding objective truth and for making moral judgments. Humanism, materialism, and technological advances left a spiritual void as they failed to answer the deeper questions of morality, human values and truth. In the attempt to fill in this spiritual vacuum, people are turning to a smorgasbord of spiritual ideas such as pantheism, eastern mysticism, native American Spirituality, and the occult. Unfortunately, all rules of logic and sound reason are being discarded in this quest for relative truth and spirituality. It is my purpose in this essay to examine the subject of truth and to examine it in light of the world view of postmodernism. It is my belief that the correspondence view of truth is the correct view and I will attempt to demonstrate that the subjective postmodern world view is faulty and is inconsistent with it's own claims.

The Correspondence View

There are basically two views of the nature of truth; the correspondence view and the coherence view. Saint Thomas Aquinas, the eleventh century theologian and philosopher believed in the correspondence view of truth. Francis Selman writes "St. Thomas defines truth as the correspondence (adequatio) of the mind with the thing (res, from which we get our word 'reality'). Truth is a correspondent since Thomas decides that truth is first of all in that in which it's opposite, falsehood is found."2 This view is objective and foundational since it shows us that reality is the backdrop upon which we must measure all statements or ideas to determine whether they are true or false. Reality is the way that things really are. And a thought or a statement is only found to be true when it corresponds to objective reality. Without this foundation, there is no basis by which a person can judge anything to be true or false. Given that correspondence to reality is the basis for determining truth, then it is essential that we are able to know reality. We have knowledge of reality by "first principles", which is the starting point for all knowledge. Herman Reith writes: "A principle is broader than a cause, for principle is a kind of genus under which causes are species"3 Therefore, a first principle is the beginning point upon which all conclusions can be based regarding a particular area of knowledge. A first principle is also self-evident in that it does not need to be substantiated by another source to be demonstrated to be true. Reith continues, "A first principle must be so evident that no one can be deceived regarding it; it must be absolute and independent of other principles; it must be known immediately..."4 Thomas Aquinas acknowledged that a fundamental principle of knowing truth is that of existence. "Truth and being are interchangeable, he says, because things are only knowable as they exist."5. Therefore, if something exists, then it is an indisputable fact that it does exist. If one were to deny his existence, then that would only affirm his existence since one would first have to exist in order to make a statement of denial. For one cannot even have a thought unless he first existed to have it. Dr. Norman Geisler states "For a realist, being is the basis of knowing. The rationalist Rene Decartes said, 'I think therefore I am'. But for the realist such as Thomas Aquinas, 'I am, therefore, I think'. For one cannot think unless he existed. Existence is fundamental to everything. Everything is (or, has) being."6. In addition, our thoughts are true only as they correspond to what actually exists. It is upon "first principles" that the laws of logic and reason can be applied in order to determine if something is true.

In addition to the principle of existence, I would like to summarize three principles of logic that are crucial for drawing a proper conclusion from a given premise. First, is the "Principle of Identity" which states that something must precisely correspond to itself. Herman Reith explains, "The principle of identity states that what is, is, and cannot not be 7. A being is always what it is. That is, B is always B. Second, the "principle of non contradiction" states that being and non being are opposites, and therefore they cannot both be simultaneously true. For instance, it cannot be true that God exists and that God does not exist at the same time. One of these propositions is true while the other is false given that they are mutually exclusive concepts. Thirdly, the "principle of excluded middle" states that there is no middle ground position between two opposites in which truth can be found. Since being and non being are opposites, then truth is found in either being or in nonbeing. Therefore, if a statement such as "God exists" is actually true, then it is absolutely true with no opposite or middle ground position in which one can retreat. With this being the case, it is no wonder why those who hold to the correspondence view of the nature of truth often find themselves in great opposition from the postmodern thinkers. I would now like to examine some postmodern views of truth.