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