Email To A Thinking Christian Friend Considering Postmodernism

A deep-thinking Christian friend of yours recently wrote an email to you seriously considering the Postmodernism. The email expressed that Foundationalism (a cumulative-case type reasoning) is seriously flawed, therefore we cannot be absolutely sure about the unique claims of Christianity nor can one get absolute truth from the Bible. Further, this friend assumes a radical dichotomy between faith and reason.

How would you respond?

Here's how I responded to one well aware of my slight snarkiness ;)

 Friend,

Thank you for your honesty and for your openness in coming to me about this. Since this is the first I’ve heard of it from you, I will be making some assumptions as to your definitions, where you may have gotten your information, how you know that information to be true, etc. Please correct me if I am wrong.

If I understand correctly, your issues are the considering of Postmodernism (which can be anything you want it to be), the flaws of foundationalism --what foundation (s) did you build upon logically to come to that conclusion, I wonder :), absolute surety to Christianity's unique claims as well as ability to get absolute truth from the Bible --which could be an issue of absolute truth in general, or that Christianity and the Bible are “different” than other books, holy or not, and the apparent dichotomy between faith and reason --I wonder if you just independently believe this for no reason, or rather that either your reason informed your belief, or your belief guided your reason, either of which shows them working together already--just sayin’.

But, since you probably want more philosophical answers, I’ll do what I can. But I’ll go at it from the last issues first.

Faith and Reason

As far as faith and reason, there are many who have struggled with this over the centuries, so you are not alone. One bonus of this is that there is ample food for ought to work through for help. Feel free to check into it yourself, but here are some basic I’ve come across. There seem to be three dominant views on this:

Fideism, meaning “faith” or “faiths” believes that faith does not rely on objective arguments1 and that to evaluate faith by any external factor like logic, evidence, etc. is a terrible mistake and is worshiping logic, evidence, etc. rather than God.2 As far as they are concerned, looking to such outside cohesion is a lack of faith. They believe there is reasonableness for belief, but that faith is faith, and one should not pursue it further.

Another method is “strong rationalism”. Which basically says, “Don’t believe anything until you know everything.” Or, “Better go without belief forever than to believe a lie.”3 Assuming that one can know everything necessary for belief and yet no defining “necessary” or “sufficient”, which would be difficult since it is “person-relative”.4

The third is “soft (or critical) rationalism”. This is somewhat a middle road from the two. It considers experience like fideism does, considers evidence, like strong rationalism, but considers belief as a “whole” not dissected, but based upon evidence that stacks up. It builds a cumulative case and believes in the most probable or reasonable conclusion at the time.

Agreeing it is wrong to “nourish belief by suppressing doubts and avoiding investigation”,5 critical rationalism encourages the utmost use of rational capacities. It does not “leap” and ignore further evidence as does Fideism6 but, as I said, builds a cumulative case,7 realizing faith may go beyond the objectively knowable.8 Understanding this Aquinas separated truths into those we can grasp and those we cannot, Scripture itself attesting to both.9 Strengths of this method include engaging doubts with both reasons and arguments, and resisting overconfidence and overoptimism about current conclusions.10

Personally, I side with this last view, but I would add more tenacity to belief until overwhelming evidence stood to the contrary. There are truths that exceed reason. For example, how is it that the single cell of a baby somehow turns in to cells that become bone, and others in to skin, and others muscle, etc. Which develops first, why? This is beyond my reasoning capabilities, but it is true that it happens. How is it that the numerous chemical reactions the body goes through just to produced a scab so we don’t bleed to death all know when to begin, and to stop, and to begin the next one? It’s beyond me. I mean, just one reaction not happening could result in death from a simple scrape. The glory of truth beyond reason it that it curbs presumption on our part that we can actually know everything.11 And, for the Christian, faith is the linchpin. Without faith it is impossible to please God, it is the evidence of thing NOT seen12. One cannot, by definition, have faith in what is already known beyond a doubt or seen already. It is through faith that we are being saved by God’s grace13. We are protected by God through faith for a salvation to be revealed in the last time14. No faith, no salvation. There are things I don’t understand, but that doesn’t bother me so much anymore. And, to be honest, those things pale by comparison with the evidence for Christian faith being the only rational choice...but more on that later.

Faith and Reason

Addressing your perspective of a dichotomy between faith and reason, faith and reason are different, but actually work together. No honest faith or doubt is based on nothing. Take for instance your consideration of Postmodernism. Either you are considering putting your faith in the paradigm due to your reasoning, or are reasoning that it is a genuine possibility because of a certain faith in it. Postmodernism itself would probably scorn what grounds you have for considering it since it rejects revelation, inductive thought, and scientific investigation.15 Of course I assume that either revelation, thought, or evidence has led to your consideration. Or, hopefully not, but maybe it’s some sin you don’t want to let go of. I’m “going there” because Ryan Dobson is convinced this is the real reason people go for relativism.16 Mohler also points out that Postmodernists in many cases represent an actual reversal of Biblical morality with sexuality at the center. I think he is right when he states that, “Modernism and postmodernism can be understood as lengthy and elaborate rationalizations for sexual misbehavior.”17

The Bottom Line

The bottom line is one cannot be a Christian without faith. But, it is not a faith in itself. As Thomas F. Torrance said, “Faith becomes not the [foundation of Christianity]. Rather, faith is the expression of trust based upon that ground, that ground being Christ as the self-revelation of God in space and time.”18 As I said before, faith and reason work together.

With that in mind here are some reasons for faith in the accuracy of the Bible, thus what it says about God, us, sin, hope, salvation, judgment, etc. I offer just a few --with me a few is relative, as you know :). It is unique in its texts, its specific prophecies, and scientific inclusions (medical, archeological, geological, etc.).

The Bible

The texts are unique in continuity, circulation, translation, survival, and withstanding attack. It was written over about 1,500 years by more than 40 people from kings to slaves, business owners to prisoners, statesman to fisherman, shepherds to historians, and they all agree on every ultimate issue of life. Today we would be hard-pressed to find even three people to agree on one ultimate issue. The Bible is the most circulated text in the world of all ages and translated into over 1,400 languages. No other texts come close, why? There has been no other text that has been attacked or analyzed with such scrutiny. But, lo it stands. Historically, it has the most evidence to be trusted. For example, Julius Caesar has no known originals. We have are 10 copies, and they are from over 1,000 years after he died. We only have 600 copies of Homer’s The Iliad, and they’re 1,300 years after the originals were written. But, the Bible has over 24,000 manuscripts; some within 35 years of the writer’s death.19 You could also corroborate New Testament writings with others such as Flavius Josephus, The Babylonian Talmud, Pliny the Younger’s letter to Emperor Trajan, Tacitus, and more.20

The Bible stands alone in its prophecies too, not just Messianic ones. I know you know several Messianic prophecies, but do you remember the foretelling of great empires being overthrown like Greece and Rome21, Tyre and Sidon22? How about Cyrus being named specifically as releasing Israel from captivity about 700 years before he was born23? And, there was Jesus’ prophesy specifically telling how Jerusalem would fall, and it did in AD 70.

Many scientific discoveries were in the Bible the whole time: the water cycle, the sun’s orbit, the earth being round and hanging on nothing, bleeding people actually weakening their life not help, running water being more sanitary than still water, the currents through the oceans, mountains being at the bottom of the sea, things visible being made from things we cannot see, etc. And, Dr. Nelson Glueck said that not one archeological finding has ever contradicted the Bible.24

All of this so far to say that though God’s word is trustworthy, yes, there will always be things we don’t understand. Praise God! I wouldn't want a God not bigger than my puny understanding and imagination. Besides, the evidence is quite compelling.

Postmodernism

“Christian” postmodernists may reject foundationalism due to their defining it in terms of a quest for epistemic certainty, and since there’s no certainty to be found --assumption on their part-- the quest is an impossible one --which is a foundational argument against foundationalism ;). Postmodernism is full of such self-contradictory ideas. Also taken into account is that postmoderns think all foundationalism is the classic version close in flavor to strong rationalism. Classic foundationalism believes certainty is a prerequisite to knowledge. But, there are many variations of foundationalism out there.25 For instance the evidence I gave about the Bible would not fall under classic foundationalism. I have no absolute truth, merely multiple agreeing witnesses of various kinds that all line up and make sense.

Interestingly enough, the flaws postmoderns address in foundationalism, are made upon a foundation framework beginning with assumptions, adding evidence either logically, scientifically, or revelatory --all of which they say they reject-- unto a logically coherent conclusion. Or even if they embrace coherentism, one must still investigate validity of its coherence which leads to the factors they supposedly reject. Even your own question is a foundational addressing of a critical rationalistic persuasion. You are considering a course of action based upon certain evidences assumed to be true or apparent lack of them, and considering that evidence you are choosing to believe such and such. The bummer is that you are considering embracing that which holds core beliefs in contradiction to the core of your thinking.

You claim foundationalism is flawed, therefore you can’t be absolutely sure of Christianity and the Bible. However, even if foundationalism is flawed --which I hopefully have shown it’s not; even you seem to be using it in your e-mail-- the truths of Christ are not built upon foundationalism, anymore than your existence in history being researched 2,000 years from now are based on foundationalism. Your existence is based upon an absolute reality in space and time regardless of whatever evidence is found. The truths of Jesus and the Bible are the same even though there IS a multitude of evidence and outside witnesses to its veracity. Even today we can look inside the Bible and see its truth played out all around us: the rise in meteorological events, increases in homosexuality, rebellion of youth against the older, vegetarianism, wars, racial hatred, people claiming it has always been so, etc. These are all truths in the meta-narrative of the text that claims, and gives us, authority over our morality and offers a cure for our ultimate issues. Postmodernism rejects all the bolded terms in stark contrast to the Bible.

Let me just compare some key points of Christianity and Postmodernism 26:

Notice Postmodernism is counter to Scripture and exalt humans as the determiner of truth, authority, morality, and all else. There is no room for “evil” in that view because there are no standards for such language. Contrarily there can be no “good” either. And, it offers no answer to our sin problem. you have admitted being a liar, a thief, an adulterer, murder, blasphemer, etc. in God’s sight; and your conscience bore witness to that. So, what does Postmodernism offer? Therapy; a way to attempt to ease your guilt for your violating what God has written on every heart. God, on the other hand, offers the substitutionary death of Jesus to make the legal transaction of “the fine” being paid for you possible. And, having entered into the relationship by faith, one now walks with Him and begins to take on His nature and character having been born again into a new family and community who walks with you.

There is much more to be said --especially by me, I know :). But I hope you consider these things while feeling free to bring clarification, other questions or concerns, or anything else to me. This also sounds like a great time to, as the Apostle Paul exhorted, “Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you--unless indeed you fail the test? But I trust that you will realize that we ourselves do not fail the test.27 So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.28

In your corner,

_________________________
1 StevenTsoukalas, “”Faith and Reason”, lecture 3 Philosophy of Christian Religion, WBS, Spring 2009.
2 Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, David Basinger, Reason and Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion (New York: Oxford), 58.
3 William James, in Readings, 112.
4 George Mavrodes in Michael Peterson, Reason and Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 63.
5 William Clifford, Readings., 107.
6 Michael Peterson, Reason, 65.
7 Ibid., 62.
8 Readings, 90.
9 Readings, 92.
10 Reason 62.
11 Thomas Aquinas in Michael Peterson, Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings, New York:Oxford University Press, 2007), 94.
12 Hebrews 11:1-6.
13 Ephesians 2:8
14 1 Peter 1:4-5
15 R. Albert Mohler, “What is Truth? Truth and Contemporary Culture.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society; Mar 2005; 48, 1; ProQuest Religion, 66.
16 Ryan Dobson, Be Intolerant: Because Some Things are Just Stupid. (Sisters:Multnomah, 2003), 55.
17 Mohler, 69.
18 Thomas F. Torrance in Steven Tsoukalas, “Toward a Foundational Epistemology”, lecture 1 Philosophy of Christian Religion, WBS, Spring 2009.
19 Jordan and Justin Drake, from Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort The School of Biblical Evangelism. (Orlando:Bridge-Logos, 2004),346-347.
20 Richard M. Fales in Biblical Evangelism, 353-354.
21 Daniel 2:39-40
22 Isaiah 23
23 Is 45:1 and Ezra
24 Nelson Glueck, Biblical Evangelism, 361.
25 J. P. Moreland, “Truth Contemporary Philosophy and the Modern turn.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society; Mar 2005; 48, 1; ProQuest Religion, 83.
26 Mohler, 66-69.
27 2 Corinthians 13:5-6
28 Philippians 2:12-13