Postmodern Nihilism

Ok, you saw our "other" slogan, the one that does not appear in the banner, and perhaps you thought, "What the heck are they talking about?" Well, it turns out there is a bit of debate going on in Christian theological circles as to whether certain movements within the fold are actually Christian. Orthodox Christianity has always held that truth is an absolute, God has revealed truth to us, and therefore life has meaning, and humans (and to a lesser degree other things we find in our little universe) have ultimate value, yet some less traditional churches are beginning to question this. Ultimate value is a way of saying that a 'thing' has worth. What does this have to do with Postmodern Nihilism? (And what does it have to do with our shirts for that matter?) Here's where we'll try to help you understand.

Let's start with the easier part of Postmodern Nihilism. (As if anything in philosophy were easy to define.)

Nihilism.

Nihilism derives its name from the Latin root 'nihil,' meaning "nothing", or "that, which does not exist". Nihilism is the idea that the universe and all that is in it, including us puny humans, is without meaning and purpose, or any way to discern truth, and therefore essentially has no value. In fact Nihilism claims that all values are worthless, and therefore it assumes nothing can even be known. (The idea that nothing can be known is called agnosticism) This assumption is what makes Nihilism demonstrably false, as it clearly shows the inherent self-contradiction contained in the concept. If nothing can be known, then how do we know nothing can be known? But of course you already knew this because you read our essay on the nature of truth. (Which you can read here {Objectivity} in case you didn't, if you wish.)

Nihilism is not really a worldview in the sense that people adopt it as an overarching "lens" through which to examine themselves, others, or the universe at large. Rather it is more like the logical conclusion of pretty much all other philosophies we've run into here at Objectivitees, when drawn out to their natural end and thoughtfully considered with their implications. Something we at Objectivitees read once upon a time (and liked) is that Nihilism is more like an accusation that is tossed out in an exchange or debate between proponents of different views at an adversary and intended in a pejorative fashion. After all, if a view is nihilistic, then it really is meaningless, and has no actual defense. That's actually pretty close to what we think as well. The trouble of course, comes in trying to prove a view is nihilistic to your opponent. No one will admit in a debate that what he or she is claiming is meaningless, so using the charge even if it is accurate tends to only make the person you are trying to persuade defensive. The trick here is to engage someone in such a way as to lead him or her to the conclusion on his or her own without overtly stating their philosophy is nihilistic. When a person reaches a conclusion "on their own", their pride is not hurt. And then my friend, you will have accomplished something of value. (And this is what we want our shirts to be all about.)

What does nihilism have to do with Postmodern thought? Well, we believe that the postmodern worldview is inherently nihilistic, and we hope you do too. (Or soon will.) Even more, we hope you will learn to enjoy confronting a postmodern culture, (in a loving 1st Peter 3:15 gentle and respectful way of course) and can use the concepts expressed on our shirts to break the ice and start conversations. Before we begin the explanation of just what postmodern means, we'd like to note that we think that there are some good points about postmodern thought, but that they are overcome by flaws that are significant, and pose a real danger to Christians who are beginning to adopt the ideology (because of it's good points) which could completely destroy their witness (and possibly their own walk) if left unchecked. Of course for the secular postmodern, this is not a concern.

Modernism

To begin to understand postmodernism we need to understand a little bit about the philosophy or worldview that preceded it in western thought (not that it has disappeared completely) and from which it draws it's name, Modernism.

Philosophical Modernism can find its roots roughly at the beginning of the rise of the "age of reason", or the modern scientific age also known as the age of 'enlightenment'. Essentially, as mankind's ability to understand his environment improved with the application of the scientific method, (observation and repeatable experimentation) man also became pretty darn proud of himself. The age of enlightenment (Roughly the 1700's) for our purposes here (Theological philosophy) has at it's core the idea that all authority for proclaiming what was true and what was not, could determined by reason. And because the scientific method was predicated upon reason, the two went together pretty well. Top all this off with the incredible new comforts science brought to life for the average person and you have a pretty darn convincing argument that all authority could then be vested in science to determine truth as well. This was not a problem for Christian thought at first, because it was assumed that science would proceed to verify all the truths revealed to Christian theology by God and the Bible. After all, the vast majority of men making the most significant scientific discoveries were dedicated and devout Christians. Everyone just thought that science would bring us new truths that had not been "revealed" by God, and there would never be a controversy. Science would simply "Add" to our knowledge of reality. This however, is not what happened.

Eventually, men came along who interpreted the same set of scientific data in different ways. Some interpretations were theologically sound, and others had conclusions whose implications contradicted previously accepted truth. Slowly a schism developed. Eventually the western world began to believe that science alone was the ultimate arbiter, expositor, and revelator of truth, and where there were conflicts with the previous 1700 years of revealed Christian truth, science obtained the aura of having the preeminent and ultimately only "correct" view of what reality not only was, but could be.

This is essentially what came to be known as philosophical "Modernism". Science became king, and told us what to believe. "What to believe" includes "Evolution" or "Philosophical Naturalism" as we prefer to call it. Philosophical Naturalism is simply the idea that there is no supernatural realm, and all 'observable phenomena' (the stuff science studies) can be explained by "natural" means. Of course, this is by implication a logical contradiction to any form of Theism, and if you've read our Objectivity essay then you know that only one "truth" from a propositional set of opposed "truths" can possibly be actually true. A strict form of empiricism can be traced to have its beginnings in the assumption of Philosophical Naturalism, which by the 20th century became the predominant Worldview in western societies. As we are sure you are aware, this contradiction or polar opposition between Theism and Philosophical Naturalism has raged in the forums of higher education, public opinion, and the popular media, often in the form of a debate, pretty much ever since Darwin proposed the first (and only) feasible mechanism for the explanation of evolutionary ideas ensconced by the presuppositions of Philosophical naturalism. And if you have been even only semi-conscious for the majority of your life, then you have seen how Theism has been losing ground in the court of "Public Opinion" ever since. After all science has "proved" God didn't do it, it was just Evolution and blind random chance acting on inert matter that resulted in all this complex life, right?

Well, some people still don't think so, and that is what brings us to our point.

Postmodernism

Postmodernism, in the simplest terms we can think of is pretty much a knee jerk reaction to the core concept of the Modern worldview. Modernism, being rooted in Reason, gave us the Scientific Method and Empiricism, which led us to so greatly improve our physical condition that it convinced many that the only absolute truth there is, is to be found only in those things that Science can explain to us. This of course excludes any supernatural explanations, as science and reason can only explore the physical world.

Postmodernism essentially says, "Wait a minute, Science is great, and I can learn much from it, but my experiences are valid too, and they also can teach me much about reality. What if my personal experiences seem to contradict what science (or the Modern worldview) tell me is true?" Postmodernism then concludes… " I should be able to use my experience of 'reality' as a valid form of evidence combined with science to tell me what is true."

In other words, Postmodernism seeks to account for the experiences of individuals as valid, even when they don't seem to be logical in a scientific or 'Empirical' sense. Postmodernism doesn't seek to reject Science outright, it only seeks to validate what appears to the individual as real on the basis of their experience what cannot necessarily be ascertained or measured by the physical limits of Empiricism.

Essentially, it re-opens the door to philosophical truths that Philosophical naturalism had slammed shut on the basis of its inability to investigate and confirm them by utilizing the Scientific Method. If Science can't experiment on a thing, it cannot comment on whether or not that thing is True, nonetheless it most often takes the position that it is not true. Pretty much all of Philosophy in general would fall into this category. Postmodernism wants to allow philosophical and experiential truth back into the argument.

"What's wrong with that?"

At first blush, this would seem to be great for Theists, as most religions fall into the "Philosophical" category of knowledge, and this would allow an opportunity for them to be perceived in a much less biased way in the "opinion wars" if you will. But Postmodernism is a double-edged sword, and this is what we here at Objectivitees hope to point out.

Here's the rub.

The problem comes when a well-meaning Christian (or even a secular person) confronts two opposed Philosophical 'Truths.' How then to determine which is true? Traditionally, a Christian would utilize God's revealed Truth as a measure by which to appraise everything else. In other words, there would be a schedule of prioritization by which a person would determine what is the more reasonable of the opposed positions to take. But the Postmodern worldview, which allows a Christian to apply experience as valid and confront unbiblical scientific "Truth", also allows for the idea that Truth can be subjective as well. It allows for the possibility that maybe "what I think is true, isn't really true. After all, what happens when "I've been told all my life that homosexuality is a sin, but last month I met the most honest, friendly, caring, nice, generous, funny, and basically good homosexual on the planet?"

Cut and dried, postmodernism takes the claim for authority in determining what "Truth" is, away from either Science, or God, and places it on the individual. We can see how Postmodernism might lead one to believe that say, homosexuality might not be such a bad thing. Do you? The correct conclusion to take from our example would be that homosexuality is still a sin, but we don't have to hate the sinner. There would be nothing wrong in befriending the most honest, friendly, caring, nice, generous, funny, and basically good homosexual on the planet. Let's face it none of us are perfect. Far from it really. Us (Christians) genuinely befriending a homosexual is no different than the homosexual befriending us, as we are just as much a sinner as are they, we just engage in different sins! (Lying, cheating, stealing, or maybe just denigrating someone who practices sex different than us)

Objectivitees concludes…

If we have One billion Christians running around each assuming they can successfully be arbiters of "the Truth", then we might just end up with One billion versions of "the Truth". We think this would not be a good thing. Actually, we think this is exactly what the secular world does every day, and more and more often even Christians are falling into the same trap. If we as Christians do this, what then, would be the distinction between the secular world and us? Postmodernism while good in that it allows us to confront the absolute claim of Science to determine it's 'own' Truth, is very dangerous if we run too far with it, and assume we, not God, are the judge and jury.