The Truth about Truth Part 3: Postmodernism
- Patrick Sullivan
- Jul 10, 2023
- 4 min read
Does truth exist? If it does, can it be known? Is all this drawn-out philosophizing on the nature of truth out of touch with the modern way of thinking? These are questions that need to be answered, specifically for the Christian, to help us understand different worldviews as well as reality itself. The case against the correspondence view of truth as I explained in my previous post is an ancient one but has resurfaced in the past few centuries. Continuing in our series on the nature of truth by examining different truth theories, we now come to the postmodern theory. In this post I will offer what the postmodernism view of truth is, four general criticisms to this view, and the implications of this view.
Postmodernism Summarized
I believe the postmodern theory of truth, also known as relativism, is the current prevailing Western philosophy that underlies all the left wing, including LGBTQIA+, way of thinking that are penetrating our schools and our churches. So, if we, as Christians, want to stand firm in our convictions of what God’s Word teaches us then we need to engage with the secular thought that is reigning in our day. To do so, we must have an accurate understanding of what postmodernism is and know how dismantle it.
In a nutshell postmodernism holds that truth is not determined by its connection to objective reality but by various social constructions for different purposes. Simply put, various cultures have their own “language games,” which describe reality very differently.[i] Instead of affirming skepticism (there is an objective reality, but we cannot know it), postmodernists typically affirm that there is no knowable objective reality apart from different culture’s languages and concepts. In short, various cultures determine their own truth and to say that we know the objective truth about ultimate issues is to set up a “grand narrative” that is intrinsically oppressive.
Four general criticisms
Although the claims of postmodernism come in various forms and should be evaluated individually, they all reject the correspondence view of truth and therefore are subject to several criticisms. First, “grand narratives” or “metanarratives” are not oppressive by virtue of being comprehensive truth claims (or worldviews). Everyone has a worldview, at some level, on how the world is and how it works.[ii] The differing views of these worldviews may or may not be oppressive toward those who do not hold the same worldview, but that is a question of the intellectual content (or truth claims) of the worldview in question. For instance, the Marxist worldview historically has been very oppressive, despite propaganda to the contrary. In comparison, the Christian worldview, although frequently misunderstood, is not intrinsically oppressive given its ethic of incarnation, shalom, love, and justice.
Second, in rejecting objective truth postmodernists tend to contradict themselves in that their claims claim to be applicable to reality itself, not merely to themselves. Yet this is exactly what they claim cannot be done. For example, the claim that all “grand narratives” are oppressive is itself a large-scale explanation of reality. Therefore, the claims of postmodernism are self-refuting and false.
Third, right-thinking people judge certain acts as objective evil and not as merely relative social constructions. Racism, rape, child abuse, and murderous terrorist attacks are some examples. However, if such assessments are correct, then the postmodern view is illogical, since according to their view there is no objective moral facts but only differing interpretations. Postmodernism, by definition, is incapable of making objective judgements about the moral status of those involved in such atrocities.
The final criticism concerns the postmodernists emphasis on the inability to resolve diverse truth claims. While stressing this inability, they provide no reliable criteria to test these claims against reality. Instead, the postmodernist view gives way to a kind of intellectual indifference.[iii] Truth is what you (or your culture) make it, nothing more. “Your truth is your truth, but I have my truth”. This stance hinders the fundamental concern for truth discussed in my last two posts. In essence, postmodernists have no objective basis by which to evaluate truth claims, yet they consistently make objective moral judgements. The judgements or assertions of a postmodernist, according to their own view, are nothing more than subjective preferences of value. Again, their claims are self-defeating.
Implications of Postmodernism
Although no major religion adheres to the postmodern view of truth, this way of thinking has affected how many people view religious expression, even within the church. The default position for most of the Western world is that religion is a matter of choice, taste, and preference. If spiritual truth is simply a matter of social or individual construction, then one need not be constrained by logical consistency or by adherence to tradition.[iv] There is an element to pragmatism here, but we will delve into that view in another post. The bottom line is that if postmodernism holds, then one need not worry about intellectual consistency or spiritual fidelity. However, this approach lacks intellectual integrity because it makes religious belief something to use instead of something to discover as objectively true and live by.
In summary, postmodernism often erodes religious confidence and encourages a less committed and less thought-out kind of belief. Instead of the “knowledge of God,” we speak of “beliefs,” “opinions,” or “feelings,” instead.[v] Rather than speaking of biblical faith properly understood as a way of confident knowing, we speak of the “leap of faith,” alongside of “religious preference.” In an age of relativism and religious pluralism, it is of the utmost importance that we as Christians know why we believe what we believe. Christianity is not true because we believe it, rather we believe it because it is the best explanation for reality. Instead of conforming reality to match our beliefs, we should conform our beliefs to match reality.
Commentaires