I find the nature of blogging so interesting. A particular post will generate many responses. Then, inexplicably, it just stops. It’s like a train. The post itself is like the locomotive. It pulls all of the comments along. Suddenly, that ONE LAST COMMENT is too much! The whole thing grinds to a halt. Fascinating. Perhaps I’ll write a stinking book. “Blogging: A Sociological Critique”. Could be a big hit.
Anyway, my last post got some basic conversation started about modernism and its apparent nemesis, postmodern relativism. One major aspect of the dialog had to do with truth and its determination. How do we know that something is true?
Bear in mind that, in order to answer such a question, we have to agree to some definitions. First, what does it mean to “know”? Second, what do we mean by “truth”? Third, what is the role of culture in both knowing and the determination of truth? Finally, for the purposes of this blog, how do our answers to these questions relate to faith?
I want to present a couple of scenarios. First, I’ll endeavor to explain the notions of knowledge and truth in a simplistic (perhaps overly so) modernistic model. Then, I will equally simplify to the point of absurdity the postmodernistic construct ( or, lack thereof!).
Within modernism, knowledge may be defined as the accumulation of provable, repeatable information through experience, testing, or study. Again, it is important to note that this is a debated topic. Nevertheless, most Modernists would be comfortable with this summary. When one is able to point to a reliable source or the scientific method, one can have certainty. This idea of certitude is known as “truth”. It is objective. It tends to be quantifiable. It can definitely be duplicated. It is able to be stated in the form of a proposition, a statement that accepts or denies a premise. For example, one can state that two times eight equals sixteen without debate. It simply is. For all people in all times in all places. Language is used to articulate knowledge and is inherently tied to universal truth, or “reality”.
Postmodernism defines knowledge from the perspective of something called”narrative”. This word, for the purpose of the discussion, can be summarized as the stories that explain a people. For the Postmodern, every cultural manifestation, whether at the Country level or within a family unit, primarily frames and discovers knowledge within the context of their own story. “Grand narratives”, such as a country’s particular political system, are critiqued. Smaller narratives, such as faith communities or a small town’s commitment to morality, are celebrated. At the end of the day, one’s community ultimately informs one’s knowledge set. One’s language can only be understood within the confines of that community. Even the usage of particular words may have radically different meanings. One’s truth will be a reflection of the values and ideals of this inherited narrative. Propositions may apply in limited contexts. In other words, it can be said that 8 x 2=16 only if you subscribe to a narrative that affirms the existence of whole numbers in the first place. When we reject that premise (after all, what physical evidence do we have of their existence?) then we can’t hold up the conclusion as infallible. Thus, the notion of propositional truth is itself called into question.
Hopefully, the readers of this post can understand some of the implications, especially in the area of faith. When we discuss the ideas of the Bible, natural revelation, ethics, and so on our understanding of knowledge and truth are paramount. Take the idea of inspired Biblical truth. A modernist Christian will make the case that intelligent design is provable through science. It is only logical that, once we accept the science, the God who made us would want to introduce Himself. The Bible is simply the story of this introduction and relationship. It contains a lot of propositional truth that will come to bear upon your life whether you like it or not. Disbelieving truth doesn’t eradicate its truthfulness.
A postmodernist Christian will discuss this from a different vantage point. First, I can’t come to a knowledge of a Creator through evidence. If that were, by some strange possibility, possible, there is certainly no justifiable reason to assume that the Christian God is the intelligent designer. In fact, the notion of any entity overseeing the affairs of men isn’t implied at all by such a step. In order to embrace God, Christ, or the Bible, a leap of faith is necessary (here is the tip of the hat to Kierkegaard). It will never come by reason. It will only come by the whole hearted jump to a particular narrative tradition. My affirmation of a particular narrative (in my case, Christianity) is generally a result of my previous association with the narrative in question and my own particular views of its efficacy (usefulness). Once I embrace the narrative, I embrace its value sets and truth symbols. I may believe and completely affirm its tenets and claims to exclusivity. So, in effect, when I say that the Bible is completely true, I completely mean it. For me, this is the case. However, I am not able to say that it is true for everybody…only that it should be. Until I am a trained initiate, I can’t even understand the seeming code of the narrative I am becoming a part of.
Here is another silly example that may help clarify. I might make the statement: It is completely true that if I exceed 80 MPH on an interstate highway, and I pass a State police officer while doing so, I will likely be pulled over. This would be affirmed in Michigan, Ohio, and Illinois. However, if I was driving in Montana between 1995 and 1998 my “truth” wouldn’t apply. Most State police officers used a 100 MPH high end to determine that someone was driving in a manner that wasn’t “reasonable and proper”…their defined speed limit in the State. In this case, truth is determined by narrative. Such statements exist all around us and are passed off as “true”.
Test the definitions by applying them to propositional statements. Tell me what you think.
