I wish that it were so. The great paradox of postmoderns is that they are just as certain about particular unexamined assumptions as the modernists they reject. The two groups differ on which unexamined assumptions they accept.

Postmoderns are deeply involved in "social change," in a totally uncritical way. If it calls itself "social change," or "progress," or "compassionate," they leave all their doubt and questioning behind.

There is nothing new in postmodernism. It has very little to do with thinking and a great deal to do with "feeling about the world."

Modernism became hyper-rational, emotionally barren. Postmodernism, by its name and nature a reactionary philosophy, is increasingly becoming hyper-emotional, and rationally barren.

Our Great Grandparents were brought together during the solidifying days of what came to be called the modern age. Shaped by deism’s absent god, rejection of the supernatural, profound humanistic confidence buttressed by an endemic optimism, it foresaw an unlimited human development as the wave of the future. It was believed that scientific methods would in time meet every human need, leading to a wonder world. And it could stand free from all references to God.

Darwin’s explanation of origins rested on the doctrine of inevitable progress, a theory that he thought proved sound in the forward march of science & technology. Underlying all of this is the premise that nature is but an inert object to be manipulated by human ingenuity through objective examination and testing. May I point out to you that today, that view has been all but abandoned. Now we have New Age understanding of nature in which mother nature is being invested with some sort of deity. That’s far from an inert object, isn’t it?

The conquest of disease became a laboratory process free of the human body, a process of identifying the offending organism and fashioning an antidote. In time all illness would be subdued and even death itself would be challenged.

Late nineteenth-century Christians had suffered similar rejection with their message of a pre-millennial Advent that they proclaimed to a world already certain that it was on its way to a glorious earthly kingdom. But in recent times, disillusionment has overrun modernism. Today it opens the gates to post-modernist values.

What is Postmodernism?

Still intensely humanistic, today’s mindset follows its forerunning prophets: John Dewey, Neitche Freud, and Skinner, among others. Their perspectives now dominate in education, philosophy, anthropology, government, human relations, entertainment, and a myriad other of the decision-making activities where the macro directions of society are set.

Are you sensitive my friends, to the power of the television now, in swaying the opinion of the public? It’s absolutely terrifying. And who is in charge of the television cameras, and what will be shown, and under what circumstances it will be shown, becomes actually the controlling factor in modern thought in the United States.

Well, the macro directions of society are set in such orders. So pervasive is its influence, that every person in this forum has been substantially affected. And what are the driving concepts of postmodern thinking? To cite only a few, I’m sensitive that quite a number of you are aware of these: Every person is now crafting for himself the true reality in which he or she lives. It does not come from outside, it is not something learned from outside, but the tools already reside within the person to work upon what factual material may be acquired. This means that there are no absolute, universal truths that apply to everyone. For reality is an individualized creation (several people who post on here believe this way).

Since reality for each person is an internal construct (different in every person because no two are the same), the idea of one sovereign Creator who defines right and wrong becomes untenable. On this basis we must be prepared to accept all other ideas and behaviors as equally correct.

Another religion may be the product of a culture, and culture may not be criticized. It must be accepted as valid for the person holding it. The idea of trying to win a person from one faith to another is immoral (in postmodern thinking). All religions are of equal merit and legitimacy, so any attempt to replace one with another is oppression! On these grounds the Christian missionaries who went out from Europe or America, were in fact, oppressors, imposing a foreign religion on innocent victims (this ideology runs rampant in the majority of our universities). Parents, take note. Do you want your children’s worldview manipulated by the faithless cynicism of our educational system?

All systematized organizations must be regarded as suspect, in fact, as oppressors. Each person is therefore essentially his or her own lone self, and no activity has a right to intrude upon that person’s private rights. The idea of melding into a family of God becomes a reject. The impact of such thinking increasingly invades our world today. Postmodernism’s influence on society has led the editors of our magazines to modify both the appearance and the content in an effort to capture the imagination of today’s public. Some would call this progress. Others would see it as a moral surrender akin to the last breaths of Rome. You have seen these differing views expressed in the “letters” section of the Review, for instance.

Increasing numbers of people think of themselves as Christians by heritage or tradition rather than by conviction. Hence they feel free to shop cafeteria style among the beliefs & practices of the church, assembling for them a suitable selection. True to postmodernist values they find that their demand to be regarded as equivalent as anyone else to be reinforced in the currents of the wider society.

The result is development of a pluralistic value system. I note this not with any attempt to condemn, but to observe what has become now fully apparent. Such break-away from community values of our world minimizes the virtue of unity, extolling in its place "diversity." Do you hear all of the catch-terms? Or, perhaps an amalgam of the two: unity & diversity.

Concurrent with the above we are witnessing a remarkable migration of thought among us. From objective to subjective premise. This exactly parallels the postmodern concept of individualized auto-developed reality.

In summary, there is hope. There is hope for the European millionare who wakes up empty amidst his vast posessions. There is hope for the alcoholic college student, who looks for something better in each dying drink. There is Hope in the Lord Jesus Christ alone.


g

The point is that everyone is uncertain. The proof is the very lack of proof. Uncertain is the default position when there is a decided lack of proof. What you are doing is calling bald a hair color.



Well, that is a generalization and goes beyond what it means to be postmodern. Postmodern is not a set of doctrines. It simply recognizes that there are vast unknowns. The value is an honesty to admit that we don't know for certain. This doesn't reject all rationality or empirical observations. It is simply an openness to change that isn't hindered by mythical laws and gods. A reliance on laws and gods has proven over and over to be just as flawed as those methods it is critical of.



Again, this is an exaggeration and a generalization. All philosophies are triggered by the lack of success of preceding ideas. Postmodernism simply is attempting to admit that as part of the process. Postmodern thought is not some static list of ideas. It is an attempt to make it easier to transition to new ideas.

No, it is an admission that we ALL don't know. It means that no one is completely correct. It is an admission of our humanity, not an elevation of humanity.

It is an issue of freedom to explore our inner self. It is a recognition that one person cannot dictate to another person how they should think, feel, or believe. It allows for an absolute truth, if it is out there, to express itself to each individual.

What you have done is taken the unknown and turned to fear. At least the humanist turns to hope.



It is because all systematized organizations eventually intrude on the individual. What you call melding into the family of God has proven over and over again to be a fear and violence based methodology. Even in this post your main appeal is to fear.

If being in the family of god was so great you wouldn't have to convince people to join it. It is not Rome that is falling, it is Christianity. Christianity came out of Rome and its about time that we figured out how to be with each other without laws and punishment.

Today, there is great interest in personal responsibility, something that Christianity has failed to teach. Personal responsibility has to come from within, not from without. And it seems to me that we need to learn more about our inner selves if we are to understand how to do that.

Christianity teaches that we can't be responsible because we are helpless sinners with no good in us. It teaches people to be victims of an imaginary Satan. And if Christianity does anything good it does it for the most immature reasons.

When Christianity can grow up, maybe then it will gain some respect, but with over 2000 years to get it, it seems to keep going backwards to Iron age thinking.

Did you write that long post above, olger? Kudos if you did, but it doesn't sound like your usual style, and if it's a quote from somewhere it would be good practice to indicate that...

The claim that postmodernism owes something to both Dewey and Skinner is odd, since I would argue that the two had essentially opposite approaches on almost every issue.

Enjoyed your responses, but I do have a question about one of your summations.



Are you saying this is what Christianity teaches or what the Bible teaches, or what Christ taught?

Honesty is fidelity to some objective reality, and objective reality is something postmodernism rejects. Thus the paradox of postmodernity.

The objective reality is that we don't know. Unless you have proof that you know, then you are simply making it up in your own mind. And that is the paradox of certainty.

This is what many Christians believe and teach others to believe.

I won't comment on whether or not the Bible or Jesus taught these things since no one seems to be able to agree an what either teaches, even within Christianity itself.

I guess since there is disagreement, it shows that there is nothing to it, because in things that are certain, such as the law and science, we all know that people are just about unanimous, right?

Motives have nothing to do with how people see things, and besides, everyone is motivated about the same when it comes to the Bible. Also, everyone wants to know truth no matter what the consequences and therefore they are willing to sacrifice anything they need to in order to do what they know is right.

Christians are pretty much the only ones on earth who believe illusions and want people to accept things that are untrue and irrational.

All of the above are common knowledge and beyond rational dispute, right?