After writing the last two Chicken or the Egg posts (here and here) I realized that some of you may have some questions for me lurking in your minds. One in particular came to my mind. I could imagine being asked whether or not I believed in absolutes.
This is a very big question for a Christian. Many postmoderns have done away with absolutes and have chastised anyone who claims their existence. A Christian consequently is set on the defensive because they repeatedly make claims to absolutes.
If some one were to ask me, “Do you believe in absolutes?” I would have to answer both yes and no. There are two distinctions that need to be made to clarify this question (bear with me—this is helpful I think). The two distinctions are epistemological and ontological. Epistemology deals with the study of knowing (how we know things) while Ontology deals with the study of existence or being.
Consequently, when someone asks whether or not there are absolutes they could be asking one of two questions. They could be asking the epistemological question: “Do you believe that absolutes are knowable in an absolute sense?” They could otherwise be asking the ontological question: “Do you believe that absolutes exist?” It is important not to mix these questions up and always good to clarify what someone is asking.
The Modern era (see previous Chicken or the Egg posts) believed that absolutes both existed and were wholly knowable. However, they could never prove that they actually existed because their empirical knowledge proved to be subjective. This has led some postmoderns to conclude that absolutes must not exist at all. Long story short, these postmodern thinkers who claim that absolutes must not exist at all are probably not as postmodern as they think that they are. They are still using failed Modern methods of proof for claims to knowledge.
Most postmodern thinkers do not have a problem with whether or not absolutes actually exist. What they have a problem with is those who claim absolute knowledge. If the Modern era experiment showed us anything about knowledge it was that we all have limited perspectives from which we view the world—to claim an absolute objectivity is absurd. God says as much to Job and his friends—what human can comprehend God? (See story here).
So my answer to the question of whether or not I believe in absolutes is two fold. Yes, I believe in the existence of absolutes—I believe in the Christian God and Jesus and the stories unfolded in the Bible. No, I do not believe that I have absolute objective knowledge about anything. I would, however, claim that I have knowledge of Jesus and God and the Bible, but I just believe that my knowledge is warranted (it makes sense, it is cohesive, coherent and comprehendible)—not wholly objective or absolute.
Does this open the door for the Christian’s latest and greatest fear—relativity? Maybe. However, even in the postmodern world one cannot just pull a belief or claim to knowledge out of nowhere and expect to have a hearing of those who take them seriously. We still attempt to make sense of the world and to gather knowledge--we do this to a great degree--even knowledge of God. We just do so with a much greater sense of humility.
a very important distinction. i have, over the last 3ish years, been finally whittling down what i am epistemologically confident about to close to a bare minimum, and sometimes, on bad days, to nearly nothing. however, over the course of this change, i have not for a moment lacked assurance that there are ontological truths that depend not at all on my (or anyone's) knowing them...
ReplyDeleteYes, renee. You got my flow.
ReplyDeleteI should clarify that I do believe we can have knowledge--very important knowledge that I hold with confidence--about absolute things. I just conceed that my knowledge is very subjective and incomplete. My perspective about actual reality is not universal or absolute...but it makes very good sense (so I think).
hmm... where do you think your confidence about your knowledge comes from? i relate to this feeling--and also to your ability to feel satisfied even with understandings that are subjective and limited--but many other postmodern people do not, and they find it difficult to have confidence about anything, even their own experiences.
ReplyDeleteThat is a good question. I hadn't thought of it before. Here are some thoughts...
ReplyDeleteIf postmoderns hold to Modern era proofs of knowledge in order to hold knowledge with confidence then they will always be skeptics. Modern era philosophers couldn't even prove their own existence.
There are many new systems of knowledge that demonstrate to be much more benificial for knowers. One of these is from work done by Alvin Plantinga on warranted belief.
However, on a personal note...like many postmoderns I have little problem being mystical. Part of my mysticism comes from reading about the history of Israel and Jesus. I believe that God wants me to know him (to use a biblical pronoun). Consequently I have a fundamental element in my worldview that tells me that I should be able to make sense of this world I live in.
This does not mean that I think I can know everything. I hold my knowledge tenuously with an expectation to learn much more. However, I am content to have the knowledge that I do have knowing that it reveals much to me of God.
I also take comfort from Psalms 103:13-14: Just as a father has compassion on his children, so the Lord has compassion on those who fear him. For he himself knows our frame; he is mindful that we are but dust.
However, this being said, I think that much of the problem with postmodern uncertainty has little to do with knowledge. It has to do with an inability to trust. We are never going to have this sort of full-proof knowledge. Consequently we must learn to trust in what knowledge we do have. I think our issues are more relational then they are cognitive.
Thoughts?
i think you are right--many postmoderns have yet to leave some modernist ways of thinking behind. what a frustrating place to get stuck. (i'll have to check out plantinga's work--seems substantial.)
ReplyDeletehere's something related that i recently read in a newsletter called "hungry souls":
Posing this question [“Did this really happen or is this a wonderful story you are creating?”] is also the role of the Holy Spirit regarding our own personal stories: “Is it really true?” There are lies that we know we are telling; they are easily identified, confessed and corrected. Then there are lies we tell that we do not know we are telling. The interior journey has everything to do with coming to terms with what is true. What is the reality that was? What is the reality that is now? What is the reality that lies ahead?
For determining truth—(particularly for the lies we tell that we don’t know we are telling)—we must implore the help of, then trust ourselves to, the Holy Spirit who can lead us to the place called All Truth.
it's easier to call our truth issues cognitive problems than to acknowledge them as spiritual (or, as you call them, relational). i think i have more to say about this but am a slow thinker when it comes to postmodernism.
Well, jillomazoo, I can tell that we should be getting together over coffee to talk about this stuff. I just have too much to write and so little space to draw out your thoughts :) Maybe I will blog more about these thoughts surrounding truth in the future.
ReplyDeleteblog away, b-nut. i appreciate your thoughts. they've helped me organize my own.
ReplyDelete