How PM Differs From Modernism

In response to my review of "The Next Reformation", Vincent asked about my reference to D. A. Carson's view that postmodernism is best seen as distinct from modernism (vs. being seen as ultra- or hyper-modernism).

The two talks I linked to in the 3rd paragraph of that post both summarize the reasons for his view. Here's a short summary of six key areas discussed by Carson where a Biblical understanding differs from Modernism; and how Postmodernism views these six areas:

Modernism is characterized by:

• An explicit assertion that knowledge begins with the finite knower (DeCartes' famous "I think, therefore I am"). A Biblical understanding begins, of course, with God as the unchanging and all-knowing knower. We have an ability to know because (a) God gave us that ability, and (b) God created a coherent and knowable universe. However, we also understand that we are both finite and flawed in (a) our ability to know, and (b) our knowledge. See previous posts on this topic.
• A presupposition that epistemological certainty is (a) desirable, and (b) attainable.
• A profoundly foundationalist view of knowledge - there is a shared universal foundation (i.e., set of assumptions) that can be universally known (epistemological certainty) for EVERY discipline (i.e., area of knowledge)
• A profoundly methodological process for generating knowledge - a shared universal set of methods can be universally known to reliably generate truth. Epistemological certainty is attained by the formula "Foundation + Methods = TRUTH". No TRUTH can be known unless both are present in a robust form
• An assumption that TRUTH is objective and universal (ahistorical) - if something is true, it is true at all times and in all places.
• Since Darwin, an increasingly strong assertion that philosophical naturalism is true - only matter, time, and space exist

In Carson's view, postmodernism shares the assertion of finite knower (#1), but denies or significantly modifies the remaining five perspectives. You should listen to Carson's talks if you're interested, but here's my summary of how Carson sees PM denying or modifying the modernist understanding:

• Epistemological certainty is neither (a) desirable, nor (b) possible
• Shared universal foundations are neither desirable nor possible
• Shared universal methods are neither desirable nor possible
• Truth is subjective, and varies depending on time and place
• Although naturalism is accepted, there's a tolerance (often an encouraging) of individual experiences of the metaphysical

As I've noted before, modernism is excessively optimistic about our ability to know (making our ability to know a god), and postmodernism (in justified reaction) is excessively pessimistic.

See previous posts for some discussion of why neither modernism nor postmodernism are Biblical ways of understanding our ability to know...and on areas where they are consistent with a Biblically-based understanding.

Misc. "Sexual Suicide"

George Gilder horrified the nascent feminist movement in the early 70's with his first-hand observations (and related research) of an inner city culture where traditional male-female roles had been destroyed by the sexual revolution, with disastrous consequences for everyone.

Gilder's book ("Sexual Suicide", later re-issued as "Men and Marriage") was one of the first in what has become a long and continually growing line of books documenting the profoundly negative effects of the sexual revolution on women, especially from adolescence through the "empty nest"; on men, especially from the early-mid 20's through middle age; and, perhaps most of all, on children.

Looking back on that line of books (this came on my radar screen when I read "Men and Marriage" back in the mid 80's), what strikes me is how many of these books have been written by folks from the political left..."mugged by reality" because of their professional training/research....a clear indication that the chaos produced by the sexual revolution violates the "law written on the heart" and is therefore part of what we "can't not know."

Since this is the 50th anniversary of the technology that catalyzed that revolution (the birth control pill), I thought I'd mention a few random related items I've run across recently.

• "Why Are So Many Girls Lesbian or Bisexual?" - the author of this Psychology Today article has no moral objections to deviant sexual behavior, but he does wonder if deviant males might be a significant contributing factor.
• Gendercide - this short article from the Economist basically reprises Gilder's observations from 35+ years ago (i.e., the core challenge of any society is to ensure that young males are "civilized" by marriage)...his heresy has become the norm among demographers...though their focus has been on Asia, especially China and its one-child policy.
• "Living Together" - this book by Larry & Harriet McManus provides a nice summary of the data that clearly shows that (a) living together before marriage significantly increases the odds of divorce/breakup, and (b) a concerted community effort to discourage living together has significantly reduced subsequent divorce over the past decade or so in numerous cities.
• "Campus Attacks" - this joint Secret Service, DoE, and FBI study of violence on campus from 1909 to 2009 has numerous observations of interest (though it would be nice to see the raw data as coded). Figure 1 shows assault levels jumping dramatically in the 90's...makes me wonder about things like the mainlining of pornography and the rap culture. And, Figure 7 seems to indicate that nearly 2/3 of assaults involved a male-female dynamic (assuming that same-sex assaults were relatively rare)...a figure that would seem to be significantly under-reported given the amount of anecdotal "evidence" of not reporting date rape, etc.