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.