tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19532009.post7473970016841627936..comments2023-05-02T09:50:43.941-05:00Comments on Reformed Baptist Blog: Countering Anti-confessionalism – Part 1Keith Throophttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08112617983370327521noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19532009.post-31348233325973692532011-09-22T02:20:06.963-05:002011-09-22T02:20:06.963-05:00Well said, brother! I thought I had a pretty good ...Well said, brother! I thought I had a pretty good handle on where you were coming from on this, but mentioned the similarity to Craig's perspective to help the readers see that you are definitely not alone in your assessment. No less a prominent Christian philosopher as Craig agrees with you. Now if he could just give up his Arminian theology and his adherence to Middle Knowledge, he would really be on the right track!<br /><br />Anyway, I liked your articles very much. I think you did a good job of helping the readers see how our culture got to be where it is and why the appropriate use of confessions is as important as ever for the Church.Keith Throophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08112617983370327521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19532009.post-60424387318566519562011-09-20T08:04:22.147-05:002011-09-20T08:04:22.147-05:00Keith I agree— things are still the same for the l...Keith I agree— things are still the same for the last 250 years. In the late 18th century, after writing his famous book “Critique of Pure Reason” where he denied the possibility of ascertaining absolute truth, Kant wrote a follow up book called “Critique of Practical Wisdom” where he claimed that it is impossible to live consistently without the assumption of absolute truth. That is, although we can’t know absolute truth, we can’t live without it. This is why Van Till claimed that the skeptic must borrow capital from the Christians worldview to live his life. Nothing has changed in the last 250 years—scientist still assume that the universe is orderly, mathematicians still affirm that 2 plus 2 equals 4, and we all still walk through doors, and not walls, to enter buildings. <br /><br />I believe your assessment is right. If we define "postmodernism" as a period following the Modern Age, then we have yet to get there. If we define "postmodernism" as an epistemological skepticism of metaphysical realties, then we have never left the Modern Age. Why? Because people operate their lives as they have always operated them.Jeff Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06336713058373263249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19532009.post-87918833988640819662011-09-18T13:42:26.951-05:002011-09-18T13:42:26.951-05:00By the way, Craig further defends his assessment h...By the way, Craig further defends his assessment here: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6479Keith Throophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08112617983370327521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19532009.post-61322483050506992852011-09-18T13:41:14.623-05:002011-09-18T13:41:14.623-05:00Jeff wrote:
"It is impossible to understand ...<b>Jeff wrote:</b><br /><br />"It is impossible to understand existentialism without understanding what has also led to postmodernism. This is not just because existentialism originated out of the same environment as postmodernism, but also because it is within postmodernism that existentialism flourishes today. Technically speaking, <i>Postmodernism</i> is considered a condition or assessment of society. It has followed on the heels of the age of Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution. Supposedly, for the last quarter century we have been living in the Postmodernism Period. Yet, if we define <i>postmodernism</i> as a philosophical rubric of thought that denies the possibility of knowing ultimate truth, then the foundations of postmodernism reaches back into the Modern Period was man become increasing skeptical. In this sense, I use the term <i>postmodernism</i> not to identify a period of time, but as an epistemological framework that denies the possibility of man ascertaining absolute truth. Accordingly, <i>postmodernism</i> is fallen man giving up on absolute truth while still holding onto a false notion of personal and individual autonomy when man started denying knowability of absolute truth."<br /><br /><b>Keith says:</b><br /><br />Jeff, as I have commented in private conversation with you, your position reminds me of William Lane Craig's argument that our culture is pretty much where it was before the onset of what people are now calling <i>Postmodernism</i>. Consider, for example, this argument by Craig in a 2008 <i>Christianity Today</i> article entitled, "God Is Not Dead Yet":<br /><br />"However all this may be, some might think that the resurgence of natural theology in our time is merely so much labor lost. For don't we live in a postmodern culture in which appeals to such apologetic arguments are no longer effective? Rational arguments for the truth of theism are no longer supposed to work. Some Christians therefore advise that we should simply share our narrative and invite people to participate in it.<br /><br />"This sort of thinking is guilty of a disastrous misdiagnosis of contemporary culture. The idea that we live in a postmodern culture is a myth. In fact, a postmodern culture is an impossibility; it would be utterly unlivable. People are not relativistic when it comes to matters of science, engineering, and technology; rather, they are relativistic and pluralistic in matters of religion and ethics. But, of course, that's not postmodernism; that's modernism! That's just old-line verificationism, which held that anything you can't prove with your five senses is a matter of personal taste. We live in a culture that remains deeply modernist." (See here: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/july/13.22.html?start=5 )<br /><br />It seems you would agree with Craig's assessment, as I do, except that you prefer to use the term <i>postmodernism</i> as "a philosophical rubric of thought that denies the possibility of knowing ultimate truth" and argue that its roots extend back into the beginning of the Modern Period. In this way, you try to help those in the current cultural climate see that what they call <i>postmodernism</i> is not really new at all. It is what we used to call <i>modernism.</i><br /><br />So, although you and Craig approach the issue from different angles, you seem to agree in your basic assessment of our current condition as a culture and of how that condition came about.<br /><br />What do you think? Am I right in my assessment?Keith Throophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08112617983370327521noreply@blogger.com