Fox Enterprises Ltd

Fox Enterprises Ltd. http://www.icthus.8m.com

The place for Christian, creation, and conservative information on the web.

______________________________________________________________________

Post--Modernism

Does Truth exist? There is a new movement in our world that says no, there is no real truth. Post-Modernism is a philosophy that says we can study the systems of our lives, but there is no goal which can be reached; in other words, you can make up your own truth. The practical application of this philosophy would likely produce anarchy, which is in itself another philosophy, which most people seem to realize is the least satisfying way to live life. The emergence of the term "post modernism" may imply that it is replacing "modernism." Well, this is the case. Modernism is basically a philosophy that entertains the notion that human reason is superior and that science is the supreme source for all truth (implying there is a truth and that our superior intellect can comprehend this truth). Post-Modernism, however, rejects that our human intellect can grasp any and everything; this could be progress, of some sort at least. Unfortunately this inability to understand creates an atmosphere of unparralled equality: your opinion is just as valid an mine. This relative presumption goes so far as to even treat opinion as fact. There is no more "real" truth, there is now only your truth and my truth.

Post-Modernism utilizes something that is almost 200 years old, a philosophy known as Higher Criticism. Higher Criticism is another philosophy that feeds P. M. a whole new set of rules. You see, H. C. begins with doubt, not offering any credit to any idea without proof. Modernism has incorporated this concept also, but not to the extent of P. M. H. C. suggests that a philosophy or idea be analyzed from special perspectives, such as: Textual Criticism, Historical Criticism, Literary Criticism, Redactionism, and the Reader's Response. A problem with this method of study is the fact that our superior intellect always finds more questions in the pursuit of answers to previous questions. We forget to study life because we are too busy studying every little detail by itself. This is not unlike dismantling a car so as to study every aspect of its nature in detail, but forgetting to re-assemble it and then wonder why it doesn't work. We always find more questions and never see an end to the method of study. Each of these specialty perspectives will become disciplines in and of themselves, yet the experts in these areas will rarely (if ever) remember that life is much more complex than one special discipline.

Imagine the ideas of evolution. Evolution requires that every part of an organism evolve and improve on its own, unrelated to its role with the rest of the organism. Upon closer inspection of the theory, we find that this is not possible. Everything in the body must work together, even in the "simplest" life form, a single cell. The cell must have all of its working parts in order to exist and function, so all of its parts had to emerge simultaneously. Evolutionists don't like this manner of questioning and consequently insult and antagonize anyone who questions the Holy Scientific Method. But there are facts on both sides of the issue. Either God created everything, or it all evolved on its own. Many attempt to combine these two philosophies, but merely confuse the issue even further. Unfortunately, Modernism and Post-Modernism have both adopted another rule in their philosophies; both begin with a disbelief in the supernatural. This presumption disallows half of the information available to the human intellect. If we are always finding more questions, and rarely finding answers, does it not make sense to seek all available information and weigh the results? Unfortunately, it is considered sophisticated and of superior intellect to deny that God exists; no justification for that, mind you. This is the "if I can't understand it or see it, then it can't be real" approach. I hope you see the hubris of these sophists.

Here is a presumption for you. If we (the human race) possessed all available information (if we knew everything) would there be any room for opinion? Let's suppose the answer to this question is "no".   No two people possess the exact same information. Isn't it interesting to find that no two people on the planet agree on everything? To begin with doubt will lead one to information that could be discovered by no other means. Yet, those who do begin with doubt never even entertain the opposite notion, unless the subject of study is consistent with one's fundamental assumptions (i.e. no atheist would ever entertain the notion that God might actually exist, and therefore will never be able to discover all available information. The Christians, however, are forced to deal with the notion that God might not exist--after all, it is forced down our throats by the elite, the media, science, and society at large). If our presumption holds true (the presumption that more information leaves less room for interpretation or opinion) then shouldn't we try to combine all our information? There are convincing arguments on both sides, or all sides of the issue; so why not colligate all of it and see what the sum looks like? The truth is, this is what Christians have to do, but non-believers, especially those adamantly opposed to the supernatural, just don't like that idea. Scientific fairness doesn't seem to apply for them. Integrity is another issue altogether.

Charleston James

_______________________________________________________________________________