AUSTRALIAN PRAYER NETWORK NEWSLETTER

———————————————–

UNDERSTANDING THE TIMES IN WHICH WE LIVE

Editors comments: This article is its original form was written as an intellectual exposure of postmodernism. We believe it gives an important insight into the clash of worldviews that is seeking to tear apart the Christian influence in western culture. We have therefore edited it to make it more easily readable and digestible whilst retaining the integrity of the writers contribution.

In an article published in 1993 and later expanded into a book, Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington argued that the boundaries of the world are no longer determined by geography or international law, but rather by religious and cultural traditions, ie, by beliefs and by the worldviews they entail. Looking ahead Huntington foresaw “a clash of civilisations” involving the post-Christian West, the Islamic world and the Confucian East.

While this vision is not without relevance to the world we live in, it fails to account for the most important aspect of contemporary life in Western countries, which is that postmodernism has now become mainstream and reigns as the new “conventional wisdom”. In other words, the distinguishing feature of current Western culture is not so much its rejection of Christianity, but its rejection of any claim to the existence of truth.

Postmodernism has a profound aversion to any notion of objective truth. Yet, it asserts at the same time that individual autonomy is a “fundamental” principle that cannot be negotiated. A few years ago, American Demographics, a magazine focused on “emerging consumer trends”, summarised a 1997 demographic study by noting that there has been “a comprehensive shift in values, worldviews, and ways of life” that now affects about one quarter of American adults. The magazine noted that those people subscribed to a new set of values such as “environmentalism, feminism, global issues, and spiritual searching”, are often involved in movements for social justice, civil rights, feminism and New Age spirituality. As postmodernists, they profoundly distrust anything that smacks of “moral absolutes”. They “see nature as sacred” and value self-actualisation and spiritual growth. Their public philosophy is essentially one that says all differences are equal, and that the individual must have the freedom to choose as they wish.

The study also stressed that this new worldview was emerging next to two already existing worldviews: a)

“Traditionalism”, generally represented by those who hold on to the values of the past; and b) “Modernism”, represented mainly by those who focus on technological progress and economic success, and who are “less concerned with social and life issues”. The study argued that Traditionalists and Modernists were declining in number while the Postmodernists, who were generally younger than people in the other two groups, were growing in number.

Since the publication of the study 11 years ago, the trends it foresaw have largely materialised so that we now find ourselves living in a world where the Postmodernists have become the dominant cultural force, as illustrated by the “Global Warming/Climate Change” concern and increasing support for “same-sex marriage”.

What this suggests is that, while there may or may not be a clash of civilisations in the years ahead, there is bound to be a clash between the traditional Judaeo-Christian worldview and the emerging postmodernist worldview. Indeed, it would seem that the groups behind these two views have been increasingly competing for support from the “centre” group that stands between them – the modernists.While modernists characterise their opposition to the Judaeo-Christian tradition as a conflict between “faith” and “reason”, postmodernists tend to characterise it rather as a conflict between “closed-mindedness” and “open-mindedness”. That is why, like modernists, they insist on a total separation of not only church and state, but also of faith and public life, and seek to privatise religion altogether, rendering moral judgements informed by the Judaeo-Christian tradition totally irrelevant to public moral issues. Alleging that their own worldview is the only one that can secure peaceful co-existence, they seek to make it the sole legitimate public philosophy. The challenge for those adhering to the Judaeo-Christian tradition is to show that, not only is postmodernism rationally weak, but that the Judaeo-Christian tradition is the only worldview solidly grounded in reason. Only thus will they win the hearts and minds of the “modernists”.

In order to show that postmodernism’s claim to rationality is false, one must look at some of its basic claims. Among these are: (a) its radical separation of person and body; (b) its understanding of reason as strictly instrumental; and (c) its denial of free choice. Differences between postmodernism and the Judaeo-Christian tradition about life and death issues, such as abortion, euthanasia and suicide, revolve around the question of whether the body is simply a vehicle that offers a means to an end, such as pleasure, personal achievement, etc. or that the dignity of people does not depend on their “quality” of life but rather on their “being”. Postmodernists argue that, outside religious belief which they claim as irrational, there is no objective reason to accept the notion that human life has other than passing worth. They assert that the human person consists of two separate realities, ie, a “person” and a body that, somehow, is less than “personal”. The postmodernist view of the person is that of a “genderless subject”, which regards its body as a possession or instrument that unlike other property or tools is untransferable, though discardable by suicide. “In this view, “a living human body is not a person until it comes to be associated with a mind or other centre of conscious self-awareness; and a living human body ceases to be a person not necessarily by dying, but at any point at which it loses this association, which may be long before death”. This contradicts the Judaeo-Christian view, which holds that the body is part and parcel of the personal reality of a human being, ie, a dynamic unity of mind and body. The body and person, while conceptually distinct, are in fact inseparable. It is precisely that unity which makes respect for the body as imperative as that of the person. And it is that very unity which postmodernists deny when they assume, implicitly or explicitly, that the body lacks the dignity of personhood. On this denial rests their contention that there is no wrong in killing “pre-personal” or “post-personal” human beings (pre-born children, handicapped newborns, demented, comatose and other human “non-persons”.) The body-person dualism implicit in postmodernism contradicts the Judaeo-Christian concept of unity of mind and body, but also because it contradicts our experience of ourselves in everyday life. We do not inhabit our body like a ghost in a machine. We are embodied persons.

The wedge driven by postmodernists between the “self” and the “living body” is contrary to reason. The living body is not reducible to a complex of chemical and biological processes separate from the self. My body is an integral part of me and what is felt in the most private dimensions of the self may impact on the body. This is what happens, for example, when someone blushes.

Postmodernists are repeating the errors of earlier generations with regard to the unborn and dying. Postmodernists generally assume that morality is about external constraints on appetite and passion. They presuppose that our ultimate motives are not objective but rooted in cultural or religious bias and have nothing to do with the search for truth. They claim the role of reason is purely practical: it consists solely in showing how to go from A to B. It is useless in terms of helping us determine whether pursuing B is good or bad, or better than pursuing C or D. This view implies that reason is impotent in helping us distinguish right from wrong. If reason is the “slave of passions” and guided by cultural values, how can we expect reason to moderate, let alone dominate, our passions? And how can we claim that people have rights that should limit the exercise of our passions? In a postmodernist world, moral rules are as arbitrary and changeable as sporting rules. They can also be worse than that. If passion and culture are in control, then reason becomes a means of rationalising whatever our passion dictates.The traditional Judaeo-Christian view, which is held not only by Jews and Christians, but all the world’s major religions and most pre-modern philosophies, is that the laws of morality are not invented rules but rather discovered principles, much like the laws of a science. They are based on human nature, which is essentially unchanging. And so the laws themselves are essentially unchanging.Because the human person is a unity of body, mind and spirit, with powers such as reason and passions, and because it is our nature to love the good while also being tempted by evil, we must cultivate virtues such as self-control, wisdom, courage and honesty. Judaeo-Christian morality argues that reason must control passion, and that principles of morality are not subject to changing feelings and desires. It adds that reason cannot control passions without the help of grace. This is because, as a result of the fallen state of man, the will is weakened and the intellect is clouded and we have a proclivity to sin.

Another major flaw of postmodernist thinking is its implicit denial of free choice or free will. In order to choose freely, one must be able to understand and act upon reasons that cannot be reduced to desires or passions. Postmodernists claim that our choices are determined essentially by outside forces (economic, social or cultural) or by internal factors (desires, feelings). Thus, we don’t act freely: our actions are merely the end result of internal or external pressures that determine our behaviour. Postmodernists believe our freedom to choose is not related to the goodness of the thing chosen – it is only a freedom to choose between competing passions. They say there is no such thing as free will, understood as the ability to choose the good simply because it is inherently good. The Judaeo-Christian tradition however emphasises that, with the help of grace, human beings are capable of choosing between good and evil and that, while they sometimes allow passions to escape the control of reason, which is what sin is, they are capable of mastering their passions. Thus, the major weaknesses in the postmodernist worldview are the denial of the unity of mind and body, the denial of the ability of reason to discern any truth and the denial of man’s ability to choose freely between good and evil. It must also be remembered that, with a few exceptions, the media are clearly supportive of the postmodernist agenda and are not always welcoming to views that challenge it.

The problem for people who adhere to the Judaeo-Christian tradition and who want to rise to the challenge posed by postmodernists is where to start. Since political action is unlikely to succeed in the foreseeable future, action must be pursued in other forums, ie, academia, churches, local newspapers, parent-teachers groups, voluntary associations, etc. This is the only way to counter our slow slide into nihilism.

Source: Written by Richard Bastian an Ottawa based freelance writer

http://www.ausprayernet.org.au/

July 2008