If you are interested in reading a mind-blowing discussion of the limits of the Enlightenment models of knowledge, I would suggest The Gospel in a Pluralistic Society by Newbigin.

Thank you for your interesting questions about my article. Your observations are very astute.

My article was not intended to be a reaction against postmodernism. It is more of a personal reaction against modernism. Skepticism as I have defined it is a way of thinking that grew out of the Scientific Revolution / Enlightement period beginning in the 18th century (those “rich white men”). It elevated lthe role of logic and empirical evidence and ultimately devalued other sources of knowledge that human beings have always valued, such as faith, intuition, human relationships, etc. Although many Christians have been writing and talking about postmodernism, I think it is fair to say that modernism still exerts the greater influence on our culture. Many good things have come out of modernism (scientific advances, for example). But when we make it into our default religion and reflexively discount other sources of knowledge, it creates a stifling prejudice that many people (not just Christian believers) are beginning to find offensive.

Postmodernism is a reaction against modernism. It is not the way that I react against modernism, but it is a reaction nevertheless. I suppose that I do sympathize with certain aspects of postmodern thinking. And I believe that you do as well. Postmodern people don’t see the world in terms of black and white, yes and no, right and wrong. They seem to think that every human endeavor is a mixture of good and bad. In that, they are very correct. However, if we apply that way of thinking across the board to everything in the universe, including God, then postmodernism also becomes a stifling prejudice, because it prevents us from acknowledging that there might actually be something that is truly good and truly true, i.e. it discounts the possibility of real divine revelation.

I think that it is good to know something about the history of Western thought. It helps us to put our beliefs and the beliefs of others into perspective. But to me, there is also something distasteful about all these labels because human beings are not -isms. They are people. I don’t want to devalue people by putting them into little boxes. Once you get to know people on a personal level, they always surprise and intrigue you.

For myself, I hope that I will remain open to all sources of knowledge. And I want to remain skeptical too, especially of myself. I want to be skeptical even as I read the Bible because spiritual growth requires us to challenge our own assumptions and way of thinking. I think that a healthy does of skepticism about others and ourselves, in combination with faith in a real God who truly relates to us (not a humanly constructed god of knowledge or doctrine) and who truly teaches us, is the way to go.

I hope you keep coming back to this website, because there are some very good articles in our queue. And if you have something to say, please consider contributing a piece. Although this blog is intended to serve the Penn State community, you don’t have to be a Penn Stater to post here. And, as they say, if God were not a Penn Stater, then why did he make the sky blue and white?

Do you make any distinctions between skeptical thought and post-modern thought? From what I’ve heard you say about post-modernism in previous lectures, and from reading the post above, it seemed like you equate the two.

I’m curious if you would agree that one (more positive, consistent) way of presenting post-modern/skeptical thought could be along the lines of the scientific method, where there are DEGREES of certainty (say, to the extent of the certainty of gravity vs. the extent of the certainty of evolution), but where even the most certain of things will necessarily be circumscribed by an upper-limit of uncertainty. While this negates ABSOLUTE truth, could that just be an acknowledgement of the natural limits to our knowledge? Or am I misrepresenting what post-modernism really is and historically has been?

I agree that saying all religions are valid is ultimately condescending. But, again along the lines of degrees of certainty, I wonder if post-modernism necessarily implies that. It might concede room for localized knowledge, say, of an isolated rural community of Muslims living out the best choices they are faced with in their community, but not necessarily that their truths are equally true to something, say, is repeatably refutable by science. Or maybe it does. But when you say, “Who is the better judge of the true character of a religion: one who truly believes and practices it, or one who observes it superficially from a distance?” it sort of seems that you are saying the same thing that this kind of post-modernism does.

I like when people like Dewey (I’m not sure if Pragmatism and post-modernism are the same) say that what is needed is the freedom for and positive culture of interaction and dialogue between local communities and subcultures, implying that there is always the possibility of conversion when an argument is compelling enough, or, on the darker side, if the pitch or social stake is visible and powerful enough. But I think that at least a few moments in our history have shown that nonviolent dialogue and real conversion and action have been possible, whether of an undecided middle ground or the polar-opposite camp. I couldn’t agree more with you that political correctness, taken to an extreme, can lead to more suspicion, dismissiveness, and hostility.

In any case, thanks again for a thought-provoking post.