Showing posts with label Relativism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Relativism. Show all posts

Friday, March 24, 2017

Trumping Truth


The 1966 cover of Time: IS GOD DEAD? sparked considerable controversy. Fifty years later Time will soon launch a similar cover which asks if TRUTH IS DEAD? The catalyst for the cover: President Trump.

Forget Trump for a moment. Did Time unwittingly connect the death of truth to the death of God? Does eliminating God eliminate any hope for objective truth? Observers have described the last several decades as postmodern. Postmodernism suggests that there is no absolute truth, that truth is relative. Before postmodernism, if I had a truth claim someone may challenge the truthfulness of my claim. In postmodern times, if I have a truth claim someone may challenge the fact that I have a claim to truth! This has been especially true in the realm of religion and morality.

Consider a metaphor from Kurt Vonnegut's postmodern novel, Cat's Cradle. The novel centers around a terrifying man-made substance called "ice-nine" which remains a solid at room temperature. When ice-nine comes into contact with water it turns the property of water into solid ice-nine. Place ice-nine on your tongue and all the liquid in your body freezes. Pour ice-nine into the ocean and all water connected to the ocean would soon become solid wiping out all life on earth.

Was eliminating God the ice-nine that began to erode truth? And why would the relativism of ice-nine end with religion and morality? Would it not eventually spread to any and all truth claims?

Several decades ago, Francis Schaeffer observed that faith, values and morals were sequestered and isolated into the irrational private sphere of non-truth while reason and science were allowed to remain in the rational public sphere of truth. Faith and religion were relegated to the world of relativism while reason and secularism remained in the world of facts and absolutes. Mainline Christian churches fell prey to this mindset as they bought into the idea that religion is subjective and personal, ignoring the fact that the Scriptures make a historical, objective claim to absolute truth.

Schaeffer argued that humans cannot live with a split between the secular and sacred. Humans cannot live like machines. In order to have meaning, humans must make a "leap of faith" from the rational world of secular facts to the irrational world of faith. Failure to make this leap results in a tension that can lead to nihilistic despair.

As humans leap from one sphere to the other the ice-nine of postmodernism infiltrates the secular sphere. Secular subjects like history, logic and science are falling prey to relativism. Secular truth, like sacred truth, is no longer objective but subjective. This means that I get to determine weather or not they are true for me. For example, if someone makes a scientific claim about gender differences and this claim does not fit my preferences then they are oppressing me. In today's postmodern world, claims to absolute truth are now viewed as oppressive power plays.  As Obi Wan Kenobi said, "Only Sith's deal with absolutes."


Are you absolutely sure about that Obi Wan?

Enter Sith Lord Trump. The Time article bemoans the fact that Trump doesn't seem concerned about the truth or that he is adjusting reality to fit his subjective and ideological views. Should this surprise anyone? The reason why progressives are so terrified of Trump is that they are now on the receiving end of  their own tactics. The ice-nine of postmodernism has boomeranged back on them. Trump has taken their tools and weapons and is effectively wielding them against the progressive mainstream. For example, after the election many progressives suggested that fake new sites helped Trump win the election. Rather than argue about the fakeness of news sites or their impact on the election Trump took the "fake news" grenade and hurled it back at his critics by calling the mainstream news fake.

Like it or not, we are in a new era where all truth is becoming subjective and as a result power determines truth. Trump is the new King Saul anointed by a reluctant and defeated religious right to wage war against the progressive Philistines. Unlike the religious right, Trump is not afraid to use the weapons of postmodernism.

The secular-progressive monopoly on truth is crumbling and I don't have much sympathy for them. They are the ones that unleashed the ice-nine postmodern  plague of relativism. They should look back at the March 1966 Time magazine cover and consider if that is when this all started.

Sunday, March 19, 2017

Humanism, Christianity and Marriage

bible, book, gold rings

I once worked at Sicilian restaurant where the chef created culinary masterpieces for his menu. I cringed when a patron decided to change the ingredients. I would return to the kitchen with the special request and the chef would roll his eyes and prepare an imperfect dish. Sometimes he would point down the road and suggest that his costumers go to a fast-food restaurant where they can stuff their faces with whatever they want.

The battle for the definition of marriage rests on a very simple question. "Who's the chef?" Christians view marriage as a dish designed by God, similar to an item on a menu designed by a master chef. To question the form and function of marriage is foolish, arrogant, and an insult to the God who instituted it.

While Christians live under the institution of marriage created by God, humanists throw on the chef's hat and place themselves above it. Humanists deconstruct the chef's dishes and place the ingredients upon a buffet table for their perusal. The end result is fast-food that I can have my way. If a Christian criticizes a humanist's design for marriage the humanist naturally becomes offended and views the Christian as arrogant and rude. "How dare you criticize my tastes. This is a buffet!"

We are no longer living in a Christian context where truth is determined by God. Understanding this will help to keep Christians from committing one of two errors.

Error #1: Christians will try to force God's "menu" on others. This legalistic approach fails because even if you successfully force a menu into people's hands they'll still desire a buffet. Legalism requires the heavy hand of authority or government. Jesus did not try to recruit Pontius Pilate or King Herod and neither should we. Christians must proclaim, offer and defend the truth but we must be careful not to force it.

Error #2 Christians will join others in the buffet to appear relevant. This approach makes Christianity indistinguishable from the rest of the world. Why join a church for more of the same? Over time the menu gets twisted and the remaining Christians become enamored by the buffet. This is the plight of most mainline denominations.

So what's the Christian to do?

The prophet Daniel lived in godless Babylon where he was literally offered a buffet. The Babylonians expected Daniel and his friends to eat food that was forbidden on God's menu. Daniel did not force his food on the Babylonians but he stood firm and refused the Babylonian fare. He challenged his overseer to observe him and his friends, to see what sort of impact his diet would have on him and his friends. Daniel's Babylonian overseer observed Daniel and saw that God's diet had a beneficial effect.

Christians are to treat marriage as an institution authored by God. We can offer it to others but we must not force it. We can be kind and respectful to others but we dare not change who we are or water down God's menu to appear relevant. Let's sit down together and enjoy God's menu. Perhaps someone who is sick of the junk food will observe the benefits of a faithful, God-centered marriage and ask to see a menu.

Monday, January 9, 2017

Pseudomodernism: A Fake New World


Buildings reflected in a puddle on a sidewalk
By the mid-nineties we tossed the last few shovelfuls upon Truth's grave and looked about the grim reality that Americans possessed everything and yet at the same time had nothing. Science and technology had bequeathed history's bloodiest century. The Soviet Union dissolved. Our aspirations for space travel petered out with the Challenger explosion. Utopias had become as unreachable as the stars. Global-warming alarmists prophesied doom. Reckless presidents dabbled in the Mideast and philandered with interns. Seattle grunge and the Midwest melancholy existential musings of the Smashing Pumpkins echoed postmodernism's postmortem of the enlightenment. From Kurt Vonnegut to Kurt Cobain the message was clear - the truth is that Truth was dead. Truth had been deconstructed, dismembered, and disemboweled - never to be disinterred. Only ignoramuses in the hinterland held on to a bygone absolutism.

Then, some jetliners pierced our existential fog eliminating New York's lofty pillars. We ran about like disoriented farm animals in a hail storm. We needed Truth but we had buried her. Our golden eggs were threatened and the mangled carcass of the goose lay on our dinner table. Then, a strange and unexpected deus ex machina descended upon us; the internet sprinkled its benevolent digital pixy dust upon the corpses of Truth and her children. The grim reality of our world was replaced by a new world, an undiscovered country. Our whirling compasses finally settled on a direction. All the needles pointed back to their operators.

The postmodern world eliminated truth and then gave us the digital tools we needed to create our own truths. We became the standard bearers. We became masters of a new universe that lay quite literally at our fingertips. Search engines and social media fed our preferences. We no longer had to be meaningless pawns in a chaotic universe; rather, we were given Brahman-like power to create one of many universes where our avatars can run amok. Welcome to the pseudomodern world.

The first dozen years of the new millennium had a pleasant veneer. We clicked and voted through our mobile devices controlling reality stars and elevating nobodies to prominent positions. We recognized the great interconnections of all things and if our codes and timing were correct we could tap into power, a power similar to the power wielded by ancient Shamans who sought to control their world through mantras and spells. Like Zeus we could cloud ourselves in the elements of our new universe and sow our wild oats in disguise. We could assume even more power through endless social pantheons by advertising ourselves through various "upvotes" "likes" and "followers." The thrill of power caused a lust for more. Something else happened, all the unpleasant failings and character flaws of the former world no longer needed to haunt us. We filtered, edited, selected and morphed. Like chameleons we could adjust to the demands of our surroundings. Gender, religion, sexuality, education, history and marriage were uprooted from their absolute moorings and placed upon a digital smorgasbord. We could feast without restraints.

Vestiges of objective Truth remained, threatening the autonomy and authority of a billion new gods and goddesses. Once the dust of the twin towers settled we looked skeptically at religion. Christianity closely resembled the Truth that the West had deconstructed. Secularists placed pressure on her from the outside like a horde of elitist Romans while the Judases of subjective spiritualism continued the onslaught from within. Like parasites they feasted upon the Christian worldview, using the sustenance to attack the host. If the parasites were to emerge they would need a new religion, a meta-narrative that would provide meaning, hope, goals, morality and value. The secular vultures left their religious prey, combed their feathers, and embraced a new, secular religion that advocated social justice, diversity, inclusion and permitted a divinity that could be found only within. Universities became temples where a secular priestly caste of professors preached dogma ensconced in a flowery perch of terminology known only to the enlightened. The media functioned as their prophets and the culturally elite regurgitate their platitudes. They walk on two legs like Orwell's pigs, scorning their roots, and we follow blindly choosing the path of least resistance.

But a tension lingered unexamined. We embrace new truths after deconstructing Truth. We embrace new moralities after deconstructing morality. We elevate ourselves to godhood after deconstructing life to blind mechanistic forces of zero value. We vocally give our approval and distaste but our pronouncements have no force because their foundation is nothing but preference.  We hurdle about in a moral vacuum driving ourselves mad because we have no firm ground to push off of and nothing to orbit. We have climbed into God's throne and we have found that we do not fit. Our wings melt off as we strive to achieve his brilliance.

And so when there is nothing left to consume we must consume ourselves.The parasite has tried on the costume of its host but a parasite without a host will cannibalize itself.  In our goal to become like God we become less that human. Our utopias become hell. Our desire to become like the ancient stars results in black-holes, the gravitational pull of which there is no escape. We can bide our time by pulling and tugging on our fellow man, climbing and clamoring over his shoulders but soon we'll be consumed. The pseudo-secular dam is about to burst and the coming deluge is prophetically reflected in the vacant eyes of the opioid addict who wanders around a land flowing with milk and honey.

Postmodernism removed fences and we embraced the freedom without considering why the fences were there in the first place. We have forgotten that the greatest thing we need protection from is ourselves. Nations rise and fall. Their eventual demise comes not from the outside but from a decay within. We mask the decay with progressive semantics but one day a passerby will walk by the wall and put his hand through it realizing that it is brittle paper mache. He will then urge his friends to walk through the wall and gorge upon the ruins of the gods.

Thursday, December 22, 2016

Social Justice Warrior Terminology



Social Justice Warriors have a unique vocabulary. Perusing through the list will give you a better idea of what a Social Justice Warrior is and if you qualify as one.



Androgyny: Gender expression that contains both male and female elements

Androsexual/Androphile: Being attracted to males.

Advocate: Someone who supports a social justice cause. Social Justice Warriors avoid the term "Warrior." They prefer "advocate for social change."

Abelism: Discrimination against someone who is disabled.

Ageism: Discriminating against someone who is young or old.

Agender: Not identifying with a gender.

AFAB: Assigned female at birth.

Ally: Someone from a privileged group (men, white, etc) who fights against oppression and works to understand or check their privilege.

AMAB: Assigned male at birth.

Aromanticism: Someone who does not have any romantic attractions.

Basic: A word used to describe people who do not appreciate diversity.

Binary: The oppressive idea that genders should be divided into two: male and female.

Biphobia: Discriminating against bisexuals.

Bisexual: Attraction to people of your own gender and to people of different genders.

Bitch: A derogatory term now used by younger females who embrace their sexuality.

Boi: A young gay male or a young female who is expressing herself as a male.

"Check Your Privilege": Phrase used to remind people that they are biased because of their privilege. "Check your white privilege," "Check your cis privilege," "Check your male privilege." Words that are used to support white, male or Western identities are inherently racist, sexist and xenophobic because they come from a place of dominance and privilege. "Check your privilege" is often used as an ad hominem.