I, wisdom, dwell with prudence, and I find knowledge and discretion.--Proverbs 8:12
Last
week, I wrote about serious problems presented to wisdom by modern philosophies
of post-modernism, scientism, and Darwinism. The first two attack man's
ability to know wisdom and I'd like to explore those today.
I
scarcely think there is there is an idea spread more widely among varied
conversations than the claim of the relativist. Whatever the conversation, you
may hear, "But, that's just your opinion," or "who are you to
judge?" These popular sayings passively make a strong claim: you cannot
know what is real. Reality is disconnected
from human knowledge and understanding.
If reality is disconnected from us, then
all human knowledge and understanding are impossible. Now
here's the problem: Postmodernism claims to have knowledge about reality, so postmodernism disqualifies itself from having any knowledge about reality.* When simplified, Postmodernism says "I know the reality that one can't know reality." Like
the claim, "Sentences cannot be more than three words," postmodernism
could not possibly be true. The self-refuting claim commit's "suicide" does not
meet up to its own minimum criteria.**
Consequently, the person who says, "You cannot judge me,"
disqualifies her own statement, which is in fact a judgment. "Is that
a judgment?" is a good thing to ask her. Some people dismiss another's
views as "just opinions," not realizing that their view is
self-refuting. Asking "Is that your opinion?" may help them see their
error.
Scientism does not fair much better than post-modernism. Scientism
claims you can only know things through your five senses. For something to be
considered true, they need to be able to prove it through their five senses.
Can you guess the right question to ask?
"Which
of your five senses--smell, taste, touch, sight, and/or hearing--taught you that
you can only know things through your five senses?" Of course, there is no
answer because it's the wrong question.***
The
person who holds this view has to acknowledge that she came to know their main
philosophy by using something other than her five senses. Scientism then could not possibly be true because it
cannot meet up to its own criteria.
Perhaps
post-modernism and scientism are some of the most influential “new” ideas in
the west, but clearly they are intellectually bankrupt and cannot meet up to
their own criterion for knowledge. They would lead us to disbelieve we can know wisdom. I hope you will be unmoved by these self-refuting challenges.
Next time we will consider a more elaborate problem for wisdom, Darwinism's denial that there is a human nature.
* If postmodernism makes a claim about reality, then postmodernism's claim about reality must apply to itself. But if reality is disconnected from human knowledge, then even postmodernism, an attempt at human knowledge is disconnected from reality --i.e. the statement could not correspond to the way things actually are. If postmodernism is true, then postmodernism as a human philosophy is false.
ReplyDelete** The idea of committing suicide is borrowed from Greg Koukl whose work can be discovered at str.org.
*** It's a category error to claim that you can use your nose, tongue, or eyeballs idea to directly see a proposition or idea itself, let alone to validate it by those physical organs. You maybe able to see the definition of scientism on this page, but seeing the claim written does not validate the claim.
A friend of mine made a blog post about a Facebook AD criticizes "dogmas" and narrow mindness of those who do not believe as they do. Can you see how the ideas behind this ad commit suicide?
ReplyDeleteTry looking up the definition of dogma. I think you might enjoy my friend's thoughts on his blog post.
http://imperfectfornow.blogspot.com/2012/07/is-progressive-christianity-progressive.html
Hey, it's my blog! Thanks, bro. But that's not what I came here to say. Excellent thoughts on this! I hadn't considered how a follower of scientism would arrive at scientism: excellently explained and argued. They are likewise disallowed from believing in other non-physical things, like love or bravery or cowardice: Things that even non-religious people take for granted.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you enjoyed it!
DeleteYeah, there's serious consequences to some of these ideas, and the average person who believes them are not really willing to start living as if love or virtues do not exist. I'm glad that an acquaintance who claims Hitler was the moral equivalent of Mother Teresa (neither moral nor immoral) do not act in light of their beliefs yet. He was a Christian, but used an assumption of scientism to defend his disbelief in sin. I think the Christian influences of his life will have some influence.
I wonder if the effects of these philosophies will express themselves in our next major financial downturn.