Tuesday, March 29, 2011


Carson’s fifth point about modernism is that it assumed ahistorical universality. Again, I emphasize that the factors we are currently considering are intended to provide a backdrop for understanding factors about postmodernism as it influences our current age. That modernism assumed ahistorical universality means that the truth it sought was seen as objective and universal. There was variation in the approach taken to arrive at such truth but it was seen as something there to be approached. It wasn’t true because we made it true and it was not altered by our approach or other factors related to history, culture, language, race, etc. That’s not to say that such factors have no influence in one’s approach, but the truth being sought is objective and universal, beyond such factors. It was not assumed that such factors possessed the inherent capacity to prevent one from arriving at the objective, universal truth that was present.

By way of a closing commentary, I must allude to the errant assumption of modernism that such truth is to be discovered by purely human reason and scientific method. This is a contrast between Biblical Theism and modernism. Does the failure to arrive at truth by way of human reason and scientific method justify the conclusion that we are to discard objective, universal truth? How much influence does history, culture, language and race have upon our ability to know the truth? The answer to these questions is extremely important.

No comments: