In his book Who's Afraid of Postmodernism: Taking Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault to Church, James K.A. Smith asserts,
"Postmodernism can be understood as the erosion of confidence in the rational as sole guarantor and deliverer of truth, coupled with a deep suspicion of science-particularly modern science's pretentious claims to an ultimate theory of everything" (p.62).Before going further, we probably need to say something about the terms "modernity" and "postmodernity." Modernity can be understood as a time period that began with the French Revolution. As a way of looking at the world, modernity may be said to have begun with the philosophy of Descartes and the scientific advancements that occurred under the work of Sir Isaac Newton. One of the trademark assumptions of modernity was the belief that human reason is potentially autonomous. So...one can employ reason in such a way as to "see" the world from an objective point of view. This being the case, human reason in the employment of the scientific method can and does offer certain and indubitable truths as to the nature of reality.
Postmodernity, on the other hand, is a reaction to the assumptions of modernity. As Smith states, postmodernity questions the legitimacy of modernity's claim that the employment of the rational in concert with the scientific method provides the only basis for coming to know what is in fact true about reality. A short historical refresher may help at this point. Why would the assumptions of modernity come into question?
With the onset of modernity the outlook was positive and progressive. So much had been uncovered by the use of reason and the scientific method. Many of the mysteries of the physical universe were explained in terms of "laws of nature." Newton could support his findings with mathematical formulas. Anyone could apply these formulas and see that there were certain ways in which physical phenomena act and react. The future was bright, hope was prevalent, autonomous human reason prevailed. What was once a mystery, could now be harnessed and manipulated to serve human ends.
It seemed that there was no end to what the human mind could accomplish, if we just kept applying what worked in coming to understand physical phenomena to the rest of human experience. And...then everything fell apart. What happened? Why did we lose our positive and progressive outlook on human reason? In short, the 20th century happened. If the 20th century taught us anything it taught us this: in spite of all the understanding and technological advancements that the scientific method provides, it has not made humans any better in how they treat one another. After two world wars and one atrocity after another we now know that humans are not progressing as a result of autonomous reason. Certainly science has made some things better. Nonetheless, the positive and progressive outlook of modernity no longer prevails as it once did.
It was not long after World War I that the assumptions of modernity came into question [in fact, these assumptions had been questioned by some (e.g. Nietzsche)before this event]. The main modern assumption that we are concerned with is the assumption that autonomous human reason can view reality objectively, or without primary assumptions.
One of the critiques offered against modernity is that modernity claimed objectivity. The modern era assumed that it did not make assumptions. Philosophers and scientists in the modern era assumed that they took nothing for granted. Like Descartes, everything was to be questioned until a firm bedrock of certainty was found. Then and only then could one claim knowledge. Those who bought into this modern quest for certainty thought that it was possible to see the world objectively. They believed that one could proceed without being unduly influenced by primary assumptions of any kind. They were wrong.
At this point I need to apologize and make a clarification. I have been speaking as if atheism is a worldview, this is not exact (I touched on this in the last post). Atheism is simply a belief concerning the existence of God (i.e. that God does not exist). Atheism as a belief; however, is intimately related to a particular worldview. We will call this the "naturalistic worldview" as was done by Herb Silverman in his statement, "This is the naturalistic worldview promoted by atheists, humanists, and other secularists, with arguments supported by evidence and critical thinking."
There are three primary assumptions of the naturalistic worldview: 1) human reason is autonomous and capable of viewing reality objectively, 2) reality is exclusively physical, and 3) science as a method and community is the "sole guarantor and deliverer of truth." At this point we can see that the naturalistic worldview is the child of modernity. What I want to make clear about these assumptions is that they are...well assumptions. They do not meet the requirement of certainty that was provided in the last post. These assumptions are not agreed on by everyone, everywhere regardless of language or culture. In other words, these assumptions are not universally agreed upon. If these assumptions were certain, then no one with properly functioning cognitive capabilities would question them. They would be like the conclusions of math and logic. If these assumptions were certain (in which case they would not be assumptions) then everyone who understood their respective meanings would say, "Yes, these statements regarding human reason, reality, and science are true...who could reasonably doubt them?"
Hence, atheism as a belief which rests on a naturalistic worldview is not the result of an objective point of view. In relation to the post " Atheism: Worldview or Objective Point of View," I agree with Silverman over and against that of A.C. Grayling. Atheism (or to be exact naturalism) and its primary assumptions are subject to critique just as are all other religious points of view and worldviews. In short, the playing field has been leveled. There is no prevailing worldview that is obviously "correct." So...let the worldview competition begin! And let it begin with an appropriate dose of humility...
There are some ethical considerations that I would like to make in closing. If my understanding of worldviews is correct then the following is in fact the case: 1) everyone has a worldview, and 2) all worldviews are based on primary assumptions that are not ultimately subject to evidence or reason. Given (1) and (2), what can we say about how humans treat one another?
I think we are all, as humans, necessarily subject to a large dose of epistemic humility. In other words, there is very little that we know for certain, and this knowledge of our ignorance should bring about great humility in the way we treat those who believe differently than we do. Often times this is not the case. Many times we mistreat those who believe differently than we do because we believe we are right and they are wrong. If we can see that all worldviews are based on primary assumptions, then we should be hesitant to mistreat those who see the world differently. Universal ignorance, if acknowledged and accepted, should breed patience and understanding.
So spread the word! "We know so very little for certain...be cool! Sure we disagree. Sure I think my point of view is correct. Nonetheless, I realize that I could be wrong and your understanding could be right. It seems highly unlikely that I am wrong, but who knows?...so be cool!" Or phrase this wonderful new knowledge about our ignorance in any way that seems best to you...
Then once we know that we do not know, we can begin a dialogue regarding the pros and cons of our respective worldviews without assuming too much!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smith, James K.A., Who's Afraid of Postmodernity: Taking Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault to Church, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, 2006.
Herb Silverman's post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/post/a-religious-and-secular-studies-major/2011/08/31/gIQAFqu2rJ_blog.html
No comments:
Post a Comment