Confusing Legality and Justice

One of the characteristics of the postmodern age in which we live is a great deal of confusion on the issues of morality, justice, right and wrong. This confusion has infiltrated the church, which is not surprising. And one facet of that larger confusion is a tendency to equate legality with justice (or right) and illegality with unjust (or wrong). It came up the other day--among Christians--in this way...

The issue was immigration reform, and the pastor was bringing our attention to the fact that God--in both the Old and New Testaments--seems to care about the alien, the stranger, the foreigner, the displaced person. The pastor shared several passages--and could have shared many more--in which God called/calls His people to speak up for and have compassion upon this group of people. The response by more than one Christian listener was, in effect,

But don't you see, these people are illegal aliens--they are breaking the law.

Now, there are a number of problems with this naive, insensitive, simplistic response, but my point in this post is to point out only one. And that one is that it is a mistake to equate legality with right (moral, or just) and likewise a mistake to equate illegality with wrong (immoral, or unjust).

With a Christian, my response to such a question might be to say, "Oh, so you are in favor of abortions, huh?" Now, most followers of Christ who rightly understand that issue find it morally reprehensible to kill human persons just because they are still in the womb and we're bigger than they are. So I would hope that the Christian to whom I am talking would be taken aback by my assuming that he favors abortion. But my assuming that is my way of granting him consistency in his approach to morality. Because if he deals with the issue of immigration simply by asking himself "What does the law say?" then why wouldn't he do the same with other moral issues, like abortion? In the latter case, the law says that abortion is okay.

No, the reason we think abortion is wrong is because morality, righteousness, and justice are grounded in a higher standard--an absolute standard residing in the mind of the Creator of the universe. As Christians, we speak out against Roe v. Wade because we believe that the resulting human law is at odds with God's law regarding the sanctity of every human life.

And whether one believes in a Creator or not, the fact is that the entire legislative process seems to assume that the law as now written may be inadequate, may be in need of tweaking or improving. The reason we elect legislators is because we believe that there need to be changes made to reflect more closely still what is really right. (Of course, this is one of those areas in which street-level postmodernism is most clearly seen to be absurd. If there is no transcendent standard--no absolute morality found in God or elsewhere--then one cannot carry out legal or moral reform. One can claim to have changed the law, but one cannot claim to have improved the law.)

Immigration is an extremely complex issue, and most Americans recognize that comprehensive reform is much-needed. What bothers me is that the "Christian" voices heard most loudly on this issue seem to be simplistic and unthinking, and not at all in line with the teachings of Christ and the Bible. If there is a uniquely Judeo-Christian perspective that needs to be insinuated into this discussion, it likely has little to do with a sort of political party-line of tightening the laws, and much to do with the image of God found in every human being, including the alien about whom God so clearly reveals His concern in His Word to us.

Epistemology

Beginning next Monday, I'll be teaching a class at Kilns College on Critical Thinking.

I intend to spend some time in the first class on epistemology--truth and knowledge. In particular, I will discuss--and demonstrate the absurdity of--two very flawed epistemological views that are rampant in our culture. That is, most of your neighbors, relatives, and friends subscribe to one or the other--or more illogically still, both--of these ideas. I mean, of course, scientism and postmodernism.

I want to blog on scientism in the next post. And I have blogged on postmodernism in the past, and will again in the future. For now, I just want to point out one of the many absurdities of it.

Postmodernism, which is taught in the humanities departments of our colleges and universities, holds that truth--if it exists at all--is unknowable. But if this is true, er, I mean, well, let's just say if this is so, it makes the ideas of learning and education nonsensical. What person in their right mind would pay good money (and at most universities nowadays, heaps of it) to listen to the mere opinions of stuffy old--or flashy young--professors?

The reason we go to institutions of higher learning, and encourage our children to do the same, is that--no matter what we say--we all know that truth exists, that one can grow in knowledge and conform their ideas more and more to truth, especially by sitting under learned men and women, those who have the greatest knowledge about their respective fields. If parents really believed the postmodern epistemology, be certain that they wouldn't be helping their children to take four years out of their life just to party and play games.

Come to think of it, since the epistemology of postmodernism so clearly undercuts the ideas of knowledge and learning upon which the university system is based, why do college presidents and deans allow their humanities departments to teach it?

New Romanian Friends

I had a new life experience this weekend and a great time as well. I was given the privilege of teaching (the youth) and preaching (to the entire congregation) at a church in Portland that holds its services in Romanian.

I'm part of a team from Antioch that is going to Romania this July, and we visted the Portland church in order to get a feel for the way Romanian believers worship.

We spent Saturday with their youth, visiting (and hiking to the top of) Multnomah Falls, playing soccer and other games, eating (and I can tell you I'm going to enjoy Romanian food), and having a time of worship (at which I taught--without need for translation--on the obvious problems of postmodern epistemology, moral relativism, and religious pluralism). We divided up to spend Saturday night at the homes of various new friends, who come from all over the greater Portland metropolitan area to attend this church.

Sunday morning, we participated in the Bible studies and the morning worship service, at which our friend and Antioch intern Emi Popa (himself a Romanian and the organizer of our summer trip) delivered the sermon (on Galatians 5 and Christian liberty). We returned to the homes of our host families, where each of us was again lavished with traditional Romanian food. At the evening service, our team from Antioch sang two songs, and I spoke about the historical evidence for and the spiritual implications of the bodily resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth (with Pastor Nelo translating).

We not only got a taste of Romanian culture, but we established friendships that we anticipate will flourish in the coming months and years. It was a wonderful time getting to know some of our Romanian-American brothers and sisters.

Pursuit of Knowledge

What time I've had for this blog lately has been largely spent in a mind-numbing morass of comments from a couple of folks that are hyper-skeptical of knowledge and of our ability to gain it (and one who, though professing Christ, seems also to pooh-pooh the authority and inspiration of His revelation to us). So, as an antidote, I reread a couple of classics.

The first is C.S. Lewis' Learning in War-Time, and specifically a portion where he is answering--for himself and his fellow-students--the question of what justifies their remaining in academia when most of their peers were fighting the Nazis. Here are a couple of relevant suggestions...

A man's upbringing, his talents, his circumstances, are usually a tolerable index of his vocation. If our parents have sent us to Oxford, if our country allows us to remain there, this is prima facie evidence that the life which we, at any rate, can best lead to the glory of God at present is the learned life... I mean the pursuit of knowledge and beauty, in a sense, for their own sake, but in a sense which does not exclude their being for God's sake. An appetite for these things exists in the human mind, and God makes no appetite in vain. We can therefore pursue knowledge as such, and beauty as such, in the sure confidence that by so doing we are either advancing to the vision of God ourselves or indirectly helping others to do so. Humility, no less than the appetite, encourages us to concentrate on the knowledge or the beauty, not too much concerning ourselves with their ultimate relevance to the vision of God.

The second passage to which I turned (for stability in these postmodern times) comes from Paul's epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 1:15-23)...

For this reason, because I have heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love toward all the saints, I do not cease to give thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers, that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him, having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which He has called you, what are the riches of His glorious inheritance in the saints, and what is the immeasurable greatness of His power toward us who believe , according to the working of His great might that He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come.

The Bible presupposes that we--although finite creatures--have the ability to grow in our knowledge of our Creator (through reason and revelation), and also seems to see such growth in knowledge of Him as one of the most important things we are to do.

More Beauty

In the last post, I suggested both that we find the creation itself full of beauty and that the Bible presupposes--as have most thinkers throughout Western history--an objectivist view of beauty. Let me here share the counterargument that is most frequently offered.

People--and even cultures--differ on what they perceive as beautiful. Some people even do things to themselves (for the sake of looking more beautiful) that I (we) find very unattractive.

I grant that this is true, especially when we're discussing shades of beauty. There are, nonetheless, some things that every right-thinking person ought to find lovely and other things that everyone should agree are ugly. But all of such quibbling really misses the point.

If the subjectivist view is right, then the beauty--of, say, the glamorous supermodel--resides not in her but only in our thoughts about her. There is no beauty in the sunset; rather, beauty is the sort of thing that dwells in my own feelings about sunsets.

This seems rather absurd, and that's why most people (until recently) have rejected the subjectivist view of beauty. The postmodernist is not the first to discover that people have different aesthetic tastes. He's merely the first to focus too closely on this obvious fact and to follow it to an invalid conclusion... that objective beauty doesn't exist.

My friend (and fellow apologist and blogger) Bob Perry tackled this difficult subject awhile ago. Go here to read his excellent argument for objective beauty.

He ends that article with a challenge to Christians (and Christian apologists). It's very good, so I've copied it here...

While we have good reason to address the lack of respect for Truth and Goodness in our culture, it seems that we are less adept at understanding, or even noticing, that same culture’s lack of respect for Beauty. Everything we value in this life has its basis in one of these three or their combination. Even the technological gadgetry that so easily distracts us owes its design to the mathematical order, trustworthiness and beauty of the Grand Designer’s mind. We would do well to stop, look, and listen to the art, music, literature and poetry that derive from the same fundamental Source as our iPod. And we would do well to honor the beauty of this creation with all the respect, reverence, awe and honor it deserves.

But I think our call is greater than to just appreciate the beauty in this world. If we really believe we are made in the image of our God, I think that fact lays a great responsibility on us to be the best musicians, artists and authors — the best representatives and re-creators of beauty that human beings can be. For in our effort to do that we are best able to reflect the beauty and majesty of the Maker in whom we live, and move, and have our being.

Objective Beauty

I didn't really want to find myself in the position of defending the existence of objective beauty, knowing how unsympathetic our culture has become to this basic concept. Further, I admit that I made the claim (that there is an objective foundation (in God) for beauty)--it is, after all, my blog. But it should be kept in mind that up until just a few decades ago most civilized people (Christian and otherwise) believed in objective beauty. So ultimately, it seems to me, the burden in this argument ought rightly to fall upon those who deny it. While it is easy to say

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

and even to accept this bromide uncritically, it is another thing entirely to demonstrate that no objective foundation for beauty exists.

Nonetheless, I'll offer up a couple of suggestions.

And first, let's think about the beauty in creation. What God has made is unfailingly beautiful. That's not to say that all living things and all landscapes are equally lovely. Some, indeed, take one's breath away, whereas others may not impress. But think about it... have you ever found yourself saying critically,

That bird clashes with the trees it's in.

or

That butterfly just doesn't fit there.

or

That particular nebula doesn't bear observing at that telescopic power.

I think not. Even things of which you might be afraid (think snakes or sharks) nonetheless have a beauty all their own.

My second offering is this (for those of my readers who accept the Bible as the Word of God). God declares that there is beauty, and even asks us to align our tastes to conform with His. In the letter to the Philippians, He tells us (through the apostle Paul),

Whatever is lovely... whatever is praiseworthy, think about these things.

Much of the last part of Exodus is taken up with very specific designs on God's part for how the tabernacle was to look, and the artisans He named to carry out this work were

filled with the Spirit of God, with skill, with intelligence, with knowledge and with all craftsmanship, to devise artistic designs, to work in gold and silver and bronze, in cutting stones for setting, and in carving wood, for work in every skilled craft.

The Bible presupposes the existence of objective beauty, and I could produce verse after verse to support this.

I'll save another couple of suggestions on this issue for my next post...

Subjectivism

In my recent talk, I shared that postmodernism involves a subjective understanding of truth and of goodness (morality), and demonstrated the falsity of that understanding. I also suggested to my audience--composed mostly or entirely of Christians--that each of them had allowed such subjectivity to creep into their own understanding of these things. Time did not permit, but if any were unconvinced that they were influenced by subjectivity, I could have raised another issue...

Beauty.

Virtually everyone I know would uncritically accept the idea that "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder," that while truth and goodness may be objective, beauty is a subjective kind of thing.

And yet it has not always been understood thus. It used to be that truth, goodness, and beauty were each considered objective things, laws of the universe against which one could not argue. Indeed, it used to be that the goal of a liberal arts education was to create gentlemen and ladies by training men and women to discern between good and bad, right and wrong, beautiful and ugly.

And whenever a culture loses its sense of an objective foundation for truth, goodness, and beauty, it is beauty that is the first to be viewed subjectively.

Postmodernism Presentation

You can listen to the audio of my talk last week on Postmodernism by going here. If you'd also like to view the powerpoint, email me at rick@antiochchurch.org.

Religious Pluralism

At Antioch yesterday, we had a child dedication service. It was wonderful.

In his sermon, Pastor Ken discussed the all-too-common view among even Christian parents in our day that

Our children should each be allowed to find their own way spiritually.

What a different view this is from the one God commanded of the Israelites...

And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise... (Deuteronomy 6:6-7).

There are (at least) two factors that allow American Christian parents to take the view they do. One is the radical individualism of Americans in general. The other is, of course, that they have accepted a postmodern view of religion, the fallacious view that "all religions are equally valid."

If they really believed--as the Bible clearly teaches--that Jesus is the only way to salvation, redemption, forgiveness, and right relationship with the true and living God, then you can be sure they would want their children to know this. Indeed, if the Bible's claims are true, then teaching our children a right understanding of who God is and what He has done is far more important than the many other things about which we are more intentional in teaching them.

Has muddled postmodern thinking kept you from helping your kids learn the truth about Jesus and His love for them?

Unlivable Subjectivism

I suggested in the last post that the Postmodernist's subjective approach to truth is unlivable. In that post, I used an example that did not involve a life-or-death situation. But it should be even more clear when truth really matters, that everyone lives according to the objectivist view, whether they realize it or not.

Let's say you're the passenger in a car that is approaching a set of railroad tracks. You see and hear a train approaching at great speed, and worry because your friend, the driver, doesn't seem to realize it. You tell him about the train, but he says, "Naw, there's hardly ever a train at this crossing." "Well, there is now, and we're about to be hit by it!" you say. "Naw, I'm not believing it" says your Postmodern friend, as the locomotive races closer and the conductor lays on the warning whistle.

Seems unrealistic, doesn't it? Of course it is. And it highlights the fact that we all know--though Postmodernists like to kid themselves into thinking differently--that the truth value of the statement

There is a train approaching from the left!

depends not upon the observers but upon the train. When life is on the line, no one can afford to take a subjectivist view of truth, and no one does. We live our lives according to the correspondence view of truth, because we wouldn't live long if we didn't.

Objective vs Subjective

Central to understanding Postmodernism is the distinction between an objectivist view of reality and a subjectivist view. You see, Postmodernism is characterized by a radically subjective view of truth, of morality, of religion, and so forth. In my talk earlier today, I illustrated this with a truth-claim relevant to my vocation (and avocation)...

There is an owlet on the nest.

As an avian ecologist specializing in owls and other birds of prey, I have been contracted over the years to ascertain whether and where owls are nesting. So, ascertaining the truth value (the truth or falsehood) of the above statement (in specific instances) has been bread and butter to me. On an objectivist view (also known as a correspondence view) of truth, the truth value of the statement depends upon, resides in, or is determined by the object--in this case the owl. The claim is true only if there really is an owlet in the nest.

But the Postmodernist takes a subjectivist view of truth. On this view, the owlet is not the truth-maker. Rather, the truth value of the claim depends upon, is determined by, or resides in the subject or observer--in this case, the biologist. In other words, it doesn't really matter whether there is, in fact, an owlet on the nest. If we can find even one observer who believes there is an owlet on the nest, then we can deem the claim to be true.

Of course, while Postmodernists talk as if this is reasonable, no one really lives as though it were true. Let's say I'm bidding to do some owl nest monitoring for the local Forest Service, and their contracting officer discovers that I espouse a subjectivist (a Postmodern) view of truth. She would rightly pass me by for a biologist with an objectivist view. Because if the Forest Service is going to pay out good money, they want to know whether "There is an owl nesting here" corresponds to reality, not merely whether they can find a person who can convince himself that an owl is nesting.

The owlet on the nest below was a Great Gray Owl (Strix nebulosa).

Wednesday Luncheon

I'll be speaking Wednesday at the luncheon meeting of the Bend Apologetics Guild. I'm looking forward to discussing the topic of Postmodernism. Postmodernism is the spirit of our age, and every one of us is daily bombarded with its empty philosophy--its self-refuring truth claims, its hypocritical morality, and such. Its influence is pervasive, and a big part of the reason that (according to a 2003 Barna survey)

Only 9% of born-again Christians have a consistent biblical worldview.

So, I'm looking forward to Wednesday and to scrutinizing some of the flawed aspects of Postmodern thinking. I'll have the opportunity to challenge some of my fellow followers of Christ to ...

not be taken captive by empty philosophy (Col. 2:8)

and

not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind (Rom. 12:2).

Deconstruction in Law

Just a side note to our thread on textual deconstruction and the Grammatico-Historical method of interpretation...

Modern analysts worry that the system of checks and balances established by the U.S. Constitution has been eroded, and specifically that the judicial branch has usurped power meant to be wielded by the legislative branch. Those who see it this way trace the problem back to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. a Supreme Court Justice from 1902 to 1932. Though it was much later that postmodernism was to become a formal system, Holmes was a moral relativist. But more importantly, he was the first person (in a position of such influence) to apply a postmodern approach to interpreting the Constitution.

Up until his tenure, the Grammatico-Historical method was what was used to interpret this most important legal document. That is, judges attempted to discover what the framers of the Constitution meant when they wrote it. But Holmes thought it would be more practical to ignore the authors' intent and to reinterpret it in light of his own days' problems and beliefs. He brought to legal interpretation a subjectivism that hadn't been seen before, and one that continues to change the legal landscape.

Almost no one would deny that the judicial branch now wields more power than ever since the Constitution went into effect, or that Holmes' tenure on the Supreme Court was instrumental in getting us to that state. There is perhaps more dispute about whether this is a bad or a good state of affairs. My point here, however, is simply this.. like so much of postmodern thought, this approach to textual criticism is illogical, being based ultimately on claims that are self-referentially absurd.

Christians and Textual Deconstruction

A couple of posts ago, I demonstrated why textual deconstruction is a failed philosophy. And as Christians, we are told (through Paul, in Colossians 2:8),

Do not be taken captive by empty philosophy...

But despite the absurdity of textual deconstruction, this postmodern idea has infiltrated all aspects of our culture, including the church.

Up until 100 years ago, when we analyzed, say, a novel, what we were concerned with was determining what meaning the author intended to convey. It was his or her meaning that mattered. Gradually, literary critics began to move from this position and begin to see the novel itself as the meaning-maker. Thus, it no longer mattered, say, what Herman Melville meant in Moby Dick; instead, the story's meaning was somehow inherent to the text itself, completely apart from the author's intent. But now, the view has progressed even further. Today, the book itself isn't even the holder of meaning. Rather, each reader provides the meaning as he or she interacts with the text. This is the subjective view of postmodernism. And it is logically absurd.

But don't we hear this same sort of thing in Bible study? Most of us have experienced it in a small group; the leader reads a Bible passage and then asks, "What does this mean to you?" We go around the circle, each one sharing his or her own idea of the passage's meaning. We all (especially those of us who are the products of the Protestant Reformation) acknowledge the importance of personal Bible study. But when we take a subjective approach to interpreting the Bible's meaning, we have abandoned proper interpretation for the sort dictated by our postmodern culture.

A Bible passage means only one thing. And that is what the original author (and the Holy Spirit through him) intended to convey to the original audience. (There are, of course, prophecies--including those with multiple fulfillments--that complicate this issue. Nonetheless,) proper biblical interpretation has been held to involve (at least since the Reformation) use of the grammatico-historical method. This method is meant to focus our attention on the original meaning of the text, and by doing so we avoid "reading into Scripture" our own ideas of what it ought to say.

When we abandon this method, we have conformed to the empty philosophy of our present age and culture.

Textual Deconstruction

Another aspect of postmodern philosophy that faces the fatal logical problem of self-refutation is textual deconstruction. This is an idea that comes originally from Jacques Derrida (1930-2004). According to his theory, meaning is not determined by the text itself but comes only as the reader interacts with the text. The text has no inherent meaning, and no single meaning. In fact, the text has as many different valid interpretations as there are readers of it.

The problem is that Derrida put his theory into writing (as do most of those who have followed him). But Derrida (like all authors) had a clear intent in writing down his theory. He wanted to convey a particular meaning to each and every one of his readers, and he likely wrote as clearly and persuasively as he could in order to convey that meaning. And yet the message he sought to convey was that any meaning an author intends is inconsequential, that whatever the reader chooses to interpret from a text is what matters.

So Derrida was in the self-contradictory position of hoping that his readers would in this one instance suspend their belief in textual deconstruction long enough to apprehend his meaning and accept his theory of textual deconstruction.

The Problem with Postmodernism

I'm slated to give a talk to the Bend (Oregon) Apologetics Guild toward the beginning of next month. My topic is "Postmodernism," which is the spirit of the age in our culture. I hope to address postmodernism as a worldview and philosophy, dealing with its distinctive facets such as...

Denial of objective or absolute truth

Suspicion/rejection of metanarratives

Textual deconstruction

Since not all of my readers will be able to attend that March 5 luncheon lecture, I thought I'd process some of what I'll say here.

As a philosophical system, postmodernism has largely failed the test of close scrutiny by critical thinkers. That is, philosophers have nearly unanimously found postmodernism's central claims to suffer basic fatal flaws. For the most part, they are self-refuting or self-referentially absurd. I've discussed this type of problem before, particularly in relation to scientism and empiricism. But here let me give a couple of examples of the self-refuting nature of postmodernism's epistemological (truth/knowledge) claims. To say that

There is no such thing as truth

is to make a truth claim. The easy rejoinder is, "Oh! Is that true?" If the statement itself were deemed true, then it provides a glaring exception (right out of the gate) to the claim being made. Of course, today's postmodernist has caught on to this, and I hope you don't hear anyone in your particular circle making such a silly statement. But my bringing it up does not represent a straw-man argument, a caricature of the postmodern position. Because no matter how much more rhetorical complexity is added to the claim, it always remains self-refuting. How about this one?

If there does exist objective truth out there, we are prevented from ascertaining it by the vagaries and biases of our culture and language.

Sound better? Unfortunately, this statement suffers the same problem. It is, after all, a claim about objective truth--truth out there. And the obvious question now becomes, 'How did this particular person (the one making the claim) cut through the vagaries and biases of his own culture and language to discover this truth about the truth out there?'

I could go on--and it's really rather fun to spot the absurdity of these sorts of claims. But I'll leave some of the fun for you. So be watching and listening for postmodern claims about the nature of truth and knowledge. They all share a common fatal flaw...they are self-referentially absurd. Though postmodernism is alive and well on the street, it has already reached the dustbin of failed philosophies as far as philosophers themselves are concerned.

Self-refuting Statements

I've become increasingly sensitized to the presence in our everyday language of ideas and statements that are self-refuting. A self-refuring statement is logically absurd (self-referentially absurd) and thus deserves no further consideration. It makes an assertion that, when applied to itself, commits suicide. Let me share a simple example.

No coherent English sentence can be formed without including an adverb.

Since this sentence itself is coherent and does not include an adverb, it falsifies itself. Now, obviously, that particular assertion (about sentences and adverbs) is fairly innocuous. But as it turns out, much of the wrong thinking of our age, those "lofty opinions raised against the knowledge of God" (II Cor. 10:5), suffer from this exact fatal flaw; they are self-refuting positions. Specifically, the epistemological positions (the theories about how we know things) at the core of both postmodernism and scientism are self-referentially absurd. Take the following postmodern assertion:

There is no such thing as truth.

Oh, really? Is that a true statement? If not, it deserves our contempt. If so, it provides a significant counterexample to the claim being made, thus falsifying that claim. Again, we are warranted in dismissing it as nonsense.

Now, postmodernists have long ago become sufficiently sophisticated in their portrayal of their view to avoid articulating it in such an obviously self-refuting way. But no matter how they say it, the postmodern view is ultimately self-refuting. How about this form?

There is no knowledge of truth in the objective (correspondence) sense, because each individual or group is inescapably separated from that reality by the barrier of that individual's or group's language.

Sounds better, eh? This one isn't as obviously self-refuting. But that's just because it's a bit more complex. To see that it is nonetheless fatally flawed, ask yourself this: "What am I to make of this statement? Is it a valid, truthful statement about reality, one that deserves my consideration and acknowledgment? But if so, how did the person making the claim escape the inescapable language construct in which she is confined in order to be able to discover this (seemingly objective) truth about the way things really are?" If it is not meant as a statement about the way things really are, then why would this person be sharing it with you? Doesn't she hope to be taken seriously?

Postmodernism is the spirit of our age, and, despite its illogic, is being taught in schools and universities throughout America. As such, it warrants further attention, and I will post thoughts about it from time to time. For now, however, I want to make clear that many of the epistemological claims made by scientists suffer the same problem. For example,

The only valid knowledge is that which comes through scientific testing.

Or,

One can only trust that which can be perceived by the senses.

Both of these statements about knowledge are self-referentially absurd. The statements themselves fail the tests inherent in their claims. The assertions themselves were not arrived at through scientific testing or through sensory perception and so are--according to their own claims--not valid or trustworthy.

So keep your ears and eyes open for self-refuting claims. They are all around you, and some have a significant effect on how people understand (or rather, misunderstand) the world in which we live.

Let me leave you with a Berrism, a saying of baseball great Yogi Berra, made in reference to a popular restaurant...

Nobody goes there anymore--it's too crowded.