The more I think about this, the more I’m convinced that it’s all about language. One of the assertions of some of the post-modernist thinkers was that, because they way we interpret and describe the world is governed by our language (which shapes and is shaped by the society and culture we live in, and even shapes the processes by which we think and reason), it is pointless and perhaps even unhelpful to assert that there is any kind of underlying reality to the world, as even if that reality does exist (and extreme postmodernism would assert that it doesn’t) we cannot describe it in a neutral, unbiassed way. In addition, when we read things other people have written, we interpret the words in a linguistically and culturally conditioned way, and thus any claim that we are able to critically and neutrally examine the original text is false. Now, this is a somewhat absolutist and nihilistic approach to take, but it is useful in that it gives us another tool to develop theological ideas with.
Ideas can only be expressed as well as language allows. Some languages express certain ideas better than others: the classic example is that of the word “Free”. In English, we just use the one word to encompass a whole bunch of ideas; in French, however, there are two concepts of free – ‘gratuit’, meaning without financial costs, and ‘libre’, meaning ‘set free’ or ‘liberated’. The English sentence “I am free” has an ambiguity – but when rendered as “Je suis libre”, the meaning becomes clear. The other usual example used in Church is that of the word “Love”; Greek recognised several words – Agape, Phileos and Eros – all of which get translated as “love” in English, but which have very different meanings and implications, and which require several sentences of very subtle language to describe in English.
The problem is worse than that, though: these ideas about the world generally find resonance in other cultures than the ones in which they originate, and the meaning can therefore often be transferred, albeit somewhat clumsily. There are, however, instances of words that have no direct cultural equivalent outside of the community in which they originate, and therefore whilst it may be possible to provide a general ‘literal’ translation, the subtlety and contextual meaning of these words is lost when used outside of this context. Translations from Eastern languages to Western often have this problem.
The upshot of all this is that, inevitably, the authors of the Bible were not just writing within a culture – the way they thought about the ideas they were communicating, and the way they described these things were inextricably shaped by the language they used. Similarly, when we read the Bible, our interpretation of it is shaped by our own language and cultural setting. We simply cannot examine the books of the Bible from a culturally or linguistically neutral standpoint.
To give a better idea of what I’m driving at here, consider the proposition that Jesus is the Son of God: Jesus asks someone who they think he is, and they reply that they believe he is the Son of God. This encounter – and therefore this person’s experiential interpretation of their encounter with Jesus – is then recorded as a dry fact – but the meaning of the phrase ‘Son of God’ has changed through history, particularly with respect to how he came to be the Son of God: in Judaism, the king of Israel was referred to as God’s Son, and this anointing was conferred upon the king when he came to the throne – thus some people confessed that Jesus became the Son of God by his resurrection (Rom 1:4), others (Mark) that God adopted him at the point of baptism, and others (Matthew and Luke) through the miracle of his birth. The position today would be the Trinitarian view espoused by John that Jesus was God’s Son according to some pre-existing arrangement. It’s all very well and good saying that Jesus is the ‘Son of God’ – but the trouble is that the phrase ‘Son of God’ is a culturally and linguistically conditioned one that when different people say it they mean different things (even within the context of the Biblical canon!).
I’m aware that I’m skirting close to an attempt to deconstruct the Bible, and that isn’t my goal here (although I may well end up doing that as part of this process; we shall see). I’m trying to re-analyse the Bible in order to resolve the tension in my own head between the nihilistic relativism of postmodernism and the absolutist Christian claims about the nature of reality. I’m almost certainly retreading ground that people far older and wiser than I have previously covered, but I’m determined to work this one out – I’m not sure where it’s going to lead eventually, but it’s going to be an interesting journey, at least.
You put the post modern point accross very well.
However, I would want to argue for critical realist position (Polanyi is a good example of this). Language and culture far from being a barrier to knowledge, it is the way we can know. Thus though I accept the statement that all our knowledge of reality is mediated this does not mean that reality is unknowable.
Of course one cannot prove this beyond all doubt. But that is to beg the question is knowlege that which cannot be doubted or is knowlege actualy an act of faith. And if it is an act of faith is it any less knowledge.
Just some thoughts,(or rambelling) will try and think of a better way to answer.
Richard
Not sure if I’m older or wiser but here goes:
Postmodernism – the Information Age and Globalisation but not nihilist. This literally means a belief in nothing, and that our existence here on earth is without purpose or meaning. Postmodernism is not a rejection of God as those of a religious nature like to tout, but more a focus on oneself (capitalism – competition/survival of the fittest/only room for one at the top)! Even in today’s society though, we all have some degree of moral absolutism. It is inherent (I believe) in us and nature. Free will includes the freedom to decide what is moral or not (so are we guided by our own moral compasses?)
The relativism aspect is a lot closer but would not put down language as the most important influence. It is how our brain (maybe cognitive relativism as definition is better) assimilates all information from our 5 maybe 6 senses together with what we have learned/experienced before and then, re-presents it as our reality! In today’s postmodern society, in relation to selfishness driving us, I would say that peer pressure is the major influence (and this includes your societal pressures). Why? Because of 2 conflicting needs: acceptance of our own insignificance in
the greater scheme that is the universe and conversely our desire to have significance/acceptance of who we are!
Not sure if I’m older or wiser but here goes:
Postmodernism – the Information Age and Globalisation but not nihilist. This literally means a belief in nothing, and that our existence here on earth is without purpose or meaning. Postmodernism is not a rejection of God as those of a religious nature like to tout, but more a focus on oneself (capitalism – competition/survival of the fittest/only room for one at the top)! Even in today’s society though, we all have some degree of moral absolutism. It is inherent (I believe) in us and nature. Free will includes the freedom to decide what is moral or not (so are we guided by our own moral compasses?)
The relativism aspect is a lot closer but would not put down language as the most important influence. It is how our brain (maybe cognitive relativism as definition is better) assimilates all information from our 5 maybe 6 senses together with what we have learned/experienced before and then, re-presents it as our reality! In today’s postmodern society, in relation to selfishness driving us, I would say that peer pressure is the major influence (and this includes your societal pressures). Why? Because of 2 conflicting needs: acceptance of our own insignificance in
the greater scheme that is the universe and conversely our desire to have significance/acceptance of who we are!