“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction. Eph 5:17”  Proverb 1:7

In studying Western philosophy it is tempting to get caught up in the minutia of the various philosophic theories. I honestly believe that all of the theories that received widespread European or American circulation since the Renaissance have a bearing upon our culture’s worldview. The two great threads of modern Western philosophy are part of the reason for the current “culture” wars. On the one hand, there was and is a call for a worldview that is based upon reason and empirical observation of the materialistic world. On the other hand, there was and is a call to embrace that which is spirit and transcendent and to base one’s knowledge of this world upon emotional resonance. These two extremes of the philosophical movement are dialectics, which of course brings German idealist philosopher George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) to mind. Hegel was one of the most influential thinkers of the 19^th Century and, frankly, I think he was one of the few philosophers who “got it right.”

Brought up in Stuttgart in an atmosphere of Protestant pietism and thoroughly acquainted with Greek and Roman classics while in preparatory school, Hegel attended seminary for a while but didn’t enter the ministry. Strongly influenced by Greek ideas, Hegel also read the works of Spinoza, Rousseau, Kant, Fichte, and Schnelling. Although he often disagreed with these philosophers, their influence is evident in his writings.

Hegel had grand aims for explaining the universe through a full account of reality itself. He called this reality the “Absolute” and felt it was the task of philosophy to make clear the internal rational structure of the Absolute, demonstrate the manner in which the Absolute manifests itself in nature and human history, and explicate the teleological nature of the Absolute, thus showing the purpose toward which the Absolute is directed.  He agreed with Parmenides of ancient Greek, “what is rational is real and what is real is rational.” He conceived of the process of coming to know the Absolute as dialectic. Consider there is a thesis – an idea or movement that is not fully developed. (Science calls that a hypothesis. Philosophy calls it a thesis. It’s basically the same.) To answer that incompleteness an opposition, or antithesis, arises as a conflicting idea or movement. To resolve the conflict, a third point of view, a synthesis, attempts to reconcile the conflict by reaching for a higher level of truth that is contained in both the thesis and antithesis. The synthesis becomes a new thesis which generates another antithesis which gives rise to a new synthesis and ….  The Absolute (or the sum total of reality, what we might call the unifying theory of everything) develops through this dialectical fashion toward an ultimate goal.

Hegel understood reality as the Absolute unfolding dialectically in a process of self-development that would manifest itself in nature and human history. Nature is the Absolute objectifying itself in material form. Finite minds and human history are the process of the Absolute manifesting itself as spirit or consciousness.  The Absolute was thought as progressing toward full self-knowledge. Although Hegel gave lip service to Christianity, the God he envisioned was limited by the degree of self-knowledge it possessed.

Hegel made significant contributions in a variety of philosophical fields, particularly history and social ethics. He saw human history as the development of human freedom from restricted to liberty.  At the level of morality, Hegel envisioned right and wrong (duty) as a matter of individual conscience, but individuals are complete only in the midst of social relationships; thus, the only context in which duty can truly exist is a social one. Hegel considered membership in the state one of the individual's highest duties. Ideally, the state is the manifestation of the general will, which is the highest expression of the ethical spirit. Obedience to this general will is the act of a free and rational individual. Hegel emerged as a conservative and, while his philosophy was used to undergird communism, he should not be interpreted as sanctioning totalitarianism, for he also argued that the abridgment of freedom by any actual state is morally unacceptable.

His views were widely taught and his students highly regarded. Perhaps unsurprisingly, his followers soon divided into opposing (dialectical) camps. Right-wing Hegelians offered a conservative interpretation of his work, emphasizing compatibility with Christianity and political orthodoxy. Left-wing Hegelians eventually moved to an atheist position and many became political revolutionaries. Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx were particularly influenced by the idea that history moves dialectically, but they replaced Hegel’s philosophical idealism with materialism.

Hegel’s dialectics actually holds resonance with reality. Consider the history of Western philosophy.  Starting with Anselm – there is a God and the very idea that we can conceive of a deity is proof that there is a deity.  That was a thesis. Then, materialism was presented as an antithesis that didn’t really do away with God, but tended to put Him off in a corner somewhere. A synthesis came about that said that materialism was valid, but it couldn’t touch metaphysical issues. That became a thesis of its own that had an antithesis in wondering if reality was even real. The synthesis following affirmed that reality is real in so far as we correctly interpret what our senses tell us. That thesis spawned an antithesis that we could know reality by trusting our gut over and above our reason. And the cycle continues….

For all of history, at least as far back as Solomon, human beings have been presenting theses and antitheses which over time developed into syntheses. Wise people follow God’s instructions; fools hate it. Somewhere in the middle are probably those of us who want to be wise but have difficulty following instructions. Hegel tapped into that. For that, thinking Christians in the 21^st Century should be grateful to him and forgive him for how later people misused his great thinking.

“The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky proclaims the work of His hands.” Psalm 19:1

Since the 15th century modern philosophy has been marked by a continuing interaction between systems of thought based on a mechanistic, materialistic interpretation of the universe and those founded on a belief in human thought as the only ultimate reality.

Efforts to resolve the dualism of mind and matter, a conflict started by Descartes, continued to engage philosophers during the 17th and 18th centuries while at the same time, the division between science and religious belief also occupied them. The aim was to preserve the essentials of faith in God while also defending the right to think freely. One view called deism saw God as the cause of the great mechanism of the world, a view seen as more harmonious with science than with traditional religion. Natural science at this time was striding ahead, relying on sense perception as well as reason, and thereby discovering the universal laws of nature and physics. Such empirical (observation-based) knowledge appeared to be more certain and valuable than philosophical knowledge based upon reason alone.

After Locke and the empiricists stated their case for logical reasoning processes, philosophers became more skeptical about achieving knowledge that they could be certain was true. Some thinkers who despaired of finding a resolution to dualism embraced skepticism, the doctrine that true knowledge, other than what we experience through the senses, is impossible. Others turned to increasingly radical theories of being and knowledge. Immanuel Kant, probably the most influential of these, sett Western philosophy on a new path it follows today. Kant’s view that knowledge of the world is dependent upon certain innate categories or ideas in the human mind is known as idealism.

Voltaire was the assumed name of François Marie Arouet (1694-1778), a French writer and philosopher, who was one of the leaders of the Enlightenment. Educated by Jesuits, he chose literature as a career, moving in aristocratic circles where he was known for his brilliant and sarcastic wit. His public contempt for the monarchy won him time in the Bastille where his subsequent writing gave eloquent expression of both his anti-Christian views and his rationalistic, deist creed. Although in his earlier works he called for religious toleration, he increasingly attacked French ecclesiastic institutions, bringing him into conflict with powerful church leaders. By 1756, he wrote a study of human progress in which he decried supernaturalism, denounced religion and cursed the power of the clergy, while at the same time declaring his belief in the existence of the deist God. A passionate defender of the persecuted of any belief, Voltaire rejected any form of religion that that constituted fanaticism. He sought to substitute deism, which he considered a purely rational religion, for Christianity, which he considered to be irrational fanaticism. He blamed the world’s woes upon traditional religion.  He did not believe that absolute faith, based upon any particular religious text, tradition or revelation was needed to believe in God. Voltaire envisioned a universe based on reason and a respect for nature.  He wrote, "What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason."

Voltaire viewed the Bible as an outdated legal and/or moral text that was by and large metaphorical, but could still teach some good lessons. He further asserted that it was a work of humans, not a divine gift. These beliefs did not hinder his religious practice, however. He built a chapel on his estate in Ferney and regularly attended religious services. He wrote “If God did not exist, He would have to be invented. But all nature cries aloud that he does exist: that there is a supreme intelligence, an immense power, an admirable order, and everything teaches us our own dependence on it.”

All of Voltaire's works contain memorable passages distinguished by elegance, clarity, and wit. Voltaire's contradictions of character, reflected in his writings, were also noted by his contemporaries. Seemingly able to defend either side of any debate, his contemporaries disagreed whether he appeared distrustful, avaricious and sardonic or generous, enthusiastic, and sentimental. He rejected everything he considered irrational and incomprehensible and called upon his contemporaries to act against intolerance, tyranny, and superstition. His morality rested on a belief in freedom of thought and respect for all individuals. His views made him a central figure in the 18^th-century philosophical movement and, as he pleaded for a socially involved type of literature, Voltaire is considered a forerunner of such 20th-century writers as Jean-Paul Sartre and other French existentialists.

Although Voltaire hated Rousseau and saw himself as a rationalistic alternative to Rousseau’s romanticism, it must be noted that both were cited by the French revolutionaries as the “fathers” of their movement. In some ways, this seems odd as Voltaire perceived the French merchant class too small and ineffective, the aristocracy to be parasitic and corrupt, the commoners ignorant and superstitious, and the church as a static force useful only as a counterbalance since its "religious tax" (tithe) helped to create a strong backing for revolutionaries.

Voltaire distrusted democracy, which he saw as encouraging the idiocy of the masses. Far from supporting an American-type experiment, Voltaire believed only an enlightened monarch or absolutist, advised by philosophers like himself (what we might call enlightened despotism), could bring about change as it was in the king's rational interest to improve the power and wealth of his subjects and kingdom and was key to progress and change.

His hatred of religious institutions and his faith in an impersonal God who does not dictate morality may be seen as partially encouraging the Reign of Terror’s execution of church leaders and essentially anyone they deemed unreasonable. Unmoored from objective and transcendent morality, the French revolutionaries found no issue within their conscience against what they were doing. They found resonance for this in Voltaire’s writings for even as he derided violence and war, he advocated for the overthrow of authority without regard for a personal and concerned deity that might judge human actions.

Although Voltaire embraced reason to a much greater degree than Rousseau, his conflicted worldview is just as obvious. Rousseau did not truly believe in God, but he believed church institutions could be used to reshape society to a more naturalistic (and, he thought, healthier) ethos. Voltaire believed in a deity, but hated religious institutions.  Yet, oddly, both are sighted as great Enlightenment philosophers and “fathers” of democratic ideas.

Voltaire was a good deal more rational than Rousseau. He recognized that God is visible in the world if we will just admit to His existence. However, whatever his personal issues were, Voltaire felt an intense hatred for the clergy and for all restraining morality that comes from a transcendent source.  His another example of great intellect turned to bent purposes and feeding frightening results.

There’s a bridge in the Alaskan forest that leads to a friend’s remote cabin. Over the last 20 years, my husband and I have hiked the miles in from the highway on several occasions. When we were younger and didn’t have children in tow, we would wade the river. Some years the river is calm and knee-deep; wading is no problem.  Some years we would turn back because of high water. Other years, we’d risk our lives in water that was too fast and too treacherous (though obviously we lived). One year, when we were on the cabin side and needed to get home to work, we sent our Labrador retriever through the suddenly rain-swollen river with a rope tied to her saddlebags. Using hand commands for hunting, I convinced her to walk around a boulder to tie off the rope and allow us to cross clinging to the upstream side. Our friend finally decided to quit risking his friends’ lives by improving access to his cabin.

When we first saw the bridge it didn’t inspire our confidence.  It consists of a cable of multiple ropes bound together for a foot path, two ropes at waist height for hand rails and cross bracing of shorter ropes to keep everything swaying in the same direction. Somehow when he said he’d built a bridge, we’d thought he meant something sturdy and of wood.  We’d brought the kids. One of the major problems with trusting the bridge was that we couldn’t see the attachment on the other side. He’d had to tie off back in the woods because the bank-side trees were unstable.

We eventually crossed the bridge, but before doing so, we examined the attachment we could see, assuring that it was well engineered. We discussed that this particular friend is a craftsman who doesn’t do things halfway. We decided we could trust him. Then, we put our faith in his creation by crossing the bridge.

Reason could only take us so far. We could use our intelligence to decide if the bridge was safer than the rain-swollen river. Our dogs had already jumped in and swam it, but had disappeared around the bend before they gained the other side. The bridge was definitely our best option, especially with our seven-year-old in tow. But reason could only take us so far. At that point where it ran out of steam, we had to gamble on our friend’s skills at bridge-making and trust our fate to three ropes and a tie-off we couldn’t see.

Obviously we survived. And, we returned to the bridge this last summer.  Coming upon it, we briefly glanced at the tie-off on our side of the river to assure it had been well-maintenanced and then we set off across the bridge. Gone was the debate, the angst, the fear. We had faith in the bridge. The uninitiated friend with us was not so certain and he ended up wading the river rather than trusting the bridge. Even after seeing us do it, he was certain we were nuts for trusting the bridge. Watching our Labs rescue him when he lost his footing in the rapids, we weren’t convinced he was the wise one.

This analogy speaks to faith. In faith, we can follow reason so far, but at some point, we must trust what we cannot wholly know.  We must gamble that God is Who He says He is and that He will keep His promises if we do what He asks.  We can’t be wholly certain of the outcome until we’ve placed our faith in Him. At the outset, we have doubts. Maybe this is foolishness, believing in a deity. We’ve seen evidence for Him, but we can’t be absolutely certain of our interpretation of the evidence until we trust Him. We can’t examine all of the evidence until we reach the other side of the bridge. As Blaise Pascal noted, however, unlike the bridge, we have nothing to lose if we believe and are wrong and everything to lose if we choose not to believe and are later proven wrong.  Trusting to faith is a whole lot safer than trusting in woodland bridges.

Yet, once we have placed our trust in God, it is easier the next time to again place our trust in God, because He shows Himself to be reliable whenever we let Him do so.  Faith gets easier with practice and in time, one comes to understand that faith is an easier path than the path of total reason.  God knows the better way.

There are people, like our distrustful friend, who refuse to trust God and even mock those of us who do. Our friend remained convinced that his way was better even after he’d taken a dunking and been allowed to view the other tie-off. He remained agnostic about the bridge and, probably because he doesn’t know the friend who built it, distrustful of the workmanship that went into it.  This reminds me of many atheists – who insist upon believing only in what they can see, feel, hear, taste and touch – at least in regards to God (they will take gambles in other things quite readily). They stand and mock what they do not trust and insist that they have the better way, even as they stand knee deep in rushing ice-cold water and are about to need rescue from their choices.

Faith accepts that there is something beyond the point where reason is no longer useful. It examines by revelation that to which reason cannot give access.  It’s the only way to gain access and understanding into the part of reality that is not quantifiable through reason alone. On the other side of faith, however, we can pick up the reason that had guided us to the point of faith and continue to use it to examine the new and better reality into which we have now entered.

Faith is not an escape from reason. It is an enhancement of it!

E.O. Wilson noted that “outside of our heads there is a freestanding reality” whereas “inside our heads is a reconstitution of reality based on sensory input and self-assembly of concepts.” By linking the two, he hoped to achieve “the Enlightenment dream of objective truth based on scientific understanding.”

Most modern-day atheists rely on Cartesian philosophy with its presupposition that the rational scientific approach gives us full access to external reality. However, philosophers who followed Descartes noted that reason is limited. The objects we observe are things in and of themselves, but we observe them through the filter of our senses. We perceive reality based on what our senses communicate to us. Therefore, reality does not come to us directly, but is filtered through a lens that we ourselves provide.

George Berkeley asserted we have no experience of material objects that exist outside of the perceptual apparatus of our minds and senses. Skeptic David Hume asked “Are we absolutely certain we even exist?”

Post-modern philosophy still has not provided an answer to that question. In the Matrix movies, we see the theme – human beings who are actually constructs of a computer perceive themselves as living lives that are factually complete delusion. The rebels believe they have broken free to live in the real world, but could that not also be a construct of the computer? We simply do not, and cannot, know and the series ends as up in the air on that question as it was in the first movie. Art imitates life, because the world as we know it is truly a construct of our minds and not reality itself.

Immanuel Kant understood the consequence of this dilemma.  He asserted that it is irrational to presume that our experience of reality corresponds with reality itself. Human knowledge is limited by the vastness of the knowledge available to us, but also by the limited sensory apparatus we bring to that reality.  I can enjoy the company of a cat, but I cannot actually know what it is like to be a cat. Therefore, I do not have access to some part of reality and cannot know reality with complete certitude, which is the rigor demanded by Cartesian philosophy, the basis of modern thought.

We can apprehend reality only through our five senses; there is no other way for us to perceive it in a rationalistic manner. Because we are limited to our perception of reality, we cannot know for certain that what we perceive is accurate. This is not the same thing as being delusional. Kant rejected the argument that our senses are unreliable. We perceive well enough. We simply have no basis to assume that our perceptions ever resemble reality as it really is. This is because what we call reality is really only a copy of reality constructed by our perceptions.

It’s a heady concept, made headier because Kant was not diminishing the importance of perception and human experience. A recognized science and mathematician, Kant did not degrade the value of science which is largely based upon observation. He simply drew the conclusion that we cannot wholly know reality and we should be aware of that.

Human reason can only operate in the reality we perceive. Being a copy of true reality reconstructed by our reason, reality can be distorted by our perceptions.

One wants to resist Kant’s philosophy. Reality is objective, we insist. Yet, Kant made a salient argument. Reality is our subjective perception of objective reality.  That it flies in the face of our common sense makes it no less true. Common sense said the sun revolved around the earth and that the earth was flat. Scientific discoveries have shown common sense to sometimes be incorrect. In fact, most of the great discoveries from Copernicus to Heisenberg have been huge violations of common sense that often labeled the scientific geniuses positing these theories as crackpots, at least initially.  As the Theory of Relativity shows, reality is sometimes very strange and common sense does not always give us an unfailingly accurate picture of the world. Noting that, Bertrand Russell wrote “Common sense is the metaphysics of savages.”

Empiricists like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett assume without any evidence or proof that their experiences somehow give them magical access to reality, never considering this an unwarranted leap toward the embracement of illusion.

Don’t we all perceive the same reality? Don’t we all see the same objects in a given room, for example? Obviously, these things must exist then! Ah, but don’t we all have the same sensory apparatus that is designed in the same way? Maybe we all perceive reality the same way because we are all afflicted by the same flaws of perception.  Kant’s conclusion was that there are permanent and inescapable limits to human reason and it is foolish to pretend otherwise.

It should be noted that this concept was not completely new to Kant, but had been posited by Plato. It should also be noted that it is a concept that is not at odds with the world religions. Hinduism, Islam, Judaism and Christianity all share a doctrine that this world is not the only one there is. We live in an illusory, transient world dependent upon a higher, timeless reality that will one day supercede the temporary one we live in.

Sociologist Peter Berger noted “the religious impulse, the quest for meaning that transcends the restricted space of empirical research in this world has been a perennial feature of mankind.”

Some would deem this “a God-shaped hole. Almost all societies across the planet seek to understand something more than just the bricks and trees of reality. We all seek somewhat that is just outside the realm of perceived reality.

Kant’s recognition that there are two types of reality – one objective and the other subjective, while confirming core elements of religions, were entirely secular. He arrived at them by reason alone, employing no religious vocabulary or any reliance on faith. Kant did, however, acknowledge that by recognizing the limits of reason he had provided room for faith.

Reviewing the points of Strobel’s book has not brought me to an end of the questions that it caused me to entertain, but I figure I’ll close one chapter before I open the next.

Because we live in a post-modern world where people truly want to believe that truth is relative, the points of “The Case for the Real Jesus” sometimes are easy to ignore. After all, isn’t it the primary goal of all Christian scholars to prove the existence of Jesus Christ?

I would say that it is also the primary goal of all atheist scholars to prove the non-existence of God. How are they anymore reliable in their conclusions than Christian scholars?

I submit they aren’t.  I submit that we can look at the facts and let the facts speak for themselves. Conclusions are much less subjective that way.

Scholars have found a radically different Jesus in recently discovered ancient documents. However, as the documents in question date from a century and a half after Jesus’ death, they are not as credible in their portrayal of Jesus as the New Testament documents, which were written within 30-70 years of his death – within the lifetimes of eye witnesses to the events documented.  The Gospel of Thomas, though a darling of Gnostic scholars, was written after AD 175 and sheds no significant new light on the historical Jesus. The Secret Gospel of Mark turned out to be a 20^th Century hoax that embarrassed the scholars who hailed its authenticity. The Jesus Papers are not taken seriously by any historians. All the so-called Gnostic gospels lack connection with the historical Jesus, having been written too late and by those not in a position to know the historical Jesus or anyone who knew Him.

We have so many copies of the New Testament dating back to AD 100 in a few cases and those manuscripts reveal textual variants affecting the meaning of the text account for only 1 percent of variants, none having to do with central doctrines of Christianity.

Using historical methods, the resurrection of Jesus still best accounts for the belief in His resurrection.  The majority of Biblical scholars both liberal and conservative accept as true that Jesus died by crucifixion, that His disciples believed he rose from the dead and appeared to them, and that His tomb was indeed empty or the authorities of the day would have produced the body.  Other theories simply do not account for all the details.

Christian beliefs are not derived from pagan religions. In fact, some pagan mystery religions might have borrowed ideas from Christianity. Most of the key doctrines of Christianity were established well before similar myths appeared in contemporary mystery religions.  Careful scholars discredited this theory decades ago.

A compelling case can be made that Jesus – and Jesus alone – matches the Messianic prophesies. Only Jesus managed to fulfill the prophesies that needed to happen before the destruction of the Jewish temple in AD 70. Consequently, if Jesus isn’t the predicted Messiah of Judaism, there will never be one.  He has not fulfilled all the prophesies yet, but because He fulfilled the ones that needed to be fulfilled by AD 70, it is reasonable to consider that He can fulfill the final ones at the appropriate time.

Obviously we have the freedom to believe whatever we want. Just because the US Constitution gives equal protection for all religions doesn’t mean that all beliefs are equally true. Whatever we believe about Jesus does not change the reality of Who He is.  So why bother to cobble together a make-believe Jesus of our own design when we can experience the real Jesus of history and faith?

Strobel’s book provided me with facts to go with my convictions, but my mind had already been made up over 30 years of God revealing Himself to me through Jesus Christ. I already knew that historical fact provides a strong foundation for the faith claims of Christianity.  Yet, if the case for Jesus is so convincing, why do so many critics rely on flimsy evidence and feeble arguments in order to build a much weaker case for a fabricated Jesus? Why do they ignore or denigrate the first-century, eyewitness-based Gospels of the New Testament and instead manufacture a different Jesus from second-century (or later) documents that lack historical credibility?

Ultimately, I agree with Strobel – most critics are uncomfortable (feeble word!) with a transcendent and all-powerful Deity, so they try to bring Jesus (the human face of God) down to their level.  Some do this by reducing Jesus, rejecting His uniqueness, miracles and obvious divinity, transforming Him into a prophet and wise teacher, rather than the Son of God.  Others elevate themselves.  It’s okay with them if Jesus is God, so long as they can be gods too.  The result of both activities is that Jesus becomes our equal and therefore doesn’t deserve our allegiance or our worship. He cannot judge us or hold us accountable. The 10 Commandments become the 10 Suggestions.  Jesus isn’t our Savior; he’s our friendly guide.

In Mere Christianity C.S. Lewis wrote:

The Christian way is different: harder and easier. Christ says ‘Give me All. I don’t want so much of your time and so much of your money and so much of your work: I want You. I have not come to torment your natural self, but to kill it. No half-measures are any good…. Hand over the whole natural self, all the desired which you think innocent as well as the ones you think wicked – the whole outfit. I will give you a new self instead. In fact, I will give you Myself: my own will shall become yours.

As I found with the chapter on Judaism, this chapter was chockfull of discussion points and I eventually decided only to touch upon a couple of the issues discussed.  I think I may touch on these other issues at a later date and at my leisure.

The United States has probably never had more people claiming to be Christians in its population and yet, so many who claim this title have no idea what they are proclaiming.  We live in an age of do-it-yourself spirituality, where people believe that you can mix and match religions to take what you like and create a god of your own making. You can even be your own god if you want to be. Truth is relative and theological terms are subject to reinterpretation. It’s a post-modern worldview and it’s all around us.

Modernism is best defined by the philosophy of Descartes of “I think, therefore I am” fame.  Descartes wanted to be certain of everything.  Modernist thinkers insisted on 100 percent certainty in all spheres of knowledge. Of course, this was not possible. There are many things we can know in part, but we cannot have 100 percent certainty on.  If you asked a modernist “What is truth?” as Pilate famously asked 2000 years ago, the modernist would go out to try and find the answer – and possibly never return.

Post-modernism was a reaction to the modernist viewpoint. Basically, it says we can’t know anything for certain, all things are relative, and truth claims are oppressive.

Strobel interviewed Paul Copan, PhD., chair of philosophy and ethics at Palm Beach Atlantic University. He has impressive academic credentials and has edited books with contributions from conservative and liberal scholars. Strobel posed Pilates famous question to Copan and he explained post –modernism as a suspicion of metanarratives – a ‘world story’ that’s taken to be true for all people in all cultures and which ends up oppressing people.

Suspicious of sweeping truth claims, postmodern thinkers believe no fact is true in all times and all places. Objective relativism says that my beliefs might be “true” for me, but not for anyone else. My opinion can completely conflict with someone else’s opinion and still be considered valid. Yeah, and people find it hard to understand the Trinity?

Religious relativism says a religion can be true for me or for my culture, but not for someone else or their culture. No religion provides a “big picture” for everyone.  Jesus is, of course, a flexible concept.

Moral relativism says more values are genuine for some, but not for others. Cheating spouses of the world, please note, your spouse may not agree that adultery is okay for you, but not for them.

Historical relativism says we can’t know for certain what happened in the past, so it is subject to interpretation – and reinterpretation.  Dan Brown subscribes to historical relativism.

Relativism falls apart logically when you examine it too closely.  “As a worldview, it simply doesn’t work,” Copan said.

A relativist believes that relativism is true not just for himself, but for everyone else. The problem with this is that an honest relativist cannot apply his own beliefs about relativism to relativism itself. “[If] every belief is as good as every other belief … it becomes self-refuting … self-contradictory. They self-destruct under examination.”

Copan admitted that postmodernism has its good points. It reminds us that absolutely certainty is impossible.  “Between absolute, mathematical certainty and utter skepticism are degrees of knowledge – the highly plausible, the probable, and the reasonable, for instance.  We rely on these standards every day. Certain beliefs are more plausible or likely than others. We can know truly, even if we don’t know exhaustively, or with absolute certainty.”

Copan defined truth as “a belief, story, ideal, or statement that matches up with reality or corresponds to the way things really are.”

Something can be true even if people don’t believe it. The world was round even when people believed it was flat. The false belief did not render the truth invalid. Truth is true even if people don’t acknowledge it.

Postmodernists generally want to rely on their gut in what they choose to believe. Of course, feelings are tricky, fickle things. They are only one part of who we are. “The capacity to feel is a God-given gift,” Copan said, “but so is the capacity to think, to act in a morally responsible way, to discipline ourselves … and to shape our character into something better than it presently is. If we follow only our feelings, then we’re being false to all of who we are and what we were designed to be.”

Francis Shaeffer, who wasn’t mentioned in the book, once showed this example. If morals are relative, it not really wrong if I pour a pot of boiling water over your head. It’s okay for me, so what’s the problem?

When it comes to postmodern relativism, we see it no clearer than when we approach Jesus Christ. What does it matter if we create our own Jesus?

Christianity is not primarily about subscribing to a set of doctrines, Copan explained. We’re called into a relationship with Jesus, rather than into a doctrinal system.  The Bible is a narrative of God’s interaction with us. If we lose this notion of relationship, we risk losing the heart of Christian faith. Doctrines flow from relationship, but faith is putting our belief in someone, not agreeing with a set of predetermined statements.

“What we believe about Jesus doesn’t really affect Who He is,” Copan explained. “Our beliefs can’t change reality. Whether we choose to believe it or not, Jesus is the unique Son of God.  He convincingly demonstrated the trustworthiness of His remarkable claims through His resurrection.”

Jesus is Who He is. It doesn’t matter what I or anyone else thinks.  My belief has nothing to do with Who He is.  The sooner postmodern man figures that out, the sooner we can honestly examine truth.