What Happened To All The Christians!?

[WinePusher]

Seems to me like the Christian Apologist demographic is shrinking. Many old time users, (which I realize from looking through the older threads) such as Achilles, Jester, ST_JB, scottlittlefield, olivasijo, Goose, otseng, etc......don't participate as much; while there are alot of veteran atheist/nonbeliever/agnostic users that still do.

Whats Happening!? Did I miss the rapture?

[Slopeshoulder]

Not sure what you mean by harming christianity; I think it has helped make it intelligible while disabusing it of its silliness.

I find it fairly intelligible without the modernism, but I am willing to listen as to why you believe it does.

But I think I've misread you. I think at this point the best response is to suggest that you go further educate yourself regarding the specific definitions, scope, contributions, philosophy, theology, science, logic, evidence, and basic thrust of modernity (and post-modernity).

Thank you for the suggestion, but my opinion of modernism/postmodernism could be summed up as:

"Philosophically, you can believe anything, so long as you do not claim it to be true.
Morally, you can practice anything, so long as you do no claim that it is a “better� way.
Religiously, you can hold to anything, so long as you do not bring Jesus Christ into it.
If a spiritual idea is eastern, it is granted critical immunity; if western, it is thoroughly criticized. Thus, a journalist can walk into a church and mock its carryings on, but he or she dare not do the same if the ceremony is from the eastern fold. Such is the mood at the end of the twentieth century.

A mood can be a dangerous state of mind, because it can crush reason under the weight of feeling. But that is precisely what I believe postmodernism best represents–a mood."(Ravi Zacharias in Jesus among other Gods)

"Current interpretations of modernism vary. Some divide 20th century reaction into modernism and postmodernism, whereas others see them as two aspects of the same movement."(wikipedia) , mine being the latter.

I found that a university based divinity school was a very good place to do this

I'm sure these are great places to learn "modern" thought. The problems is that I see no reason to accept it. It's like trying to build a new and improved house without a foundation, or write novels without understanding fundamental grammar.

I think these are gross over-generalizations and inacurracies regarding what modernity is. And not what I advocate or defend.They are reductionsitic caricatures. And rather glennbeckian in their paranoia. Who told you them?
But they do suggest something related: you are NOT free to present anything you believe as fact if it is clearly in gross contradiction to what the general state of human learning and reason suggest (with discussion of that being much of what is discussed case by case).This particularly applies to any kind of scriptural or doctrinal fundamentalism. This is NOT hold to or do or believe whatever you like; quite the opposite.
To clarify: divinity schools (mainstream and university based) are great places to learn about the development of theology in dialogue with modernity (among MANY other things). My wife and I formally studied (matriculation, degrees) at Yale, Harvard, BC, BU, Weston, Andover-Newton, Fairfield, the New Seminary, and EDS, but the faculty connected us to many more like them (duke, venderbilt, chicago, emory, etc etc etc). It's great. Your dismissals sound like caricatures. Did you learn them from some demagogue? You may wish to look more closely. You sound like a guy on a barstool watching fox news interviewing dinesh d'souza or some other lightweight.

[otseng]

Slopeshoulder, what is your definition of modernity? I think differing definitions is where the source of disagreements lie.

[Slopeshoulder]

Slopeshoulder, what is your definition of modernity? I think differing definitions is where the source of disagreements lie.

Sure.
At it's most basic, it would be the overall thrust of thought, learning, discussion and consensus that began with Descartes and continues until now, or say 50-80 years ago if you include post-modernity as a separate development after Wittgenstein (as I do).

As to content, because it's so vast, and includes such opposed movements as idealism, empiricism, positivism, romanticism, pragmatism, analytic philosophy, phenomenology, rationalism, existentialism and deconstruction, it's hard to nail down anything consistent beyond broad themes. Some are very very hardcore regarding verifiability, where others are more sanguine (many moderns and postmoderns are deeply religious!). But here are a few themes that seem like safe bets that concern most moderns:

- the value of human reason (senses, logic, experimetation), in the face of supersition, magic, alchemy
- the value of human experience and judgment in the face of inherited assumptions
- the idea of evolution or progress in understanding
- This is crucial: the difficulty, yet the importance, of finding "foundations" of knowledge that we can all agree to and which might form the basis for more elaborate ideas. Indeed, all the major movements mentioned above, as well as others, are defined by how they tried to solve this (senses, ideas, feeling, experience, cognition, etc)
- the value of freedom of inquiry subject to peer review (as flawed as the inquirers may be)
- a sense of provisionalism regarding truth

As modernity became post-modernity, new themes were brought to bear:
- as universal foundations are proving really hard to find, and we've had little luck, it seems that we're better off looking for meaning rather than truth
- as perspective is always limted, and often dileneated by gender, race, economics and power, as well as the way in which these slip into language and perception themselves, it would appear that truth or meaning is not universal, but rather local, and often unjust and incomplete.
- biology, physics, language, and politics may have more to teach us about how we find meaning, especially as they are all so flaky when you look at them closely.

So modernity says to premodernity, "Hey, forget your magical beliefs and superstitions. They don't add up." And a LONG discussion between theology and philosophy, myth and science ensued, complicated by comparative religion. It did well when it clarified and matured religious thinking (as it did for many modern theologians) and when it spared us from countless kooky notions (human sacrifice anyone?); but sometimes it got very parsimonius and arrogant about what would even be considered true at all and seemed to pur perfect knowledge ahead of human happiness. We see this latter trend among "strong atheists," positivists, rationalists, and reductionists.

But POST modernity says to modernity, "well, science and logic are themselves limited, flawed, and self-undermining at times; they are just one discourse among many, with an appropriate role and innapropriate roles. NO, we can't allow for incredulous nonsensical opinion to pass itself off as fact. HOWEVER, first, you moderns don't know everything you think you know. And second, the premoderns might have lacked modern knowledge and education, but they had brains, and common sense. And some of them were sublime in their thinking. So maybe what they said made sense as metaphor, poetry, and was deeply meaningful and valuable." All this led to neo-orthodoxy, post-liberalism, and paleo-orthodoxy on the right, and a certain pluralism and mythopoetic sensibility on the left.

There is no ONE way to be modern or post modern when it comes to any single scriptural, theological, ethical, or doctrinal issue (and this makes a fascinating and endless study). But both do say that things that stand outside of experience and the laws of physics need some good and honest support. So they both reject fundamentalism. Firstly because it flies in the face of modern advances in all the sciences, social sciences, and humanities, and secondly because it seems to flatten the richness of religion itself, especially the bible, turning it into magic tales or some kind of mechanistic rulebook rather than a endless font of meaning and maturation.
Interestingly, every time a religious person tries to present evidence, they are buying into modernity, often with disastrous and embarassimg results. I refuse to do it. Instead, I always recommend that it's better to give up some childish beliefs for the sake of modernity, while building deeper beliefs in the context of post-modernity.

While she wrankles fundamentalists, I must say that Karen Armstrong does a stupendously good job of elaborating this in several of her books over the past 10-15 years. Had she written 25 years ago, I might not have had to spend 5 years in school studying all this stuff. Yes, she has a few big blind spots, but the good well outweighs the bad.

I hope that helps. Thanks for asking. BTW, the name's Bill.

[Slopeshoulder]

OOPS, I also just noticed that there was a link from fisherking(?) to modernism.
That's not modernity, but merely a movment in art, design, and literature within modernity. Modernity (started in 15th century) is broader and longer than modernism (started in 19th century, stopped after WW2?).

[otseng]

But here are a few themes that seem like safe bets that concern most moderns:

- the value of human reason (senses, logic, experimetation), in the face of supersition, magic, alchemy
- the value of human experience and judgment in the face of inherited assumptions
- the idea of evolution or progress in understanding
- This is crucial: the difficulty, yet the importance, of finding "foundations" of knowledge that we can all agree to and which might form the basis for more elaborate ideas. Indeed, all the major movements mentioned above, as well as others, are defined by how they tried to solve this (senses, ideas, feeling, experience, cognition, etc)
- the value of freedom of inquiry subject to peer review (as flawed as the inquirers may be)
- a sense of provisionalism regarding truth

With this definition of modernism, I don't see any glaring things in it that I would disagree with.

One question I do have though is how does the supernatural fit into modernism? Or would modernism completely reject the supernatural?

[EduChris]

...modern or post modern...both reject fundamentalism. Firstly because it flies in the face of modern advances in all the sciences, social sciences, and humanities, and secondly because it seems to flatten the richness of religion itself, especially the bible, turning it into magic tales or some kind of mechanistic rulebook rather than a endless font of meaning and maturation...Interestingly, every time a religious person tries to present evidence, they are buying into modernity, often with disastrous and embarassimg results. I refuse to do it. Instead, I always recommend that it's better to give up some childish beliefs for the sake of modernity, while building deeper beliefs in the context of post-modernity...

I like most of what you say here, but I'm not sure what you mean by "present evidence." In my mind, the more we know about the Bible--its origins and its original writers and audience and culture--the better off we are. So I don't mind people like Richard Bauckham and N.T. Wright "doing their homework," so to speak, and taking the (often very vocal) critics to task. If that counts as "presenting evidence," then I'm all for it.

For me, when I want to see the "big picture," I will read Breuggeman, Fretheim, Barbara Brown Taylor, Abraham Joshua Heschel, and the like. But when I want a "close-up picture," I will go to Bauckham and Wright and others like them. I particularly enjoy the back-and-forth-movement between the close-ups and the wide-angles.

[Slopeshoulder]

But here are a few themes that seem like safe bets that concern most moderns:

- the value of human reason (senses, logic, experimetation), in the face of supersition, magic, alchemy
- the value of human experience and judgment in the face of inherited assumptions
- the idea of evolution or progress in understanding
- This is crucial: the difficulty, yet the importance, of finding "foundations" of knowledge that we can all agree to and which might form the basis for more elaborate ideas. Indeed, all the major movements mentioned above, as well as others, are defined by how they tried to solve this (senses, ideas, feeling, experience, cognition, etc)
- the value of freedom of inquiry subject to peer review (as flawed as the inquirers may be)
- a sense of provisionalism regarding truth

With this definition of modernism, I don't see any glaring things in it that I would disagree with.

One question I do have though is how does the supernatural fit into modernism? Or would modernism completely reject the supernatural?

Technical quibble: it's actually modernity, not modernism.

You ask THE BEST question that can be asked, and you'll need better minds than mine can do it justice. Indeed, this question drove much debate for centuries. In my opinion, Hume made it most difficult by really raising the bar of evidence and being skeptical about what we can know and say with confidence, ruling out supernaturalism, followed by the logical positivists and the vienna circle (we see the spirit of Hume all over this forum). Kant tried to respond, as did the right wing Hegelians (e.g. the Caird brothers), the anti-rationalist romantics (Schleiermacher, Kierkegargaard), the theistic existentialists (Tillich, Rahner), the Wiitgensteinians (Paul Holmer, DZ Philips), the Chicago catholics (Paul Ricour, David Tracy and many others), my old teachers the Yale post-liberals (Frei, Lindbeck, Kelsey, Childs, etc), the mystics, the phenomenologists, the comparative religionists and mythologists (Eliade, Campbell), the sociologists (Ernst Troeltsch, Peter Berger), the post-analytic philosophers, and many others I forget.


In the end, and taken together, the main theme regarding how to find a place for supernaturalism in a modern context seems to be this...
In the human experience, throughout time and across culture:
- there are things we cannot know, and can neither rule in or rule out entirely; rationalism and scientism are not all powerful and do not get the final word, even though they must have a priveledged place at the table.
- there are experiences that strike us as uncanny and benevolent at the same time
- we have a tendency to strain for meaning at the edges of what is comprehensible or expressible, AND we find this worthwhile (and art and poetry do this, trumping logic and science and philosophy at the edges).
- we use our hearts, our emotions, our intuition, and our actions, in absence of evidence, to make and have many of our most profound decisions, commitments, and experiences.
- Sometimes, when we connect dots, it sure feels like the supernatural is at work.
- Religion seems to be the main place where the sublime congregates (when it isn't driving extremists to violence)

This leaves these choices:

- challenge modernity on premodern terms and be fundamantalist. Affirm supernaturalism as fact.

- bastardize modernity and try to beat it at it's own game. Be like Josh McDowell or Lee Stroebel, get laughed at and decimated here in debate with atheists. Afiirm supernaturalism as fact.

- challenge modernity (in either post-modern or premodern terms) and be traditionally orthodox, paleo-orthodox, or neo-orthodox, welcoming the supernatural in shamelessly and vocally. Speak religious language (this emphasizes the post-liberalism that started at Yale)

- embrace Hume, Russell, Dawkins, etc,. Celebrate what we can say IS, and no more than wha IS, and try to fill the knowledge gap through science. No supernaturalism allowed. But find both awe, clarity and strength here (this is secularism as well as non-theistic buddhism). It is bracing; I like to visit my many friends here.

- basically be modern, but say "hmmmm..." a lot (regarding the supernatural) and keep an open mind and heart, a sort of optimistic agnosticism that embraces religious metaphor, symbol, and possibility; respect science but de-center scientism. but be very humble about beliefs and overt supernatural claims. Maybe find a tradition, language, community, or holy book that you let define and guide you; respect and learn from other traditions. Most of my mainstream and liberal clergy friends fit here. I usually do too.

- embrace mysticism, the spiritual practice of the heart, at the edge of knowing and consciousness par excellence (every major religion has its own version; but the Christian version is somewhat under the radar but vital in retreate centers and monastaries). Let supernaturalism go, yet live in it, at the same time, getting past all paradox. My most holy and profound friends fit here. I try to when I can.

A long answer, but perhaps short for such a huge and astute question.

[otseng]

Thank for your detailed answer.

I made a copy of your posts and created What is "modernity"? so that it won't be buried in this thread.

[Slopeshoulder]

Thank for your detailed answer.

I made a copy of your posts and created What is "modernity"? so that it won't be buried in this thread.

Terrific. I fixed some typos. Probably missed a few.

[Fisherking]

Thanks for the explanation Slopeshoulder. When I asked what you meant by modernity, I was literally asking what you meant by modernity

[fundamentalism] ... flies in the face of modern advances in all the sciences, social sciences, and humanities,

I do not think this in and of itself is a good reason to reject fundamentalism though (or any ism for that matter). It would of course depend on what one concidered an advancement. There are some "modern advancements" in the sciences that in my opinion aren't advances at all.

and secondly because it seems to flatten the richness of religion itself, especially the bible, turning it into magic tales or some kind of mechanistic rulebook rather than a endless font of meaning and maturation.

I am all for a rich religious experience, especially the bible. I do not consider any of it magical though. Instead of a rulebook I consider it a guide.

How do fundamentalist turn the bible into magical tales? If by magical tales you mean supernatural tales, didn't the bible already have them before they were "turned into" them?

Interestingly, every time a religious person tries to present evidence, they are buying into modernity, often with disastrous and embarassimg results.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean evidence that flies in the face of philosophical naturalism and its stronghold on modern science?
Are modern advancements in naturalism truly advancements, and more importantly (and back to my original point) good for Christianity?

I refuse to do it. Instead, I always recommend that it's better to give up some childish beliefs for the sake of modernity,

I refuse to give up any belief I consider to be true for the sake of anything.