Postmodernism and the Unbeliever

by Cara McMillan

Everyone puts their faith in something, whether that be religion, philosophy, a wise friend, or even themselves. When we put our faith in something we consult it, seek guidance from it, and create expectations around it. American society increasingly identifies as post-Christian, so we must ask the question: what is our civilization trusting in? Different groups of people have reached several answers. Some say the answer to that question is technology, politics, or the booming self-help book industry. These are valid avenues through which people attempt to make sense of the world and their place in it, but for the time being, I would like us to examine one school of thought – we could even call it a school of faith – that is commonly found on college campuses: postmodernism.  

Postmodernists, who now dominate a significant space in academia, posit that universal truth, objectivity, and absolute reality do not exist. Rather, postmodernism emphasizes the multiplicity of perspectives and the equal validity of each. Most religions are built on a foundation of an asserted and exclusive absolute truth, so many long-held worldviews cannot coexist with this philosophical stance. It may seem that postmodernism would hinder the religious person the most, but I aim to show that it is especially problematic for those of us who walk through life without a religious faith. This should matter deeply to adherents of the Christian faith because, after all, we are called to bear one another’s burden and hurt with those who are hurting. 

To examine this issue, let us first consider the origins of philosophy and the paragon of the philosophic way of life. Both of these are embodied in Socrates. Socrates held that “the unexamined life is not worth living,” and as such, he devoted his life to seeking truth. In contrast to pre-Socratic thinkers, Socrates investigated deeply human questions regarding justice, virtue, and fulfillment rather than confining himself to scientific or rhetorical matters. He reportedly did not accept pay for his teachings, devoted every ounce of his time to questioning virtue and convention, and ultimately died for his ideals. His life was and is considered a pure pursuit of truth – a perfect example of ‘the philosophic life.’ No one dedicates their life to searching for something that they do not believe can be found, so we can conclude that Socrates’ way of life differs from the philosophic narrative today precisely because it asserts the existence of absolute truth. You may say that Socratic philosophy in and of itself does nothing to call postmodernism into question, but the roots of philosophy as a method of seeking truth greatly destabilize the foundations of postmodernism as a ‘philosophy’.  

Additionally, if we look deeper into postmodernism, it appears that the doctrine itself is somewhat contradictory. In the same way that rejecting religious faith in God is still a kind of faith in itself, rejecting the existence of truth is still asserting an absolute truth about the universe. Claiming no objective reality means accepting a universe where nothing – nothing – is real, true, wrong, or just. When a person accepts this idea, whether that be believing in universalism or the right of a person to live out ‘their truth’ in several ways that diverge from reality, it condemns a person to an unexamined life. After all, if someone accepts every answer as equally untrue and subjective, there is no point in engaging with life’s biggest questions. Ultimately, I think this comes out of a disillusionment with seeking truth in the wrong places and finding no soul-satisfying answer.  

This mindset has real, psychological and cultural consequences. Rejecting truth, rejecting a philosophic life in which you examine everything, has the potential of degrading the value of human life. Harming people can’t be unjust; there is no justice. Lying isn’t wrong; there is no right. Killing isn’t amoral; morality is but an illusory social construct. To prove that such an outlook especially harms the nonbeliever, let’s illustrate the issue with a small thought experiment. 

Let’s say that as Christians, we accepted the idea that God existed and created us but had fluctuating definitions of justice and morality that no human being could discern. He would interfere in human affairs at random, condemn actions, and bless others inconsistently. We’ll call this faithful postmodernism. In faithful postmodernism, our creation by a higher power would protect the value of our lives, even if the exercise of His sovereignty was arbitrary and completely random. In faithless postmodernism, by contrast, there is no higher power, so there is no purpose for human life and no reason for the individual’s existence. Very harsh, I know. This is not to say that postmodernists around Austin have no value – it’s to present the idea that even if postmodernists fully believed in a lack of absolute truth, they would likely rebut against the awful thought that their lives are meaningless. 

So, why say all of this? What right does a 19-year-old college student have to say these things? Well, I’d like to say that none of this is intended to sufficiently refute postmodernism. There are people much more fit for that than I am. Instead, I want to encourage people of faith to step with empathy into the shoes of postmodernists and relativists to understand alternative perspectives on the human experience. Encourage them, in turn, to investigate life. Examine justice, virtue, religion, government, and institutions with an eye that seeks truth, even when it seems out of grasp. Read up on classical philosophy if that’s your thing, and help them engage with the age-old philosophical life. Encourage them to seek light, and maybe they’ll stumble into the path of the ultimate Truth.