Modern American logic (or lack thereof)

Look at the two comics below:

 The two comics above let me make a quick comment. Back when I took philosophy, post-modernism had not yet come into its strength. At that time, the traditional response of the modernist was that reason could figure out all the answers if it simply had enough data. I can remember American Episcopalians making a big deal of the fact that they relied on Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. In reality all too many modern Episcopalians simply made Reason the top part of that triad. That is, if they read anything in Scripture or Tradition that they thought was not consonant with Reason, or at least with their reasoning, then they discarded it. And that was the point that got them in trouble, “with their reasoning.”

Over two thousand years ago there were already Greek comedies being written that showed the limitations of reason. For instance, Aristophanes used one of his comedies to poke fun at Socrates. He used Socratic style of argumentation to show in one hilarious scene in one of his comedies that children should beat their parents since they were responsible for the behavior of their children. Ultimately, Episcopalians ran into the same problem. Ancient Greeks already knew that one could play with words to make them say anything that one wished them to say. In that sense, they anticipated some of the post-modernist critiques–not all of them, just some of them.

But, the Greeks did not give up on logic. As an aside, neither did the Indians nor the Chinese, who also did much study in the area of logic. Hmm, as an aside to philosophy majors, yes, I am aware that there are different types of logic, but that is not precisely what is under discussion here. What happened is that over the centuries all three cultures tried to find ways to better express concepts and to determine the limits of logical statements so that what was said was truly what should be understood. When I say all three cultures, I also mean their philosophical descendants, whether in the West or in the East. At the bottom of the search was the desire to know when arguments were valid and when they were not.

That type of thinking all began to be overthrown in the early 19th century by a German philologist named Wilhelm von Humboldt. He began to show that language and worldview are inseparable. This idea did not fully take fruit until the 20th century. But, when the idea took hold, it had some unexpected side effects. You see the side effects in the second comic. Let me set up a contrast for you.

Up until about two-thirds of the way through the 20th century, modernism was in strong control. Logic and science were everything. Humboldt’s ideas had not yet really borne fruit, despite the paradigm shifts caused by Einstein and quantum mechanics. It was still thought that pure logic and science could answer the mysteries of the universe. Post-modernism took care of that idea. It still lingers in some folks such as Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins, but in practice it is largely gone. But post-modernism had unexpected side effects in popular thinking. You see, it was all too easy to conclude that all truth is merely and nothing more than matters of opinion.

In the second comic above, the little girl expresses what has become an all too common way to answer any argument with which you disagree or which you do not want to answer. Why, “that is just your opinion,” is the answer that is often given, as though everything the other person has just said has no meaning. That is the populist legacy of post-modernism. It is the misuse of arguments about worldview to intimate that there is no meaning, no truth, in anyone who disagrees with you. Ahem, did you note what I just said. “… no meaning, no truth, in anyone who disagrees with you?” Oddly enough, the post-modernist argument is used to justify YOUR continued beliefs in your assertion. That is, THEIR arguments are tainted with their beliefs, while–AGAINST ALL LOGIC–your beliefs are not anywhere near as tainted!

This is why you often find a Republican saying that someone believes that just because they are a Democrat, or Democrat saying the exact opposite. It is a twisted form of post-modernism, a way of silencing your opponent without having to expend much energy countering their arguments. All you do is simply ignore another’s logic and simply re-state your arguments again as though you had the true perspective on the situation. This is what leads to the talking and shouting heads on the various cable networks. If you notice, they will do some countering of arguments, but mostly they rely on sarcasm and implications of bias and not on logic. This is why TV political debates are often of so little use. TV debates by political candidates are mostly about the ability to react rapidly and to turn a quick phrase, and not about clear argumentative technique. The most modern development, of allowing the audience to chime in with cheers and jeers only goes to point out how much of a non-logical show this is. It is all about gaining emotional support, not simply about gaining reasoned support.

But, that type of attitude has its danger for us Christians. Because once we adopt that attitude, we are in an extreme danger of denying truth, and thereby indirectly denying the One who is the Truth, and beginning to agree with the Father of Lies. No, I am not suggesting that we return to the false certainty of modernism. That has problems of its own, to say the least. But, I am suggesting that we not too easily drop into the attitude of the little girl in the comic. That is the attitude of denying any accuracy in what the other person is saying and going into the post-modernist babble about there being no patterns, etc.