Mr. Moderate

The postmodernist creed is defined by “incredulity toward metanarratives” and “the obsolescence of the metanarrative apparatus of legitimation,” asking “Where, after the metanarratives, can legitimacy reside?” “[A] metanarrative (sometimes master- or grand narrative) ‘is a global or totalizing cultural narrative schema which orders and explains knowledge and experience.’” In simpler terms, postmodernism denies the possibility of useful generalizations and also denies even the possibility of deriving any legitimate conclusions that might be drawn from bulk analysis of data. Since the end goal of scientific inquiry is all about deriving metanarratives and conclusions of that sort, it can be reasonably asserted that postmodernism is committed to the destruction of scientific thinking.

The fundamentalist creed can be summarized as a belief “that human existence is innately sinful but offers redemption and eternal peace in heaven - thus representing a belief in a universal rule and a telos for humankind.” The fundamentalist thus asserts an extremely specific and highly detailed metanarrative which the fundamentalist asserts must be believed exactly as stated without variation, in spite of the fact that many variations clearly exist. The fundamentalist similarly denies the legitimacy of scientific inquiry on the grounds that any knowledge obtained from scientific inquiry will necessarily either duplicate the metanarrative of the Holy Bible or else it will not, and in either case such knowledge is at least useless and possibly dangerous. Thus, the fundamentalist is also profoundly committed to the destruction of scientific thinking.

My personal metanarrative is predicated upon scientific inquiry as the sole possible producer of legitimate beliefs, and that the foundational belief produced by scientific inquiry is that all living things are ethically obligated to survive, and to ensure the survival of as many diverse forms of life as possible. (See HERE for more.) Needless to say, I believe that my personal metanarrative is the only sane belief system of the three I present in this post.

I view my metanarrative as a moderate midpoint between postmodernism and fundamentalism. Like fascism and communism being extremes that have much in common, so too are postmodernism and fundamentalism similarly extremes that have much in common. They are at least both strongly committed to the destruction of scientific thinking, each for their own reasons, of course. My pro-scientific thinking is thus at least nominally halfway in between as it represents the opposite for both extremes.

Postmodernist writings are inherently difficult to read because the essential rejection of metanarratives also leads to a consequential rejection of symbolic reference, and symbolic reference is the heart of linguistic communication. Thus, every work written by a postmodernist is a denial of the truth of postmodernism, although postmodernists will go to great lengths to disguise that fact through extreme obfuscation. It is just way too easy to make fun of postmodernists.

Fundamentalists, on the other hand, have an emotionally attractive “package deal” to sell. (The “package deal” is a concept invented by Ayn Rand to describe the packaging together of opposing concepts through the deliberate blurring of essential differences.) What fundamentalists are actually peddling is a version of the “Big Brother” society described by the book “1984,” only with God in the role of “Big Brother.” Once you realize that, the “Big Brother” mantras like “War is Peace” start to make some sense, in at least a twisted sort of a way. Fundamentalist Christianity packages together some of the worst moral outrages in the history of mankind (the genocide of the Old Testament) with some of the highest possible moral values invented by humanity at any time (the better teachings of Jesus in the New Testament) and sells this “package deal” to you with a combination of a threat of Hell and a promise of Heaven if you will “behave.” And along the way, every fundamentalist gets an excuse pad to write themselves excuses for any conceivable bad act so long as they get themselves to church and toss some cash into the collection plate.

Now don’t get me wrong: there definitely are a large number of good people who are mixed into the fundamentalist crowd. But those people are by-and-large victims of the con game being perpetrated in the name of God. The right wing attempts to sell us on the concept that there is no morality without believing in (their) God, but conveniently ignores the fact that the contradictory nature of the “package deal” that Christianity sells leaves all “true Christians” conveniently without any real moral compass. Instead, they get told, “Big Brother”-like, exactly what God wants them to do. This has nothing at all to do with morality, and everything under the sun to do with wealth and power.

Scientific study, on the other hand, tells us that there are numerous common characteristics in human communities no matter where they are located, and no matter what circumstances they find themselves in. The most important of these characteristics is a community commitment to protect and raise children into being good adults. I could go on at length, but there are already a number of good books out there on comparative religion, so I won’t waste my time in this limited post pointing out what all of them are. My point is that no sane philosophy would deny that such common standards exist, as the postmodernists do, and no sane philosophy would believe that a 2,000 year old Jewish rabbi had the only possible prescription for how humans ought to exist. Between those two extremes lies the truth, and my commitment is to the truth.