Prompt: postmodernity, Art by Makoto Shinkai
This article concludes the second chapter of Paul G. Hiebert's book and the discussion on two post-positivist epistemologies. In the first chapter, Hiebert concluded by identifying attacks on positivism coming from both inside and out. In the second chapter, though idealism has been mentioned, the concluding discussion on attacks are focused more on instrumentalism.
Attacks from Semiotics
Semiotics, "the study of signs and sign-using behavior", are producing scholars that find a measure of objectivity in the use of human symbols such as "color categories" and the taxonomies of birds and plants" (p. 64). As a result of these studies, they are now rejecting total subjectivism and the ideas that meanings are arbitrary and are confined only in the human minds.
Attacks on Relativism
Attacks against relativism assume three forms:
First, based on cognitive argument, the relativism of instrumentalism after voicing out its critique against positivism leaves us no alternative in terms of providing a new basis for "objective understanding of reality and truth" (ibid.).
From the cultural perspective, the relativism of instrumentalism "denies any common human understanding" (ibid.). In such a scenario, the existence of culture cannot be explained.
Thirdly, from the moral argument, relativism rejects "all ideas of good and evil" (ibid.).
Logical Inconsistency
I wonder why Hiebert made a separate section to explain this type of attack instead of integrating it with cognitive argument against relativism. Anyhow, this is how the author arranged his content and I am just following the flow of his thought. For him, instrumentalism is illogical for someone who holds this epistemology cannot engage "in the debate on scientific realism . . . unless he or she is a historical realist and believes that historical inquiry is as epistemologically sound as any other empirical inquiry" (p. 65). Encountering this common criticism against relativism is comforting:
Relativism relativizes all other views but absolutizes its own (ibid.).
Reactive with No Alternative
In this final critique against instrumentalism, Hiebert includes his attack against idealism. We have seen so far that in the mind of Hiebert, postmodernity is an offspring of these two epistemologies. The basic weakness of postmodernity for Hiebert is its lack of alternative to address current issues for its primary focus is to oppose modernity and its results. Quoting Laudin, Hiebert agrees that instrumentalism "is an intellectual failure" (p. 66). Together with idealism, for Hiebert both post positivist epistemologies "collapse under the weight of their own internal contradictions" for "both use reason to discredit rationality" and "both absolutize relativism" (ibid.).
In closing, Hiebert admits that despite the current status of the attacks on postmodernity, its increasing influence in Western societies continue to spread. Churches in the West remain unprepared to respond to the challenges of postmodernity. Hiebert ends the second chapter of his book by identifying "one of the great challenges to the Western church", which "is to lay again the theological foundations of the truth of the gospel and to train its members how to proclaim this with humility and love" (p. 67).
That ends the second chapter of the book. The third chapter is about critical realism, the epistemological foundation proposed by the author himself.
Grace and peace!
Reference:
Hiebert, Paul G. 1999. Missiological Implications of Epistemological Shifts: Affirming Truth in a Modern/Postmodern World. PA: Trinity Press International.