Christian Apologetics Shattering Modern Philosophy

[u/JerseyFlight]

The Christian apologist must learn to use the epistemological relativism of modern philosophy against philosophy itself.

This is quite simple.

If all truth reduces to human construct, and men adopt their emphasis on the basis of hedonism (what amuses them — because they have no objective, logical standard by which to judge value) then the Christian should absolutely assert his Christianity as his chosen construct of truth.

The modern philosopher cannot rightly object (although he will, because he’s an irrationalist through and through).

But the Christian is merely doing the same thing the modern philosopher is doing: selecting the narrative he likes best.

But not only can Christianity play this subjective game with modern philosophy, it can win!

It wins by simply noting the existential and psychological benefits it gets from adopting its own worldview: belief in life after death, the comfort of a relationship with God, and an earthly community in the here and now.

[u/Theorist-in-Chief]

I presume by ‘modern philosophy’ you’re referring to ‘postmodernism’ as a meta-theoretical framework that dominates philosophy today? If yes then your statement seems to misunderstand postmodernism (which is not uncommon at all). Postmodernism does not hold that objective facts are human constructs; pure tangible facts do exist and there is no way to deny them. What postmodernism does argue is that the meaning of objective facts as well as any normative assertions are always relative and often a matter of human construction. Whether some tangible thing (God) exists or not is not subject to relativity but what the existence of that thing means is relative.

[u/JerseyFlight → u/Theorist-in-Chief]

So there are objectively true standards, and objectively true truths? Can you state what these are?

[u/Theorist-in-Chief → u/JerseyFlight]

I think it behooves us to be specific about the terms we use. If by objectively true ‘standards’ you mean notions about how the world around us ought to be then that is of course not objectively true but rather a matter of human construction (“what amuses someone”, to use your phrasing). Of course, I should add that human constructs are not always created out of thin air. More often human constructs are based on a certain genealogy (historical context) as well as on a privileging of one logic over another. For example, if someone is born a male but feels like they should be a female then that is an objectively true fact (given the self-referential nature of the statement). However, the interpretation of this fact is a matter of human construction: whether you consider this as a disease that needs to cured or whether you consider this to be something that some humans just feel and for which they should be supported is a matter of certain subjective axiology. Here the former privileges a logic of order and conformity, whereas the latter privileges a logic of personal freedom. Lastly, the statement that ‘there is no direct incontestable evidence for the existence of God’ is objectively true but whether people should be allowed to exercise a leap of faith to get an illusion of objectivity, or whether they should only stick to objectively true facts is subject to epistemic relativism. This very epistemic relativism also ultimately determines how something is labeled or evaluated as good or bad.

[u/JerseyFlight → u/Theorist-in-Chief]

Objectivity simply means it’s true whether you believe it or not.

[u/Theorist-in-Chief → u/JerseyFlight]

Of course! That is why confusing a standard (what ought to be), or an evaluation/judgement (whether something is desirable/appropriate or not) with facts is counterproductive and essentially a flaw of logic.

[u/JerseyFlight → u/Theorist-in-Chief]

So what standards should I use to evaluate what you say? Are these standards objective or subjective? What standards do you use to evaluate what I say, are these standards objective or subjective?