Andrew said:

“Modernism, through a rigorously applied rationality, has undermined the irrational grounds for faith (tradition, emotion, sentimentality, superstition). Postmodernism, through a rigorously applied irrationality, has undermined the rational grounds for faith (arguments for the truth of Scripture or the existence of God). The church, as a result, has been left without a compelling reason to exist.”

One thing we need to take into account is that postmodernism has also undermined the rational grounds for scientific realism. Indeed in appears to me that it has eliminated any grounds to believe that science has any Epistomological merit.

The idea of being able to know anything by utilizing any philosophical or scientific methodology is being thoroughly discredited. Most people are very uncomfortable with the inability to know anything. It frightens. It attacks mankind’s inherent pride. It is disturbing.

It need not be disturbing because it is not necessary to know anything.
What is necessary, however, is that we do something.

How do we then know what to do if we don’t know anything? Well, to do something we must make a decision. All decisions are based on incomplete data. Most decisions are based on insufficient data and instinct. We all do this all the time, mostly without realizing it.

What is data? Data are the simply sense impulses we experience. From a purely sceptical, post-modernist view point these sense impulses are not knowledge. True, but these sense impulses are the best information available.

We make decisions and take actions based on this insufficient data.

The true post-modern question is how can we analyze the data to make the best decisions we can.

Science’s truth claims seem to simplify down to the statement “Science works, it has to be true.” This is not an adequate proof for many reasons. But it can be said “Science treats sense data in such a way as to allow one to make many good decisions.”

I would dispute that Science is the best method for making all decisions, but it has a good track record in physics, chemistry and the physical aspects of medicine.

What science is inadequate to address is how to make moral decisions. Religion and Philosophy have a much better track record there.

I will not go into into the methodology needed to select between religous and moral alternatives. What I want to point out is that Christians can and should use post-modernism to debunk the truth claims of science and materialism in the same way that modernists undermined the rational grounds for faith.

We do not need to pretend that God has provided us with provable objective knowlege regarding our world. The truth claims of scripture are not of that nature. Jesus said “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.” but he also said “I am the way and the truth and the life, no one comes to the father except by me”

Truth does not lie in objective provable facts. Truth lies in a person and a relationship with that person.

As long as the popular myth that “Science can prove things, religion cannot.” is prevalent, Materialists will use Occam’s razor to cut away at the credibility of faith.

The way to overcome the materialist’s arguments is not by trying to go back to the modernist argumemts for the truth of Christianity. The way to overcome the materialist viewpoint is to conceed the point that “God cannot be proved” and argue the point that “Science has no rational basis for truth claims.”

From there we can proceed to show that the evidence supporting the decision to believe in Christ is better than the evidence otherwise.

Note: I am a 47 yr old civil engineer with no formal philosophical or theological training. I read up on this kind of stuff as a hobby. I’m am an amateur (I do it for the love of the activity). I realize that there are major gaps in my understanding. If I am way off base on something please don’t flame me. Please point me in a direction that will help me to fill the gaps.