Caputo: Chapter One—Modernity and the Eclipse of Truth—Part Three

In the last post we talked about the rise of modernity, it’s twin mothers (The Enlightenment and the Reformation), and how this changed how we understood something to be “true” and indeed what the very concept of “truth” meant.  We should be clear that there was no scientific or evidential finding or discovery made that necessitated or demanded these changes.  As John Milbank famously noted, these changes had to be imagined.  These were metaphysical moves, not scientific ones.  They had to be “believed.”  The appeals may have been to science, or reason, but they were faith-based, metaphysical appeals spun from a new narrative, a new story, of how the world should now be understood. Caputo continues with this paragraph heading: “Truth Wars: Faith v. Reason” and he writes:
“The big loser in these transformative events would prove to be God, and with God the old constellation of the True, the Good, and the Beautiful.  I start with religion not because I want to defend religion against its critics—in general, I think, religion deserves a good deal of the grief it is given…”
Again, Caputo is no knee-jerk critic of the Enlightenment nor is he any friend to conservative/traditional fundamentalist religion.  This is what makes his argument strong and believable.  He is not taking sides here and conservatives on either side (whether secular or religious) will take no comfort in his writings.  In my mind, that is a good thing.  Show me someone who cannot address his arguments (and only beg-the-question) and can only dismiss or ridicule and I will show you either a religious or secular fundamentalist.  We can mark it down every time.  He continues from the previous quote:
“…but because I think we need a new idea of truth (and consequently of religion, to which a lot of my work is dedicated).  That idea, I will argue, is found in what I am calling the postmodern sense of truth.  The truth should make us free and that is what happens in postmodernity, which twists free from the overgrown and monolithic notion of Reason that grew up in modernity.  Truth, I will argue, cannot be kept confined to quarters inside what the Enlightenment called Reason, not because it is identified with an infinite God, as it was before modernity, but because it bears within itself a different sort of infinity, that of endless difference and diversification…”
Caputo then moves into where I think the crux of the matter lies as far as the “why” of modernity.  Why, from the 17th and 18th Centuries, up until around the fall of the Berlin Wall, has the west lived out this thing called modernity—the modern world?  Why was it imagined?  The “true believers” the secular fundamentalists, the new atheists, believe it arose because we learned or discovered something new—something that scientifically and empirically disproved the old “religious” understanding of the world.  Of course, that is a myth.  For them, to learn the real reason modernity had to be imagined may be like the moment a young child learns there is no Santa Clause.  Yes dear secularist, that is correct, the narrative you inhabit (Enlightenment) is as faith-based as the Judeo-Christian narrative—neither a scientific or empirical discovery nor finding demanded its appearance (Or, there is no Santa Clause—sorry).  I think Caputo has it exactly right (although he is not the first to point this out) when he addresses the “why” of modernity:
“So let’s start by asking a very volatile and provocative question: Which religion is the true one?  Raising that question is the nightmare of modernity—and dinner-party hosts everywhere (it guarantees you will not be invited back).  In fact, I am tempted to say that modernity was invented precisely to keep that question in the closet.  In modernity, reason defined itself by the exclusion of faith.  Once again, the distinction between faith and reason was already drawn in the Middle Ages, but in modernity it grew horns and teeth.  It devolved into an opposition quite unlike anything previously known.  In the high Middle Ages, religious people sought to understand their faith (‘fides quaerens intellectum’, ‘faith seeking understanding’).  They wanted to give a reason for the faith that was in them, and so they sought to integrate faith and reason into the unity of wisdom…”
And this really goes to the heart of Bernard’s agnosticism.  It is a sensibility; a matter of taste.  It is posited as something that doesn’t (or shouldn’t?) “sit well” to presume one’s own subjective preferences (if that is, indeed, all they are) could be true while another’s false.  This awkwardness, this new sensibility, was the very ethos created by modernity.  It now became impolite in mixed company to assert that another person’s beliefs were false.  But the ethos is manufactured by first creating a fact/value distinction and dichotomy between faith and reason and getting people to believe it.  We all have cultural taboos.  This one was created by modernity so that an educated person should feel embarrassed (And if they are not, we should all roll our eyes and shoot knowing glances at each other) to bring issues like this up in polite company.
Modernity was imagined or invented (a new narrative—a new story was told) so that the question of whose religion was true could be dealt with (compartmentalized, boxed, enclosed, fenced-in) in a way that would prevent further violence and (this by-product is often overlooked) would allow the secular royal families at the time to secure power over each other and the Church (this led to the modern western secular state).  It was a social and political movement—it was not a necessity demanded by science or empiricism.  And the underlying foundation to the political and social were the metaphysical moves made by both the Enlightenment and the Reformation.  So, we might say that Christians have themselves to thank for modernity.  After 30 years of killing each other in the name of religious “truth” (30-Years-War; 1618–1648)—who would not have wanted to find any way possible to stop the bloodshed and destruction of land and economy?  And that is exactly what modernity was invented to do and did.  Caputo continues from the above quote:
“…But modernists don’t like mixing things [faith and reason] together like that.  So the distinction between faith and reason became a dichotomy, which presented modernity with a special problem.  Religion constituted (this is also part of my line) the single greatest and most symptomatic problem modernity had to deal with, which is why, later on, Karl Marx said the critique of religion is the model of all critique and its first order of business.”
As an aside, many believe that the modern world (modernity—which does not mean modern things like airplanes, cars, computers, or technology) began its march to the grave on November 11, 1918.  That was the date the First World War ended.  The modern west was shocked and dumbfounded at the appalling carnage and death now made possible by the modern industrial state.    Whereas crowds of civilians in the thousands had cheered their young sons going off to war in the beginning, at the end they were embarrassed, heart-broken, and ashamed.  The modern spirit died that day.  The Second World War, the Holocaust, and the other 20th Century genocides hammered the final nail and threw the last shovel of dirt on the coffin of modernity.  These were not religious wars—these were wars fought by modern, sophisticated, liberal, educated, scientific, western states—with politicians/scientists/industrialists at the helm—not priests or kings.  And the death and destruction wrought in the 20th Century made the 30-Years-War and previous religious wars look like children’s school-yard fights.  We now have the reverse.  The postmodern had to be imagined to tell a counter-narrative for the very same reasons modernity had to be imagined: Too many people killing each other.  So the modern secular liberal can thank himself for the postmodern.  There, we are even.

Perhaps the narratives we tell are in reaction to the cataclysmic loss of life and disruption of society.  Ever since Cain killed Abel, we see the same act played out across time and our stories are our attempts, among other reasons, to deal with the act of killingThat we are “progressing” to a certain extent then-is a myth.  History it would seem is a moment-by-moment recapitulation where we are constantly faced with the choice of power and violence or peace and forgiveness.    It is much too clear which path Christians and secularists have too often chosen and continue to choose.
This entry was posted in Enlightenment, John D. Caputo, John Milbank, Modernity, Narrative, Postmodernity. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Caputo: Chapter One—Modernity and the Eclipse of Truth—Part Three

  1. Burk Braun says:

    “Truth, I will argue, cannot be kept confined to quarters inside what the Enlightenment called Reason, not because it is identified with an infinite God, as it was before modernity, but because it bears within itself a different sort of infinity, that of endless difference and diversification…”

    Can anyone say what he is talking about here? I doubt it. Truth without standards.. that seems to be the intent. It is for my ability to call anything I like “truth” without any pesky standards of intellect, empiricism, or reason to stand in my way. Something that is surely necessary for religion to survive, but why would one want that, anyhow?

    “Yes dear secularist, that is correct, the narrative you inhabit (Enlightenment) is as faith-based as the Judeo-Christian narrative—neither a scientific or empirical discovery nor finding demanded its appearance (Or, there is no Santa Clause—sorry).”

    Note the word “as” here. It is like saying that Scooby Doo is “as” faith-based as Ho Chi Minh. Sure, Ho had plenty of legends and other apparatus about him. But he was not made out of whole cloth. This is simply an example of the lack of intellectual standards spoken of above. If falsity is just as faith-based and true as truth, then, sure, religion may come out of such a mind-set as “reasonable”, but what have we lost on the way? We have lost our minds.

    Go ahead- enjoy your obscurantism. I will continue on in modernity and clarity.

    “And that is exactly what modernity was invented to do and did. “

    That is not really true. It was what secularism and the civil space was invented to do. And, at the earliest stage, the practical truce between mono-religious principalities. But modernity came along later on, and was born in the gap opened by these preceeding developments… by the very possibility of doubting the received falsities of both sides, by people like Spinoza and Voltaire.

    Are those falsities now true again? Hardly. Was the basis of modernist skepticism wrong? Hardly. Caputo says no such thing. All he says, evidently, is that he likes religion, and wants to find some way to retain a “reasonable” belief, despite all the well-justified criticisms. Which is, unfortunately, impossible. It is also backwards reasoning, incidentally. Faith is the antithesis of reason, as any dictionary will tell you.

    And modernity has reached its pinnacle in this current age of peace, where only the tiniest wars are happening in distant (and non-modern) corners of the world, and the vast majority of the world's people are busily making their lives better in material, political, and spiritual ways. Or is there not an Olympics on? Is there not a women's movement gaining ground in India? Etc..

    Like

  2. Darrell says:

    Hi Burk,

    “…Truth without standards.. that seems to be the intent…”

    You mean without “your” standards. Yes, that is the intent. He is challenging those.

    “It is for my ability to call anything I like “truth” without any pesky standards of intellect, empiricism, or reason to stand in my way.”

    You just beg the question here, like most of your response here as usual(shocking).

    “And that is exactly what modernity was invented to do and did.”

    “That is not really true. It was what secularism and the civil space was invented to do.”

    Modernity “is” secularism and the civil space. I think you are quibbling over historical lines here, but whatever.

    “Faith is the antithesis of reason, as any dictionary will tell you.”

    Again, begs the question and forgets that any philosophical context to the discussion of these terms will not support such an assertion at all. I've pointed this out so many times it is laughable for you to still trot it out. Yawn.

    “And modernity has reached its pinnacle in this current age…and the vast majority of the world's people are busily making their lives better in material, political, and spiritual ways.”

    Interesting. One certainly wouldn't think things were so rosy from your writings regarding economics and the environment. To hear you it’s all a big mess—horrible even. Do you think it’s the pinnacle for all the people starving in the world, or who don’t have jobs, or are hiding from drones (and it's not just terrorists hiding from them)? And I seem to recall an Olympics being held right before a very bad turn in history and another one held as the Soviets invaded a country amid much bloodshed. I'm not sure citing an Olympics is very helpful. And that women’s movement in India and other places is being spurred by philosophical-theological-ethical moves—certainly not by the pure moves of reason or those based in modernity.

    Like

  3. Burk Braun says:

    Darrell-

    On faith, I am just pointing out the basic meanings in English:

    1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
    2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

    Which is to say, lack of skepticism (1) and lack of proof, i.e. reason (2). You can attempt to evade this all you like, but faith always comes back to these basics. As you have acknowledged at some point as well. Whether faith or religion is consistent with reason at all is your and Eric's question, and for all the writing, it really is not. It is an inference far, far beyond the data, indeed contrary to what data we have, which requires that it live in gaps in the data.

    .. which leads to your desire to re-define truth itself, which is even more dangerous than the doomed project of making religion “reasonable” in modernist, conventional terms. All in all, a very tough road, I am sure.

    On the contemporary age, there is plenty to critique, but one shouldn't mistake optimization for lack of optimism. There are more people than ever, most of whom are happier than ever. And the next world war, if there is one, will clearly break out for heavily religious reasons, whether in the middle east, or between Pakistan and India. There is no threat of war in Scandinavia!

    Like

  4. Darrell says:

    Hi Burk,

    “On faith, I am just pointing out the basic meanings in English:”

    Right, and I have pointed out many times how completely irrelevant a dictionary definition is to what these terms mean in a philosophical conversation, where everyone is already quite aware of and familiar with their dictionary meanings. It would be like when we were discussing theories of truth and someone thought we could just look up the word “true” or “truth” in the dictionary. Yeah, pretty funny. Perhaps you should write all the philosophy departments in the west and put an end to all these books being written, all these essays being published in journals, and all these classes being taught by saying, “Hey, did anyone think to just look up these words in the dictionary?”

    “On the contemporary age, there is plenty to critique, but one shouldn't mistake optimization for lack of optimism.”

    I agree. I am optimistic. I am optimistic because of philosophers like John Caputo who is speaking to the fundamentalism of both the religious and secular and calling them both into question. I can see why that bothers you and I can see why most evangelicals don’t like him either. Makes total sense.

    Like

Comments are closed.