And you thought that postmodernism could not touch the field of mathematics. Well it has! As I discovered in Nancy Pearcey’s Book “Total Truth”:

These days’ philosophers no longer regard mathematics as a body of truths. The dominant philosophy of mathematics treats it as a social construction like a game. There are arbitrary rules, neither are true or false, they are just the way we choose to play the game.

This is being taught to school children. A school curriculum developed at Michigan State University for grades 6-8 called “Connected Mathematical Project” says that students should learn that “mathematics is man-made, that it is arbitrary, and good solutions are arrived at by consensus among those who are considered expert”

In Minnesota, teachers are instructed to be tolerant of “multiple mathematical worldviews” in their Minnesota State Statues Governing the Licensing of Teachers, 106, 111. And in New Mexico a recent graduate of high school tells of how a mathematics teacher labelled him a “bigot” for thinking it was important to get the right answer. As long as students worked together in a group and achieved consensus, the teacher insisted, the outcome was acceptable.

If mathematics is arbitrary, then there are no wrong answers, just different perspectives. The simplest, most universal form of knowledge – mathematics – is subject to some radically different worldview interpretations.

If this is happening with mathematics how much more will postmodernism effect more complex fields, biology, economics, law and ethics.

[Simplified for brevity - not an exact quote]

Surely, only the terms used to token mathematics are arbitrary (numbers will be different as spoken / written in other languages), but the qualities that make one (1) or two (2) appear to be universal.

This is dangerous territory we now walk into if the postmodern philosophy of “There is no truth” is the guiding rule for society. I certainly want truth when it comes to the medicine that my doctor prescribes to me, the truth of traffic light operations and I would hope that my bank manager isn’t taken in by this relativistic approach to mathematics either.

The problem at the heart of this philosophy that “There is no truth”, is that this proposition is indefensible. It is, in and of itself, a truth statement and therefore invalidates itself. In other words, they want the statement “There is no truth” to be accepted as truth. If someone were to try to make that statement, then the response should always be “Really, is that true?”

How can you have a meaningful conversation with anyone who holds this view?

All this reminds me of “Values Clarification” which is also being taught to our school children (more universally than this philosophy of mathematics) where they are told that their values and ethics are to be decided by themselves, individually and as a group, and that it is by this moral code that they are to live their lives. The problem arises when they decide that it is ok to cheat on their school tests or that it is ok to hurt others to get what you want. It’s just not a philosophy that can find any traction in reality because, when they grow older and apply what they have learned, they discover that society can and will punish them via the law (a fine or incarceration), if their “values” don’t match those existing already in society.

This is a letter that I wrote a few days ago, being addressed to my former English high school teacher (who is not a Christian). We had good discussions on matters of religion and philosophy, so I decided to send him this letter so that we may be able to continue corresponding with each other. Aside from a few minor edits (taking out typographical and stylistic errors), I have left the text in its original form. All scripture quotations are from the King James Version.

=====

Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?
(John 18:37-38)

The previous year was quite the encounter. I enjoyed our discussions, and it is a shame that we are no longer able to converse quite as often as we used to. But, since time never stands still, we must all move forward, and I do hope to be able to dialogue every so often when my busy schedule allows for it. Perhaps by means of these discussions we will be able to learn from each other and would have something to ponder over.

As you would know, now that I am no longer in high school, I am now able to pursue the service to which I am called. It might seem strange that I phrase things this way to most people in this day and age, given that our careers and vocations are often thought of as decisions that are made either by ourselves or by our parents. However, I do not see this as the case for myself. I am, at this moment, writing from Toronto Baptist Seminary, where I am spending one year for theological instruction before I go off to a secular university to study history. The ironic thing is that before, I had no intention of going to study history, and my heart was set towards the natural sciences rather than the humanities. However, as time passed by, I gained a clearer view of what I am to do with my life, and my old aspirations gradually faded away. I do not think, however, that any of this has to do with sheer chance. Throughout the events that pushed me in this direction and all the people I talked to for guidance, I can see the Sovereign Architect’s hand at work, as it is written, “A man’s heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps” (Proverbs 16:9). And I am glad that He has set the way for me.

Read the rest of this entry

(Continued from part two)

In the first part of this series, we discussed and debunked Balgrim Ragoonanan’s tirades against Christian exclusivism and evangelistic efforts as a form of Religious Bigotry and Exclusivity. In the second part, we refuted his misuse and misrepresentation of Jesus’ teachings in order to promote Hindu pluralism over against what he deems to be The Insidiousness of an Only Pathway to God. In this third part in the series, we will be looking at the third of Mr. Ragoonanan’s articles, entitled, The Whole Truth About Those who Debase and Derogate Other Religions.[1] In his opening paragraph, he writes,

Anyone who thinks that he/she has some kind of corner on religious and spiritual beliefs and practices, and believes he/she can take another person to task for exposing the falsehood of an only pathway to God are welcome to do so. I am prepared to defend the legitimacy of all religions as I research and understand them better, especially when God and religion are purely for the transformation of the human heart to the higher state of the divine. I have been doing studies ever since I joined the membership of the Trinidad & Tobago Online Community, when it was once fashionable to deride, derogate, defame and characterize Hinduism as being outside the frame of legitimate religions.

Read the rest of this entry

(Continued from part one)

This article is a continuation of a rebuttal to Balgrim Ragoonanan, a writer for the anti-Missionary website Crusade Watch which argues vehemently against Christian evangelistic efforts. In another one of his articles, entitled, The Insidiousness Of an Only Pathway to God,[1] he attempts to twist Jesus’ teachings in order to promote Hindu Pluralism. It would seem that the author believes that he can reconstruct Jesus in order to get around His clear teachings regarding salvation through Christ alone by reading into His statements things that He never taught:

Can it be true, according to the Bible, that God can only have one human form? The answer is obviously no, because Jesus said he will come again as a thief in the night, meaning that he will not be recognized in his new form, but only by his works they shall know him.

It is very clear that Jesus credits God with more than one human form and was fully aware of the principle of other forms of God. He was speaking about another one of his coming as God, consistent with the Hindu principle of the manifestation of God at other points in time for a special purpose at the time.

Read the rest of this entry

For those who are unfamiliar with Crusade Watch, it is a website with multiple contributors who all write with the express purpose of denouncing evangelism and missions as an evil act that must be banned and legislated against. Of course, the vast majority of the articles published on this website have no real intellectual merit; being comprised primarily of shoddy logic, unwarranted assumptions and undocumented assertion after undocumented assertion. One of the recurring themes among the writers, though, is the idea of pluralism; the ideology that all paths to God are equally valid, and that none of them can assert itself to be correct over and against any other path. In particular, it will be well worth documenting the claims of one Balgrim Ragoonanan, an author from Trinidad and Tobago who strongly favours Hindu ideas of plurality over and against religious exclusivity. The rest of this will be dealing with his article entitled, Religious Bigotry and Exclusivity.[1] We will begin by examining the author’s thesis, which appears in the first few paragraphs of his article:

This presentation may also reflect an aspect of the narrow and restrictive pathway offered for salvation by the Christians versus the broad and expansive pathway of the Hindus, although it is not the gist of the paper.

This paper is to be taken only as a working framework for further discussion against religious proselytizing and the Christian one way doctrine to salvation.

Those who do not support religious proselytizing can find the appropriate lawyers to develop a case against religious proselytizing as an abuse of human rights versus the freedom of speech and the freedom to practice a religion in peace without intrusions.

The freedom of speech argument is a false one when it comes to religious proselytizing and must be debunked at the onset. We know that although freedom of speech is sacred to many, it is still over-ruled under certain conditions that incite violence and family and community disturbances.

Read the rest of this entry

Michael Horton, The Gospel-Driven Life, pg. 34

If the concept of the modern self was that of a master of all it surveyed, the postmodern self is best described as a tourist. There is no destination; just personal journeys from nowhere to nowhere in particular.