There is a distinct trend in Mormon apologetics as of recent and postmodernism is the best term we have to describe it.

The only way to save Mormon apologetics is for the apologists to let go of the idea that Mormon truth claims are compatible with the predominant trends in modern thought. Mormon truth claims can only be made valid by developing a completely different model of determining the probability of truthfulness and the validity of evidence to substantiate said claims. They can’t borrow modern secular models. I find it misleading on the part of apologists to reference influential secular thinkers as if their ideas somehow confirm the validity of Mormon beliefs. Spencer’s reference of Alain Badiou (and I’ve heard Badiou referenced by other apologists as well) in the link you posted is a prime example of this. Badiou is an atheist. We have every reason to believe that if directly confronted that Badiou would readily dismiss Mormon truth claims without much thought on the matter. The use of Badiou in subtle defense of the validity of Mormon apologist claims is nothing more than a improper cooptation. In fact, Badiou is well aware that his ideas are being coopted by many conservative religious apologists and he is none to pleased with this. See this interview here: http://www.philosophyandscripture.org/Issue3-1/Badiou/Badiou.html. The same goes for Kuhn, Popper, Jung, Derrida and other influential thinkers of the 20th century. Their ideas, when taken in totality, do nothing to validate Mormon truth claims. Quite the opposite. They tear them down, in fact, in some ways more ruthlessly than positivistic trends in thinking. What we’re seeing in Mormon apologetic trends as of recent is a desperate attempt of apologists (whose deep attachment to Mormon truth claims can likely be attributed to major social factors but who nonetheless appreciate secular wisdom) to try to have their cake (or their Mormonism) and eat it too. This is persuasive only to the small circle of people who already think just like them and whose social experiences are just like theirs.

Regarding postmodernism back when I think its pejorative senses of “relativist sloppy thinking” more or less just mean distrust of master narratives. (Caputo in that link I gave above still uses it in that sense) That I fully agree with. Had the term not become so appropriated by sloppy thinking I’d probably still use it.

Put an other way, some of the ideas that were important in postmodernism in the 80’s and 90’s are quite correct. It’s more the social play of the term that I find problematic and why I still think most people avoid it.

Postmodernism – I think at its core – basically holds that we can never have access to anything beyond an interest-laden, non-neutral interpretation of the world.

Positivism – I think at its core – basically holds that we can and should describe the world in disinterested, if not neutral terms. In other words, the world is able to, in some sense, speak for itself.

While I suspect the first term is still used within the humanities (although I am far from sure about this), I am quite certain that the latter is still used within the social sciences – social theorists in particular. Critical theorists think that anybody who does not build into their methodologies and theories a critical edge aimed at human emancipation is a “positivist” while Popperians (who are positivists by the first definition) dismiss anybody who thinks we can have positive knowledge of the world under the same, pejorative label. The latter group says that the world can’t posit or affirm anything for us, while the former says that it can’t deny or falsify anything for us either.

While I disagree with a great deal of what other post-moderns say, I still consider myself to be part of the group. Indeed, there is no sense in assuming a homogeneity within pre-, pro- or post-moderns.

I too am influenced by Foucault and Derrida and am happy to accept the label of postmodernist. I think that truth and morality are largely in the eyes of the beholder. I don’t subscribe to the fact-value distinction either. There are no facts without values. That said, however, I favor particular trends in narratives about truth and morality that I would like to see extinguish others.

Also, when I see this sort of logic employed by defenders of LDS truth claims, it seems completely contradictory.

The weird postmodern critique of the New Mormon History begins with David Bohn in the 80’s as I recall. While I’m a bit dubious of a lot of these critiques, to my eyes they dried up the last 10 years for the most part. (But I don’t read nearly as much apologetics as I used to – so this may be my ignorance speaking) So I’m not asking to make a rhetorical point. I really am curious who makes such critiques still. Alan Goff attacks positivism in history, but after several productive discussions with him, I think he means something more narrow in history, albeit loosely connected to the broader positivist movement in the mid 20th century. Since I’ll fully admit my ignorance of the theory behind history as a contemporary discipline I can’t say much there. He has called himself postmodern at times, but he’s the only person I can think of off the top of my head. And I’m not sure I’d call him a postmodernist.

I think Sokal hit something that was very active at the time. I just don’t see it as active anymore. Like many intellectual fads it had its day in the sun.

Regarding general Christian philosophers or theologians I’ll fully confess my ignorance. Outside of a few, like Kevin Hart (who spoke at SMPT a few years ago) I can’t think of many under the postmodern rubric. I don’t know if Hart self-identified as such anymore (if he ever did – although he did write on the topic in the late 90’s. But I’ve not read most of his works)

Regarding postmodernism I should note that what I outline is very much an ending of the use of the term and not necessarily the ideas that once went by the name. The name has come to have baggage. I’ll fully admit unashamedly that so called postmodern figures like Derrida, Caputo and others are very influential on my thought. I just refuse the term. However doing a bit more searching, perhaps you’re right that I’ve over exaggerated the death of the term. For instance I found an interview from 6 years ago where Caputo is still using the term. Admittedly to my surprise.

While it probably establishes nothing, it’s interesting looking at the Google ngram analysis of postmodernism.

But to the degree I’m simply reflecting my biases on the term, I apologize. I suppose I simply need to read more general Christian theology.

Positivism, when used correctly, refers either to the 19th century movement or the Vienna circle. There certainly is serious study of those figures – especially the Vienna circle. I think they get dismissed too quickly by those who typically don’t grapple with them well. (In an LDS context, Dennis Potter did a lot of study on them and still writes about them seriously) So I don’t want to say they’re dead in terms of scholarship. However the majority of the writing is more either grappling with their ideas to illuminate some problem without buying into their approach, using them in a strawman way, or simply dismissing them out of hand. You don’t really have positivism as a continuing movement the way you do say Kantianism, pragmatism, existentialism or phenomenology to give some other examples. So if you search most resources you won’t really find major contemporary philosophers self-identifying themselves as positivists.

That’s not to say verificationalist approaches to truth or meaning don’t have it’s place. As a Peircean I think verification is very important but think the positivists made it too narrow. One of the books I’m working through at the moment is actually Misak’s Verificationonism: Its History and Prospects which takes quite seriously the questions of the positivists. Of course she comes down on a more pragmatist position.

Regarding apologetics I have some things half written responding to that in more depth. I just don’t think that really gets at what Nibley was doing in the 50’s through 70’s nor what the later apologetics (with the rise of FARMS) was doing in the 80’s and 90’s (in my mind highly influenced both by the New Mormon History, a strong appreciation of science, and also largely people with PhDs in their own respective fields they took quite seriously) It certainly doesn’t get at (to my mind) how apologetics changed in the late 90’s through today which appreciates theory and brings in many disparate fields. (Much as Mormon history in general has done the last 15 years or so) Again these trends don’t have absolute historical breaks and despite the tendencies it’s not hard to simply find bad arguments at any time.

Relative to apologetics the issues of postmodernism tended to pop up due to (in my view) some pretty confused views of both apologetics and postmodernism. But it also confused why there were objections to what was called positivist history (again a more technical terms relative to the field of history more loosely connected to the Vienna circle). More or less it was just objecting to naive approaches to theory laden “facts.” It’s more analogous to how we might object to “literalism” in scriptural hermeneutics and actually have a fairly similar problem.

By all predominant modern standards of determining what is probably true, the LDS church’s truth claims are highly improbable. It isn’t even about the existence of God that is the issue. It is all of the other very bold seemingly unsubstantiated truth claims (again, unsubstantiated according to modern methods of substantiation). These claims can only be true if the standards for determining truth are altered significantly from the standards of what have become predominant in modern educated circles. So my gripe is with arguments that the LDS church’s truth claims can somehow be proven true with predominant modern methods of establishing truth and probability. Not in the least. The predominant trends in modern scholarship would have to change drastically for that to happen. Evidence for this is the fact that hardly anyone appears to be accepting LDS truth claims according to predominant modern standards of inquiry. People accept them because of groupthink, private evidence, or public evidence that wouldn’t be accepted as valid in most outside circles. I commend apologetic explanations for LDS truth claims that reject modern scholarship. But those that say that they are compatible are trying to fit a square peg into a circular hole. Either the peg or the hole has to change shape for there to be compatibility.

I try to be fairly respectful of each guest, viewing my job as interviewer to facilitate their perspectives reasonably in order to help people understand where the guest is coming from. There are areas of overlap in my own perspectives and that of many of the guests, there are areas of disagreement, and depending on the episode different areas are emphasized. As far as me embracing postmodernism, I would say this. Given all the various ways “postmodernist” can be understood, it’s not a label I would apply to myself. (Does that make me a postmodernist according to your apparently unique definition?)

“Also, by saying that the meaning of probable and possible vary according to one’s temperament, etc. is reminiscent of postmodern thinking.”

To be more clear, I am speaking of the “conditions of belief” as being a moving target. For example, and speaking broadly, it was more of a “given” in the past than in the present that there is a God. When I mention temperament, I am referring to my sense that some people find it much easier to believe in God than others seem to, but that is only one factor in many, and identifying the cause of temperament, be it genetic, cultural, whatever, was beyond the scope of my comment.

As for the rest of your comment, I’m not on board with the way you’re describing “New Apologetics,” as I think it glosses over the different approaches we’re seeing in a variety of publications these days. I’d just echo Clark’s follow-up comment rather than adding more to it. Take care!

I’m not sure what you mean by postmodernism but if it’s epistemological relativism then there are good reasons why most apologists would be uncomfortable with the term. If it just means that facts are theory laden (which can be found in classical positivism too and certainly in the groups who shifted out of positivism like Quine) then that’s not a terribly controversial claim anymore. Foundationalism is a pretty rare position to take anymore. Honestly the only ones I find taking it typically are evangelical apologists. (grin – OK, a bit unfair, but still I think most see it as problematic)

Your terms “new” and “old” apologetics I’m not sure I agree with, but I don’t have much time to say anything on that right now. Maybe later. I don’t think things are quite as clear as you think. Of course apologetics by its very nature works better with people who have some testimony left and are looking for reasons to believe rather than disbelieve. If we’re at the stage of having to convince against someone’s will it’s kind of pointless. Even when you can provide facts where the preponderance of evidence fits your conclusions. Look at all the things people disbelieve when there’s huge weight of evidence for it: global warming, evolution, lack of success of robust socialism, biological innateness of many human structures (in preference to the blank slate), etc.