Put simply, Evangelical writers on so-called postmodernism do not seem to make the distinction you are proposing. They simply drop a list of names, on which one can usually Heidegger and Derrida named as prominent postmodernists, and then launch into postmodernism = relativism. I have yet to talk to a single student/reader of Groothuis et al. who then doesn’t immediately assume that Derrida et al. (essentially everyone named by Groothuis et al.) are then relativists. If such a distinction was made, my issues would be greatly lessened.

Strangely enough, my first attempt to publish on this issue through Philosophia Christi brought the same counter-argument from the editors: that Heidegger (whom I focused on because he is the one I am most familiar with, not wishing to fall into the same trap of ignorance I am claiming Evangelicals have fallen in) was not directly addressed, so my point was apparently invalid. Yet the popular response to these works, including the understanding of many PhDs on this point, interpret Groothuis et al. as including Heidegger (and Derrida) as a prominent relativist (R. Scott Smith names him, along with the later Wittgenstein, as a linguistic relativist, neither of which is correct).

So, yes, you make a good point, but these authors are not making the distinctions necessary for your point to be seen by their audiences (which makes me believe that they don’t think it a point worth making, or they simply are ignorant of the distinction; I think the latter is more kind to attribute to them), hence my belief that my point is very relevant: Evangelical anti-postmodernists are poisoning Evangelical minds against thinkers that are not proponents of the relativism that is rampant in our society, even if only by guilt by association, and I see this as a significant breach in the moral relation between teacher and student, of the trust the latter shows in the former to speak only when they are knowledgeable about the topic, which isn’t the case here. Groothuis, Moreland, Craig, and Smith (to name the most prominent names) are ignorant of the primary thinkers and their primary literature and this ignorance amounts to spreading lies in the role of the teacher/authority, which for me is a large breach of trust.

Postmodernism seems to be a popular topic at the moment. STR has a blog post summarizing JP Moreland’s thoughts on the subject.

Then please show me a single Evangelical who understands postmodernism as anything but relativism. I have yet to find one and would welcome a counter-example.

As my knowledge of the definition shows, I see postmodernism as relativism. I also admit to being quite ignorant on the matter.

When people define it as relativism and then critique relativism then what are they doing wrong?
You say that there are postmodernists who are not relativists, and that seems fair to me. Then they are not the ones being critiqued when a critique of relativism is being offered. If non-relativists are critiqued as relativists then you have a point. But merely to say that a critique of relativism is not a critique of these authors you mention doesn’t mean that a critic is misrepresenting postmodernism, merely that he may define it differently than you do. And he probably offers his definition as well.

But your point is important for my critique in one way: I feel that “self-proclaimed post-modernists” likewise misunderstand these primary figures. Yes, Heidegger would deny “absolute truth” (whatever that is; truth is truth and has no need of extra adjectives), he does see culture as central to knowledge and understanding, and truth does have a form of construction or delineation, but not in the sense taken by “self-proclaimed post-modernists” who completely mischaracterize Heidegger’s work. But to see how they differ requires a lot of work, a lot of reading, a lot of struggling to understand Heidegger’s admittedly difficult prose.

As someone (a probably facetious probable sock-puppet) almost said on Groothuis’ site, one need not understand Heidegger, for instance, unless one is critiquing Heidegger. If one is critiquing a self-proclaimed post-modernist who thinks he knows Heidegger, but he does so on the basis of that post-modernist’s ideas, then he is well within his rights.

Evangelicals are perpetuating on a vast scale their misunderstanding of many of these thinkers; put in starker terms, they are peddling in lies. And to admit being wrong on this scale would go a long way in discrediting their work, in showing the horrible scholarship that is behind countless books, papers, talks, and conference presentations on cruise ships (see the Stand to Reason blog for some of this). And all that would be needed is an admittance of ignorance when dealing with thinkers that they have not studied. Or, as I would prefer, an understanding of the difference between modern “cultural postmodernists” and the “philosophical postmodernists,” some of whom are relativistic (i.e. Rorty) and some of whom are not (i.e. Heidegger and Derrida).

I have not read any books arguing against postmodernism and I will accept for our purposes that these writers specifically name the thinkers you are defending and mistakenly attribute to them positions they do not hold. But that is not what is happening on this blog page, or what happens any time I see postmodernism being critiqued. When postmodernism is critiqued as relativism, and particularly when a postmodernist relativist is critiqued as a relativist then there is no reason to presume that Heidegger, Foucault, Derrida, et al, are also being critiqued.

One last point: I honestly believe Evangelicals would still have plenty to criticize from their perspective if they got Heidegger et al. correctly, which makes it all the more mysterious why they must rely on half-truths (perhaps to make their job easier, by not needing to do the required research to actually understand them or because it is easier to decimate a straw man). I think the same thing applies to Evangelical explications of Mormonism and Buddhism, but we’ll ignore that for now.

I agree. If Heidegger is to be criticized he should be criticized for what he said/held. But I disagree that just because somebody is criticizing postmodernism he is criticizing Heidegger.
Maybe the definitions of “postmodernism”, “relativism” and “truth but not absolute truth” need to be clarified when these issues are being discussed.

The postmodernists I’ve discussed issues with never brought up any of the scholars you’ve obviously studied and I have no reason to think that their names are coterminous with postmodernism.

Then please show me a single Evangelical who understands postmodernism as anything but relativism. I have yet to find one and would welcome a counter-example.

But your point is important for my critique in one way: I feel that “self-proclaimed post-modernists” likewise misunderstand these primary figures. Yes, Heidegger would deny “absolute truth” (whatever that is; truth is truth and has no need of extra adjectives), he does see culture as central to knowledge and understanding, and truth does have a form of construction or delineation, but not in the sense taken by “self-proclaimed post-modernists” who completely mischaracterize Heidegger’s work. But to see how they differ requires a lot of work, a lot of reading, a lot of struggling to understand Heidegger’s admittedly difficult prose.

This, of course, doesn’t make the Evangelical’s work easier as they can rather easily fall into the same trap. But as the one’s who are always proclaiming superior scholarship and greater analytic skills, their misunderstanding is all the more insulting. They don’t respect these thinkers enough to actually take the time to understand them so they continue to mischaracterize and misunderstand them en mass. Then, when other Evangelicals read their work, they have no reason to think otherwise because the great Dr. Moreland, Dr. Groothuis, Dr. Craig, or Dr. Smith, the superstars of Evangelical philosophy (dare I call them “philosophical idols”?), say that Heidegger is a relativist(=postmodernist).

I can’t tell you the number of people I’ve brought this up to who have simply said, “Who are you? I’m going to trust Dr. [insert your favorite name here].” Of course, the only way to show otherwise is to do long posts attempting to explicate Heidegger in a few paragraphs, which is difficult for any philosopher, doubly for Heidegger. Then I’m told I’m a blabber mouth or some such insult because they are unwilling to do the research needed to actually understand my critique of these apparently apparently philosophically perfect Evangelical thinkers.

So I don’t think I’m over-generalizing, neither am I being overly critical. Evangelicals are perpetuating on a vast scale their misunderstanding of many of these thinkers; put in starker terms, they are peddling in lies. And to admit being wrong on this scale would go a long way in discrediting their work, in showing the horrible scholarship that is behind countless books, papers, talks, and conference presentations on cruise ships (see the Stand to Reason blog for some of this). And all that would be needed is an admittance of ignorance when dealing with thinkers that they have not studied. Or, as I would prefer, an understanding of the difference between modern “cultural postmodernists” and the “philosophical postmodernists,” some of whom are relativistic (i.e. Rorty) and some of whom are not (i.e. Heidegger and Derrida).

Sorry, now I think I’m ranting. But you must understand my frustration with this: it is like your frustration when reading the New Atheist’s egregious misrepresenting of Christianity, which they are similarly peddling on a large scale. I am similarly ignored, my points brushed aside by reference to PhDs (as Groothuis has done on a few occasions) or by blind faith in thinkers that people trust to not lead them astray…when they are doing just that.

One last point: I honestly believe Evangelicals would still have plenty to criticize from their perspective if they got Heidegger et al. correctly, which makes it all the more mysterious why they must rely on half-truths (perhaps to make their job easier, by not needing to do the required research to actually understand them or because it is easier to decimate a straw man). I think the same thing applies to Evangelical explications of Mormonism and Buddhism, but we’ll ignore that for now.

So, yes, I am saying that Evangelicals misunderstand Heidegger and Derrida’s thought (I would also include Foucault, but I’m not as familiar with his work). Also, it is my contention that looking at Evangelical use of sources further demonstrates their ignorance of the primary sources. Except as it relates to Nietzsche and Rorty, most Evangelical explications of Derrida and Heidegger (and Foucault) depend extensively on secondary sources, even to simply cite a well-known, readily available, and in many cases a very important primary source. Thus my contention that Evangelicals tactifully focus on Rorty.