Ray Ciervo Ministries

Can We Be Truly Objective?:  Or is everything we say nuanced?

“Ray, isn’t what you are saying nuanced by your prejudice?” I fired back, “Is your question nuanced by your prejudice?” The question posed to me challenged whether I could be objective about the issue we discussed. In fact, it insinuated I could not be objective because of my history, education, experience, emotions, etc. And, it also insinuated that if it was nuanced, I couldn’t be right.

First, the idea that just because I’m nuanced doesn’t mean I’m wrong. This is one of the extreme leanings of postmodernism’s effects on language. Sure everyone speaks out of their lifes’ makeup. It doesn’t follow that if that is the case, it means they’re wrong. If it were the case, then no one could ever say anything. Anytime you didn’t like what someone said, all you had to do is say, “Isn’t that nuanced?” (Okay, I’ll stop italicizing “nuanced.”) That would be the trump card in every discussion. I also know, the postmodern isn’t concerned about being right, but the “conversation.” This is an ideal never accomplished, at least not in my conversations. Postmoderns, at least some,  I’ve conversed with have gone to tears trying to justify their position.

I'll let you in on a secret: I sometimes feel like I’m listening or reading a script out of “Through the Looking Glass” when I eavesdrop on postmodern discussions, whether spoken or blogged. “Nonsense!” I want to cry out. However, I’d be accused of nuancing. 

Think about it, how could anyone write anything? Or, say anything? Everything is nuanced by a person’s life. However, that doesn’t mean nothing is objective. Where postmodernism fails miserably is understanding the role of reason. To be fair the postmoderns reaction to reason is not unfounded, just overdone. Postmoderns reject the modernist’s view that reason can discover and define everything exactly as it is. Everyone ought to reject that view. Modernism rejected God and revelation and exalted mankind to the throne of the Universe. “Reason” was determined to be the tool of modernism for finding complete answers to everything. Whether it was mathematics or science, reason is king to the modernist.

However, because reason was/is wrongly used doesn’t mean it can’t be used for it’s correct purpose. Allow me to illustrate. 

Once I drove up to my house to see my wife and another young woman attempting to trim the bushes with a chain saw. I know, men are picturing human limbs flying - not a pretty picture. As calmly as I could I walked up to them and requested the chain saw be turned off. I explained that chain saws were not meant to be used for trimming bushes but for cutting trees down and trimming large branches. They explained that they had cut the cord on the hedge trimmer (by accident) and resorted to the chain saw. That’s another story.

The fact that the chainsaw was shut off doesn’t mean it was never to be used again (except for my wife). It was and has been used for its designed purpose. So it is with reason, logic and rhetoric.

Postmodernism’s reaction to reason has been extreme. It rejects propositions out of hand. What postmodernists don’t realize is that they must use propositions to reject propositions. In order to reject propositions they must say, “Propositions are not right.” Or, “Propositions are not necessary for understanding anything.” Both of those statements are themselves propositions. Postmoderns must rethink their reactions. 

 Also postmoderns use reason, logic and rhetoric to promote their arguments for postmodernism. They logically explain postmodernism reasonably. By the way, this doesn’t mean postmodernism is correct. Facts and truths have to also be proven reasonably.

When these inconsistencies are pointed out, my experience with postmoderns is they contradict themselves. Unfortunately, some postmoderns are happy with the contradiction. That’s when I begin to feel like Alice having gone “through the looking glass.” Conversations are not going to go anywhere.

So, my point for this is, “Can we be objective about anything?” Can we make decisions, observations that are not nuanced by our lives. The postmodern would say, “no.” All truth claims are nuanced! However, I object!

First, let’s separate preferences from convictions. I prefer certain things. I like red tomato sauce on my pasta, not cream sauce. I don’t think one is better than the other and at times have enjoyed a northern Italian cream sauce on pasta. My preference however is tomato sauce (gravy as we call it). Is one better than the other? No, it is a matter of preference. I was raised eating pasta (macaroni) at least twice a week with red tomato sauce. Naturally, I prefer it.

Convictions on the other hand are deep seated beliefs that are commitments to more than a lifestyle of preferences. Convictions are the bedrock of our lives. Convictions ought to be arrived at after careful consideration of facts. After all, they’re going to affect my life’s direction, choices, and future landing place. I make my decisions out of my convictions. One of my convictions is that since God hates divorce, so do I. Divorce is not an option in my marriage. Therefor I’m committed to my conviction about marriage. This is not nuanced, it is a conviction based on revelation from God’s word.

Actually, declaring that everything is nuanced is a non-starter. In fact, it can be irrelevant. Consider Apollos in the Book of Acts, Chapter 18. Apollos was preaching Jesus accurately (vs 25) but only according to the baptism of John. Priscilla and Aquila heard of him and explained to him the Word of God more accurately.” (vs 26) [My emphasis] Could Apollos have said, “Is that nuanced for your life and experience?” Sure he could have but it would have been stupid. Aquila and Priscilla “explained” to him a more accurate way. He saw where he needed correction and received it. I must add, it was based on the facts.

When postmoderns reduce facts to nuance they deconstruct true meaning and therefor end up with a subjective piece of information. The truth be told, we can all change our convictions when confronted with different facts, read “truths.” Reality tells us we move from one conviction to another when we learn our previous set of convictions need adjusting or scrapping altogether.

Was slavery nuanced? The idea that all men are created equal can be dismissed as nuanced according to postmodern thought. My point is that because we are reasonable beings we can stand back from our subjective experience and see truth for what it is. Does that mean we’ll always be 100% right? No. We still run the risk of judging incorrectly for a variety of reasons. However, trying to put another fallible decision making process in place is not right either. In fact, it has the potential of being wrong most of the time.

Popular postmodernism, as compared with philosophical postmodernism, doesn’t know from whence it came. Language, says the philosophical postmodern, is restrictive. Language reflects nothing in reality, but is nominally assigned by us. That is, we give names to things without reference to anything. What is understood by this is that there are no transcendent anythings. We have William of Ocham to thank for this way back in the 14th Century. He introduced the idea of “nominalism” to the philosophical world. Actually, he reintroduced it after it had been trashed by Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Thomas Aquinas also trashed nominalism just a century before. Nominalism declares there are no transcendent ideas about anything therefor nothing is objective therefor neither can anything be objectively known.

Postmoderns propose that things can only be known subjectively, through my nuanced view of life and reality. Secular postmoderns actually say we create reality with our words, our language. Any Christian postmodern who ascribes to this rejects the truth of Scripture. Some unwittingly do buy into this. The idea that there are no transcendent truths is contrary to Scripture.

Okay, so we’re getting complicated, well maybe just complexed. It doesn’t follow that because I am nuanced by my experience I cannot know truth objectively. In fact, if I can’t know truth objectively nothing I know is worth anything to anyone but me. If God cannot reach me with transcendent truth I am doomed, so are you. 

Fortunately, this is not the case. Jesus stated, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” (John 8:31b,32) [My emphasis] Jesus gave hope to those had believed in Him saying if they continue in His word, they would be his true disciples and they would know the truth and the truth would make them free. Were Jesus’ words nuanced? I don’t think so. I believe he spoke objectively about the truth and that those Jews who believed in him would rise above their nuanced lives and make decisions based on new convictions they would arrive at. It would change their lives.

Let me go back to the slavery issue. Slavery brought economic prosperity and stability to the South. Southerners were taught and believed Africans to be inferior, not just educationally but in essence - they were not fully human. This is what justified the South’s practice of slavery. If the truth that all men are created equal were not transcendent, objective, slavery could be justified. Let’s go one better - the equality of man is based on the Scripture that we are all created not just equal, but our equality is based on the fact we are made in the image of God. It has taken centuries for some to change their conviction, but freedom for all men is defended on one premise - a transcendent truth and truth triumphs.

Nuancing is another name for relativism. Relativism is not bad when I’m choosing pasta sauces - my preferences. However, when I’m choosing convictions I want to know the truth. According to Jesus, the truth is in His word and knowable if I make my home there.

Let’s sum up: Nuance is not an argument. Basing my convictions on fact and truth are more than possible; they are necessary. Even though I am affected by my life I can still stand outside of it and make objective choices. Especially when Jesus is the light of my life and is the light by which we see our way clear. Seeing Jesus clearly is crucial and that my friend, is another writing.

The idea that we are trapped by words in our own lives is depressing. God gave us reason and logic as tools to decide for Him. Think about the implications of thinking freely and choosing freely. Then think about the restrictions that the idea of nuancing delivers to us. Can you think objectively about it?