Philosophical Foundations of Critical Race Theory (3)
In this, the third installment of this series, I want to look more closely at the issue of truth. This is because justice is really grounded in truth, not in power. We are seeing various power plays working themselves out in society, but without any truly good outcome. If we want to see justice prevail, we will be extremely interested in truth. We will ask for solid evidence that proves any given theory to actually be true. Advocates of CRT see some groups as the oppressed, and, therefore, in need of special treatment, while other groups are seen as the oppressors. In CRT, the oppressors are those who are beneficiaries of “white privilege” while minorities (blacks, and perhaps even browns, and orientals) are the oppressed. This is the Civil Rights Movement in reverse. Rather than being judged by the content of a person’s character instead of the color of their skin, we seemingly have reverted to discrimination based on skin color.
Does racial bigotry exist at all in the United States? Of course it does in various individual cases, and in small groups of radical adherents (White Aryan groups, Black Panthers, Black Lives Matter, etc.). This is quite different from assigning systemic racism to whole groups (like Blacks in society, Whites in society, Asians in our society, et. al). Pluckrose and Lindsay said CRT starts with an assumption. It assumes that ‘”racism is normal and permanent, and the problem is primarily that people—particularly white people—are failing to see, acknowledge, and address it. . . . We are to assume that racism is always taking place and our job is to examine situations for evidence of it” (132-33, emp. added).
There are three very powerful philosophical influences in our country today: (1) naturalism; (2) pragmatism; and (3) postmodernism. Since vast numbers of people are influenced by these philosophical movements, it is in order to examine what they teach about truth. This is the case because I hold to what is called the correspondence theory of truth, which simply says that a claim to truth must correspond to reality in order to actually be true. In other words, what is claimed to be the truth, really is the truth! Take the claim of CRT advocates: “CRT is true, and we must all acknowledge it as factual;” or “the assumptions underlying CRT make the theory true.” However, the claim expressed is either really true or it is not. There is no middle ground. I will argue that CRT is not true.
Naturalists and the Nature of Truth
Look at this first from the naturalist’s perspective. Naturalism, as a philosophy, is the belief that everything arises from purely natural properties and causes, and supernatural explanations are discounted or rejected outright. To the naturalist, everything is explained by physics and chemistry, with a little biology thrown into the mix. There is no God, no life after death, no spiritual realm separate from the natural one. Graham Oppy is perhaps the best example of a naturalist in the philosophical realm. He says:
I think that it is . . . obvious that naturalistic worldviews are simpler than Christian worldviews. At a first pass, we can put the comparison between the two kinds of worldviews in the following terms. Naturalists suppose that causal reality just is natural reality, whereas Christians suppose that—in addition to natural reality—there is a further, nonnatural causal reality (involving at least God, and perhaps also angels and other nonnatural entities). In addition, naturalists suppose that causal properties are just natural properties, whereas Christians suppose that—in addition to natural causal properties—there are also nonnatural causal properties (e.g., divine causal properties, angelic causal properties). (31)
Oppy says that, as a starting point, naturalists are committed to three basic claims. I will mention his first and third. The first claim is that “there are none but natural causes involving none but natural entities.” The third is that “there is nothing that is divine, or sacred, or worthy of worship” (29-30). This is perfectly consistent with the Secular Humanists position as well. For instance, in the second Humanist Manifesto, published in 1973, it is stated:
We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural; it is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of the survival and fulfillment of the human race. As non-theists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity. . . . [W]e can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species. While there is much that we do not know, humans are responsible for what we are or will become. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves. (Manifesto II, 16)
Now that we know what is meant by naturalism, it is in order to ask, “What do they believe about truth?” Basically, the only truths they find in this world (other than those facts that come from personal observation) come from science. As an excellent example of this position, consider what well-known philosopher Bertrand Russell stated at the end of his book, Religion and Science: “Whatever knowledge is attainable, must be attained by scientific methods, and what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know” (243). Interesting, isn’t it? Whatever truths we find are found in science (except, I suppose, what we gain by direct observation). How we come to know these truths is, according to Russell, by way of the scientific method. How was this truth gained through the scientific method? Which scientific discipline was used to arrive at this knowledge? The answer, of course, is that this supposed truth that Russell alleges was not discovered by any scientific process. So, on the ground he himself marked out, there is no possible way he could know that this position is true. More than this, since we are examining CRT, we ask the logical questions: Where are the scientific studies of CRT that have repeatedly stood the test of laboratory investigations? Which of these studies have survived a peer review process before being published? To the best of my knowledge, there are simply no such tests or studies. Certainly, there are none that will stand up as good science. Nevertheless, in order for such theories to be true, some serious investigative process needs to be utilized. I can find no way to fit CRT into the Scientific Method of inquiry.
In a 2021 book published by Warren Apologetics Center, Ralph Gilmore offered a brief synopsis of what he calls the classical theories of truth in the following:
There are several classical theories of truth—the correspondence theory (truth corresponds in some way to reality), the coherence theory (truth coheres with other conclusions we know to be true), the pragmatic theory (absolute truth cannot be known, but what we hold to be true “works” for us), the existential theory (absolute truth cannot be known, but each finds his own meaning through the existential process), deconstructionist theories of truth (there are no absolute meanings to words, but words mean what I want them to mean only in context), et al. (338)
Naturalists generally hold to the correspondence theory of truth, and sometimes also, the coherence theory. Dr. Gilmore correctly characterized the pragmatist’s theory of truth and the postmodernist’s theory (referred to as the “deconstructionist theory”).
Pragmatists and the Nature of Truth Pragmatism is a unique philosophical position found almost exclusively in the United States. Charles Sanders Peirce is credited with being the first pragmatist philosopher, along with John Dewey followed by William James. When we discover that Richard Rorty (further discussed in the following section) was not only a postmodernist, but also a pragmatist with respect to his theory of truth, we can come to see a rather close connection between the pragmatic theory of truth and the postmodernist theories of truth. It is impossible to characterize postmodernist positions as a single theory. This is why I describe their positions as theories in our investigations. Their views, however, tend to fit well within the pragmatist camp. So, let us turn now to the pragmatists. It seems that William James is the most direct. Therefore, I use him as our example. One writer describes James’ theory of truth in the following:
James’s notion of “pragmatic” meaning served to reinforce the theory of truth that sprang from his interpretation of the role of thinking. According to James the function of thought is not to copy or image reality but to form ideas in order to satisfy the individual’s needs and interests. What practical difference does it make if an idea is true? In science the truth of an idea is determined by experimental verification. Since verified ideas serve our need to predict experience and cope with our environment, scientific truth fulfills our practical interests. Hence, in the context of investigation, the true and the verified are one. (Ezorsky, emp. added)
William James is not saying that our thoughts of truth should be checked to see if they actually describe reality. Instead, he is saying that truth is based more upon what we are interested in and/or what satisfies those interests. Therefore, “on pragmatic principles, if the hypothesis of God works satisfactorily in the widest sense of the word, it is true” (299). James extended this concept in his famous essay “The Will to Believe,” in which he took the position that faith “works” (or, has “cash value”), because it seems to be the most practical solution to the question of God’s existence. Whether or not there is solid factual evidence upon which to draw that conclusion, it is somehow justified, he maintained, on pragmatic grounds. We want it to be true, because it serves an important need in our lives. Whether or not it is really true is an open question as far as William James is concerned.
Consequently, the pragmatic theory of truth allows one to say that a thing is true for me because it has a desirable outcome. Many no doubt remember that, during the Kavanaugh hearings before his Congressional approval to serve on the Supreme Court, we heard government leaders, media personalities, and various called witnesses speak of “her truth” or “their truth” in isolation from real objective truth. This theory serves CRT advocates perfectly as they promote their positions as true, but purely on a subjective basis, without producing any real evidence to prove the theory as true.
Postmodernists and the Nature of Truth
Richard Rorty, professor of Philosophy at the University of Virginia (now deceased) argued that, for postmodernists “truth is made, not found. . . . Truth cannot be out there—cannot exist in—dependently of the human mind—because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there. The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not” (3-5). Crystal Downing, associate professor of English and film studies at Messiah College, comments on Rorty’s view: “For Rorty, all truths, including those of science, are human: intellectual constructions taken as true by groups of people who share the same interpretation of reality” (123). Myron Penner, Anglican Priest who wrote The End of Apologetics writes, about postmodernism and truth:
Contingent “approximations” are all we finite, fallible creatures have available to us. Absolute, timeless truth is God’s alone. We perceive things from our various perspectives within time, with these limited and changing bodies, and from the social contexts we inhabit. We won’t, in other words, get to the bottom of reality to perceive reality as it really is apart from how it is for us. (109-10)
In other words, the best we can do if we are influenced by postmodernism, is to argue that truth is something we “construct” or “invent.” In harmony with CRT, it would be exclusively agenda- driven and supported subjectively by a few individuals or groups who would hold to the same position. It is, however, in no possible way objective truth, because it is not based on any standard that is “outside” of us to which we are accountable. Penner asserts, as do other postmodernists, that there simply is no objective truth at all. Instead, what we call truth can be best viewed as the language games that the later Wittgenstein used in order to think about the role of language in harmony with contemporary philosophy. But, without an objectivity to truth, we are simply left with no possible way to prove that CRT is really true. In a blatant self-contradiction, those who deny objectivity in truth are convinced that their positions are objectively true. The theory destroys itself in the process.
Both Postmodernism and Pragmatism serve our CRT advocates very well philosophically, because they can advance their views emotionally and subjectively, while hoping to get as many to sign on to their social justice mantra as can be assembled, and to influence as many political operatives to come to their aid. In this way, they attempt to get people to buy into their beliefs, and they will also try to shame the rest into compliance. CRT may be one of the most prominent social issues of our day, but there is no possible way that any of the advocates can claim truth for the theory. At the same time, naturalism does very little, I think, to support the CRT position in any meaningful way. As we draw this article to a close, it is important to ask a few penetrating questions. In what way (or ways) does CRT correspond to reality? What is the relevant evidence that provides a solid foundation of objective truth showing us all that CRT is true? Since logical argumentation depends upon an argument (in deduction) being correct in form (making no mistakes in language or structure, and in which the conclusion follows from the premises), and the premises being true, we kindly ask our CRT friends to provide the argument which justifies their conclusions. Finding none, we argue that CRT is an agenda-driven social position held by subjective opinionizers, and not worthy of real consideration. The simple reason is, there is no justification for this theory.
WORKS CITED
Downing, Cystal L. How Postmodernism Serves My Faith: Questioning Truth in Language, Philosophy and Art. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2006.
Ezorsky, Gertrude. “Pragmatic Theory of Truth.” Encyclopedia of Philosophy. S.v.
Gilmore, Ralph. “The Biblcal View of Epistemology.” The Utterance of God: An Extended Treatment of Thomas B. Warren’s Argument with the Proof that Assures Man The Bible is the Word of God. Eds. Charles C. Pugh, III and W. Terry Varner. Parkersburg: Warren Christian Apologetics Center, 2021.
Humanist Manifestos I and II. Buffalo: Prometheus, 1973.
James, William. Pragmatism. A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking. 1907. New York: Floating, 2010.
Oppy, Graham, K. Scott Oliphint, Timothy McGrew, and Paul K. Moser. Four Views on Christianity and Philosophy. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016.
Penner, Myron Bradley. The End of Apologetics: Christian Witness in a Postmodern Context. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013.
Pluckrose, Helen, and James Lindsay. Cynical Theories. Durham: Pitchstone, 2020.
Rorty, Richard. Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1989.
Russell, Bertrand. Religion and Science. 1925. London: Oxford UP, 1980.