Thanks for taking the test, Brad. I've been all around in my head on #2; would you suggest a re-word that fits better?

Well, the only reason #2 struck me as odd is that I rated the postmodern part so high. So I�m sort of assuming that either I misunderstood that third part of the #2 question or that you meant to express something different. You may have expressed exactly what you wished to and I simply could be a closet postmodernist. But let�s stick to the reasonable probabilities, shall we?

Your original multiple choice question:

2. If I have to choose between science and religion, I choose:
A. Religious teaching
B. Scientific findings and theories
C. Having to choose between one and the other is absurd.

Suggest alternative to C:

C. Neither or both because each is just as likely to contain serious errors and biases.

This post got me to thinking more about PM.

And really, I think you can see how the whole postmodern and/or relativistic argument falls apart. Unless an objective reality was shepherding and naturally steering and sculpting our ideas to be in line with it, there would truly be only chaos and very little that was shared. If everything was truly just relative and was simply a "choice", with little or no grounding in reality, then it's doubtful that anything as complex as human society could even exist because consensus on anything could never be achieved. Our experience of reality (if, indeed, we could ever have such an experience) would be one of constant disorientation and confusion. (If disorientation and confusion persist, please see your doctor or change political, economic and possibly religious philosophies.) Now of course, one can turn around and say that we're just sharing an illusion, that it is all some sort of agreed-upon "narrative", and the fact is, that is probably true for some things, for truly it is somewhat arbitrary as to whether we drive on the left or right side of the road. But that we are facing forward when doing so is not just a convention. It's inherently easier to drive that way.

It's like calculus, the area under the curve. We never know the area under the curve exactly but we inch ever closer. We can inch ever closer because there is an area to inch closer to. A cop-out or misreading is to say that, because we can't get an exact reading, that therefore life is not just an approximation, it's all just arbitrary. Postmodernism and relativism is one of the biggest rounding errors of all time. Because some error exists we throw out whatever data we have and call the state without this data more precise.