I've never encountered a "postmodern" idea that was not just a badly written regurgitation of some old idea.
I actually agree with you there. Although I hope you are not commenting on the quality of my own writing in the post -LOL!
The only difference I would try to posit is that a Modern mindset will nonetheless state the same idea in a manner that seeks to "explain" the perceived conflict in a manner that "feels" like, if not fundamenalist, then at least like Reformed or historical (as opposed to the media definition of evangelical) evangelical apologetics.
There is even a bit of that in conventional apologetics feel in conservative RC scholarship on some of these issues.
I think there is a nuance of difference in the "post modern" (if we have to call it that) approach. It doesn't make it more cool or hip or contemporary (which is one of the nauseating aspects of the post-modern identification sometimes; it can be almost like I'm part of the skinny jeans crowd and you're not).
It's more of a less "critical" openness to explore in the first place kind of nuance. I can't really describe it.
Yes, the conclusions are mostly the same and have been said before (and sometimes with more elegance) but the conclusions are drawn with a slightly different attitude maybe? Sometimes snobby and "hipper than thou"; but other times surprisingly refreshing because of an almost naive starting point (that isn't naive because of lack of intellect, scholarship or experience, but rather a naivitee of attitude to explore?) and maybe the arrival point is reached with a less dogmatic conclusion?
Also we EXIST in the context modernity and most of our recent thought, discovery and debate in the last couple centuries have been characterized by the intellectual categories of modernity so it isn't like you can just hit a switch and be "post modern." That is aggravating, I agree, when people seem to be saying, "get with it man, this is the post-modern world."
In fact, we are all even sometimes pre-modern in our speech and thinking ("what a beautiful sunset" -- phenomenologically, to our eyes, the sun IS setting and we don't stop ourselves and say "hey, wait a minute, the planet is actually rotating!" We also ask, :What time was sunrise today?").
Truth told, we are mostly "modern" in our thinking - most of us on this board just would never "buy" a young earth literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3. We are not going to view that fundamentalist view AND the scientific view as two portals into encountering God's wonder in creation. So our so-called post-modernism is selective! AND, we WANT molecular biologists to find modern cures for diseases and think and conduct experiments with a modern, critcal mindset. We DEMAND that our doctors practice the most modern procedures and would not want them telling us that both bloddletting by leaches and modern transfusions are both pathways to experiencing a transformative encounter with the healing powers of the universe. That would be a Quack! We understand what is necessary to launch a space vehicle beyond earth's atmosphere (in the general sense at least of enough thrust to esape the earth's gravity).
And sometimes. without using the term we are actually post-modern in our thinking. We appreciate the real humanity and stuggles of the saints painted in our icons and know some of their all too human flaws -- YET we relish the hagiography we read about them that maybe exaggerates certain events or embellishes certain encounters they had with God. We hold both understandings at the same time and know what we are doing and we neither take this approach uncritically as a pre-modern thinker, nor with a forced willing-suspension-of-disbelief as a modern thinker. We just sort of do it.
And maybe that is the best example of the kind nuance I am trying to describe by what I consider the term "post-modern" in its best sense!
