Okay, here is the next quote:
Postmodernist philosophies are visible in a great many places for those who are watching for them. For example, in some of National Geographic’s articles discussing religions (such as Islam and Christianity), the fundamental premise is often that the religion is viable, but is valuable mostly (if not only) in its role as a cultural tradition. Even if they vaguely appear to recognize the viability of any given religion, in the end, such organizations are more likely to professionally advocate the view that science is ultimately true over religion, and that religion and science are incompatible. This strongly reflects postmodernist philosophy and is exemplified to some degree in the final paragraph of the above linked National Geographic article on Christianity:
“At this moment I realize that to sincere believers, the scholars’ quest for the historical, non-supernatural Jesus is of little consequence. That quest will be endless, full of shifting theories, unanswerable questions, irreconcilable facts. But for true believers, their faith in the life, death, and Resurrection of the Son of God will be evidence enough.”
This statement alone is heavy with postmodernism (especially in light of the rest of the article). According to postmodernist philosophy, as long as you sincerely believe something, it is no longer the business of anything or anyone else to challenge your belief. With that obligation put in place, tolerance becomes the highest of all virtues.
I’m not sure why you say the quote is heavy with postmodernism. The “quest for a historical, non-supernatural Jesus” is a classic quest of modernism, not post-modernism, and exemplifed by things like he Jesus Seminar.
Interestingly enough, the Jesus Seminar is obviously circular in reasoning, rejecting text about miracles, because they predetermined miracles were impossible, then finding a Jesus that did not do miracles. Such an effort obviously begs the question. Moreover, this effort basically backfired, giving rise to a renaissance of Christian scholarship in this area, as I give a couple highlights here:
The part of the comment you hone in on as postmodern (“But for true believers, their faith in the life, death, and Resurrection of the Son of God will be evidence enough”). This is not a post-modern statement to me. It sounds much more like an insult, setting up faith and evidence as if they are in opposition. He is saying that those with faith do not really care about the evidence, so there is no use trying to change their minds.
@J.E.S, what makes you think this is a postmodern statement? This seems modern through and through.