The post-modern conversation is almost co-terminous with the view that views are community-constructed. Arising from epistemic humility and coupled with a stronger bent towards the understanding of language as a social/cultural tool (or game, a'la Witty), there is therefore less absoluteness, less exclusivity, more openness to listen and ask questions.

Other than 'commmunity-construction', similar terms may include contextual theology, deconstructive theology, the idea of "basic" beliefs. In a word, the legitimacy of beliefs is judged by the community in which they arise.

How, then, would such a theology or worldview be binding on members of other communities? The answer is simple: It isn't. Or at least not in a traditional sense, whereby one is compelled to either accept a given position or de facto be (publicly) seen to profess a contradiction or falsity. A consequence of such binding is the intellectual guilt/crime of non-truth.

But the postmodern conversation assumes and embraces multiplicity of views and other-ness as integral to one's being. This (logically) implies one may be allowed to present positions which appear inherently contradicting (epistemic humility, remember? Post-moderns choose not submit themselves to the law of non-contradiction; they choose not to resolve the tension in contradictory positions merely to appear more coherent).

Life (or consciousness for that matter) is less than fully clear, let alone coherent, let alone fully understandable and devoid of contradictions. We can't figure out much of it (cf. quantum physics). It therefore seems spurious to hold against someone his/her inabiliity to resolve contradictions in said person's position (without even mentioning the issue of inherent presuppositions!).

One community cannot invalidate the worldviews of another's, except as a reflection of the former's own position. "You are wrong" can always be met with, "Only under your axioms."

The God's-Eye view rightly belongs to God alone.