I'm going to use these terms very loosely. Postmodernists = humanists, etc.; Fundamentalists = legalists, etc.
After encountering some French literature, art (i.e. Les Misérables, Les Combattantes, etc.) I must ponder upon the significance of the religious debate deeper than the mere Fundamentalist–modernist controversy of the early 30s.
The humanists' motto is human-centered; The Fundamentalists' is God-centered.
So one can easily see from the surface how the Fundamentalist would win, especially from a Christian world view. If we are ignorant of the accusation that claiming God-centered doesn't necessarily make one God-centered. In fact, the Lord was particularly harsh against those labeling themselves strict followers of God. Simply because they create their own fitting version of "God-centeredness", thus making themselves prouder humanists instead.
But then, one must ask, what's wrong with the claim of truth first? Let's say both humanists and legalists care about it, why wouldn't they. Take white lies for example. When the humanists are challenged by it, they would justify it with a selfless benefit to the humankind as they see fit; But the fundamentalists would either condemn it or avoid the topic all together. The humanists' sin here is that of self-centeredness, which is common. However, the fundamentalists could either be justified (by rightly calling white lies still as sinful lies) in all godliness or hypocrites by masquerading godliness with mere exhibition of the knowledge of the Text. The latter would fail horribly more than the humanists here because honesty in this case, even against white lies, come with a cost that they would not be willing to bear. For example: A humanist lies (from the series Les Combattantes) to her employer in order to get a bunch of prostitutes a job and thus taken upon herself the responsibility to train the girls for the job; A legalist would have told the truth to the general that these girls were not qualified to be drivers and may not be prepared to take on the responsibility of the cost of the truth - viz. to find these girls their livelihoods. How God's mysterious providence here is irrelevant as it's not a subject of debate. We are talking about the sense of responsibility as a human to one's own neighbor. I think the humanist would have committed only a minor sin with her white lie; while the indefensibly irresponsible fundamentalist would be a pharisaic hypocrite, the very antagonist in Jesus' parable of the good Samaritan.
What then? If you want to be perfect, then be the fundamentalist who's willing to be there for the storm you are bringing others out of your honesty against white lies. Whether God chooses to alleviate your (and others') situation or to teach you a hard lesson here is of no concern for the discussion here.
Why sometimes we see the humanists, even secular ones, win the battles? It is in a sense, a battle of the right understanding of the philosophy of being vs. becoming. We are not to absolutize what is relativistic nor vice versa. Because here God is justifying the humanists over the fundamentalists who only know how to memorize the Sacred Text and justifying their inaction with their mere declaration of their godliness. Take out the white lies, it is as simple as the good Samaritan vs. everyone else in the parable. Judgment against white lies is inevitable, but there is a deeper context here and it is more important: What a responsible neighbor truly is.