A perfect god can not exist?

The first time I read this paragraph I read the last phrase as "spiritual accent" which I suppose has connotations that run contrary to your point. And I like your point. The commonalities are overemphasized. It is much better to focus on the differences. Probably the motivation for overemphasizing commonalities and finding commonalities that aren't really there are noble enough i.e. the desire to see everyone as human and the same equally valuable and all that jazz. Yet the resulting homogenization of spiritual experience is more likely to silence or muffle the unique spiritual experiences of the various traditions and individuals who have them and at the same time dumbing down (or perhaps mundaning down) such experiences to the lowest common denominator. Post-modern approaches like Lyotard's recognition of disjunct and incommensurable grand narratives and his ethic of "bearing witness to the differend" is, I think, a far wiser approach.

Precisely. Your thesis of cultural relativism logically entails that you cannot rightfully make any objective moral complaint against what other countries do on any objective moral grounds, since there aren't any. If you try, that would be just your own subjective opinion. So you would have a hell of time trying to make a case against Hitler in an International Court of Law for any Crimes committed against humanity if cultural relativism is true. That's precisely your pickle.

I don't see it as a problem. It is only my subjective thought. By all means it could be neither good nor bad.

If you belong to the group that is in line with your thoughts of good or bad then you will probably have very little conflict within that group. However if there is a group that has varying thoughts on what is good or bad, there is where you will always find some kind of conflict.

Just like we see being Christians and Secularists. Christians want to proclaim that being homosexual is a sin and wrong. They refuse to accept gay marriage as a right. They thing it is wrong and try to strong arm the government to make laws to not allow gay marriage. Or drug use, or prostitution and gambling. If they had their way they would probably outlaw evolution being taught in public schools.

Exactly. I was thinking the same thing: "postmodernism." Humanism and political correctness are good and noble things, but only to an extent because then they start to be politically incorrect by ignoring idiosyncratic differences. I see postmodernism as a form of tyranny, trying to whitewash distinctions so as to erect its own "universal" hodgepodge of doublespeak and illogical nonsense. Ever read Brian McLaren's Generous Orthodoxy? Yuck. It's a perfect representation of the postmodernism in religion today--"I am a Calvinist, a Catholic, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Muslim." He believes one thing one day, and another thing the next. Any given chapter is totally confusing; you learn nothing; and you walk away feeling empty--"what the hell did he just say? Did he succeed in saying anything at all?" ooze.....

A statement like "I am a Calvinist, a Catholic, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Muslim." is not a postmodern sentiment. Postmodernism is more likely to recognize and refuse to overlook the disjunctivity and incommensurability of religions than to insist upon overriding commonalities.

"Postmodernism" is a ridiculous word though tolerable. It has the ring of "post-apocalyptic" and I like this because it suggests that something has been revealed.

"Posthumanism" is a harder word to swallow. Yet if "humanity" and "humanism" and for that matter "human" are poorly defined by convention and if using these same words while breaking with conventional definitions proves to be more confusing than communicative one may have to leave "humanity" behind in order to preserve ones sense of humanity. Currently "posthumanism" is a term that is only popular among Fukuyama fans and science fiction cults, neither of which turn me on. Perhaps a brand new word will need to be coined to denote, preserve, and also reveal a better understanding of humanity.

In any case, I welcome "Post-secular".

I cringe a little when I forfeit the word "humanism" or even the word "modern"; nevertheless, for the time being I have to use such words conventionally albeit incorrectly until language catches up with reality.

God has nothing to do with the universe's functioning (see free will)

So babies die from painful bone cancer because... they freely willed it?

According to scientologists, yes!

Wait. So now good and evil don't exist at all? I thought you said they were subjective and dependent on culture?



Well within the context of WWII Germany, since it is permissible for Hitler to order the extermination of 6 million Jews, and you lived in that country as a Jew, then you would be in error if you thought your being gassed was morally wrong because good and evil don't exist. Bad news for the Jew. He can't make any formal case to the international courts since there is no such thing as a "Crime Against Humanity."



But if you are right, then the gay community doesn't even have a case since there is nothing wrong with taking away gay rights. There aren't any gay rights at all. So what are you talking about? Homosexuals are forced to submit to what the community wants.

And what would be wrong with outlawing evolution in schools, then?

But is there "a reality" in postmodernism?

I guess I need to repeat myself, again. I think this will be the fifth time I have said it, so I won't bother saying it again to you.

Your ideals are completely subjective. If you think something is good, it does not mean that everyone thinks what you think is good. So if you think something is right, it does not make it universally right. It is just your subjective point of view. It does not preclude anyone from making rules. It does not mean you can't charge someone of something you think is wrong.

For example. Let's say that I think you responding to me is wrong and punishable by death. You might not think so, so if you do it then I will find you guilty of breaking my rule. Now if I have power and the ability, I could place you under my ruling. But if you have the power and ability, you could reject my ruling. Who ever has the power, tends to have majority interest in that societies ideal.

In other words, there could have been Germans who disagreed with what hitler was doing. From his perspective he would find them guilty and punish them. Yet there were others who supported and carried out his plans. Those people from his perspective were right.

So after all that, if you still have a problem, I suggest you go look up subjective and objective. Morals are not objective, there is no universal moral law that everyone accepts. There might be a lot of people who accept some or most but there will always be some who disagree. It only makes them wrong, if the majority agree that they are wrong.

Your error is this: You fail to notice objectivity is not synonymous with universality, so they don't always overlap. For instance, the whole planet could believe the earth was flat, but everyone would be objectively in error. But this certainly doesn't entail there is no fact of the matter about whether the earth is round, hexogonal, or trapezoidal.

We still all agree on what being flat entails. We can observe whether or not a surface is curved. Flatness is a public property. The question is therefore empirical in nature and the answer can only be found by observing the world. Whether or not a surface is curved is to be settled in public by pointing to the curvature of the surface.

If I don't understand what you mean by flatness, it's pretty easy to point to the curvature of a surface and say "see how that's bent, that's not flat" then point to a non-curved surface and say "see how that's not bent, that's flat" but it's difficult to point to wrongness and do the same thing.

In any case, wrongness--though not an empirically observable property of actions--can still easily be identified by most people throughout the world with respect to a common set of core moral principles shared by most people.

That definitely proves most people can agree on some things. Most people agree that chocolate tastes good and pop music sounds good. I agree with the former and disagree with the latter. I don't see what that has to do with objectivity though.

Your error is this: You fail to notice objectivity is not synonymous with universality, so they don't always overlap. For instance, the whole planet could believe the earth was flat, but everyone would be objectively in error.

But I don't see how moral claims have anything to do subjectivity.

Nor do I see how "torturing innocent babies for fun is wrong" is anywhere near analogous to an expression of Humean distaste for a certain flavor of ice cream.

What's really the difference? As far as I'm concerned, the only difference is that I have a strong emotional response at the thought of torturing babies for fun (as opposed to profit?) whereas I really don't care what you do to ice cream. If you think that my moral qualms go beyond that, I don't see it.

If we disagree on the height of the Statue of Liberty we can always just go measure it and see who is wrong. If we disagree on the morality of abortion, there's nothing we can do. Likewise, if we disagree on the taste of ice cream, we can either agree to disagree or go to war.

De gustibus non est disputandum.