@Volunteer,
Volunteer;63585 wrote:The point is, if everything is relative to the observer's point of view then nothing can be solid or real, there can be no fact or truth. If there are such things as fact or truth, then they must be the same regardless of the viewpoint of the oberserver. Your argument is that everything is up for negotiation or interpretation. This denies reality.
Relative does not equal non-existent.
Example: Hot
Things are only hot relative to other objects, coffee may be hot relative to other drinks but coffee would not be hot relative to let's say the sun. Because "hotness" is relative does not mean there are no hot object or that Hot does not exist.
Example 2: Location
Things only have a position relative to other objects. Celestial bodies only have locations relative to other celestial bodies. Try describing the location of the earth without comparing it to other objects in space, it cannot be done. But does that mean nothing has location? No, of course not.
Fundamentalists like concrete concepts, and often contend that if something is not concrete or absolute then it doesn't exist or it doesn't matter even if it does exist, this would forgo anything that is not able to be "nailed-down" or conceptualized. This may go to explain why fundamentalists do not like to think that species are not immutable. This line of reasoning is fallacious. Morality like most things is not a black and white thing, there are gray areas. While actions themselves are moral or immoral relative to the circumstances of a given situation, the basis of morality is the same throughout (harm vs benefit) this would require that people use reason and common sense to decide if an action is moral or immoral. but lots of people don't know what to base such a decision on and simply find it easier to rely on the immutable commandments of a certain dogma. while questioning the assumptions people base their lives on may present certain problems for people.