Finding the ground for values in a post-modern world

We are finding the ground of values in a postmodern world. A good place to start is by trying to understand what postmodern means and to understand postmodernism after the modern period. Before that, people refer to a pre-modern period. If we look at the pre-modern period, it's not so much a matter of chronology; it's more of a cultural thing. This period was during the Middle Ages right up until the Renaissance when Europe was monocultural. Most people were born into Christianity without any alternative. The only people who encountered an alternative were those who went to the Crusades and encountered Islam. Generally speaking, most people were just born, lived, and died as Christians, and that was the way it was. There was no one coming around the villages and towns offering an alternative way of looking at the world or understanding it.

In this context, you could say the same about parts of Europe and China. We are talking about the development of European culture, philosophy, and civilization. There was one religion or denomination; people were Catholics, and while they were aware there was another Church, the Orthodox Church, they didn't know much about it. They were just Catholics, believing in the Pope. If they were lucky enough to get a Bible, there was only one correct reading of the text. This was determined by the myth mysterium of the Church. If you deviated from the interpretation of the Bible or the text, you could find yourself accused of heresy and even worse, persecuted or put to death. There was only one way to read the text, and that was it.

During the early part of the Church, they formulated Creeds: the Nicene Creed, the Apostles' Creed, and the Chalcedonian Creed, to narrow down what you had to believe to call yourself a Christian. If you didn't believe this, you were no longer called a Christian and would have to leave the Roman Empire or face punishment. This one set of values and beliefs has been the way that Christianity has developed up until today. In that sense, it is like a meta-narrative of creation, the fall, history, the Incarnation, the death and resurrection of Jesus, and the expectation of the second coming of Christ. This huge story in which they found themselves interpreted the world they lived in, and all of this was enforced by the Church, which had co-opted the power of the state to persecute heretics.

Let me now enter what we call the modern age. You might think this started in the 20th century, but it really began with the Renaissance. With the Renaissance came the introduction to Italy of many Greek texts from the New Testament. Scholars like Erasmus started studying these Greek versions of the Bible and realised there were quite a few different ones. They also recognised the difference between the original Greek text and the Latin translation they had only been able to read until then. This interest in the text became very intense and continues to this day within European philosophy. If you have one text here and another text there, and they are not exactly the same, then you start questioning which version is the Word of God. Did Jesus say exactly this or that? This raises all kinds of questions and leads people to start questioning authority.

The Renaissance sparked a whole renewal of European culture, which led to the Reformation. Martin Luther disagreed with the practices of the Catholic Church because he could not find evidence to support those practices, such as indulgences, in the Bible. He challenged the representative of the Pope to justify what the Pope was teaching from the biblical text. This whole movement went back to the Bible as the fundamental Word of God. The issue then became that until then, the Magisterium and the Catholic Church interpreted the Bible as the one true and correct interpretation. Once you discard the Catholic Church and the Magisterium as a source of authority for what the correct interpretation is, you are left with just the text. Different people, guided by the Holy Spirit, interpret the text, but they come up with different interpretations.

As soon as you start getting different interpretations, people begin arguing and fighting about it, accusing each other of heresy. This leads to incredible fragmentation within Protestantism, with everyone thinking there is only one correct interpretation, which happens to be their own. People fall out with each other left, right, and centre, still stuck with the idea that there is only one correct interpretation. Then, of course, people start wondering which is the correct way. Previously, people were just born, lived, and died in their religion without questioning it. Suddenly, they had the option to choose. If their parents were one thing, they could consider another church or group and decide which one they wanted to adopt. This led to the religious wars, the most devastating and destructive wars in European history, fought after the Reformation between Catholics and Protestants, primarily devastating for Germany.

A lot of intelligent people became very sceptical about religion because of the intense religious fanaticism that led to people killing each other in the name of God. This skepticism gave rise to the expression that religion causes wars, which resonates to this day. People became sceptical and sought alternative bases for deciding what is true. They could not rely on religious fanatics to tell them what the truth was, as it was based on their particular interpretation of the Bible. This led to the Enlightenment, sparked by the wars of religion. Enlightened thinkers began questioning all traditions and texts. A father might do something, and his son would ask why. The father would say it was because his grandfather did it that way. The son would question that reasoning, suggesting there might be a better way to do things.

Instead of accepting things based on tradition, people began seeking better reasons for their beliefs. Two basic traditions developed alongside the rejection of revelation as a source of deciding what is right and wrong: reason as a basis for knowledge and experience as a basis for knowledge. The rationalist tradition developed most strongly in Germany and France, while the empirical tradition emerged primarily in Britain, leading to the development of science. These two different sources of deciding what is right became prominent. When looking at the Bible, one might question the miracles: is it rational? Do we see miracles happening today? Many parts of the Bible were discarded when applying the standards of logic and reason, leading to the modern age.

With this came the development of secularism, the desacralisation of everyday life. Instead of everyday life being involved with God, people began to find scientific explanations for phenomena. We no longer needed God to explain why flowers bloom or why we need to pray to cure someone; we just needed medicine. Areas once covered by the spiritual realm became secular. This also led to the privatization of religion. Now, what you believe should be a private matter. You can go to church on Sunday, but don't bring it into public spaces, politics, or schools. The most extreme example of this is in France, following the French Revolution, which pronounced a strict separation of church and state. In Britain, many pre-modern elements still exist, such as bishops in the House of Lords, prayers at the beginning of Parliament, and church schools. However, these elements are gradually being squeezed out as society claims to be secular.

The modern era promotes a sort of capitalism where market values are decided by the market, and God does not figure into it. As this developed into the 19th and 20th centuries, we saw the rise of fascism, communism, and capitalism as the outcomes of extreme secularisation. The results of modernity were not so great. Postmodernism emerged, with people recognising that modernity led to capitalism, exploitation, and significant disparities in wealth. It also gave rise to fascism, which was supposedly scientific, and communism, based on planned society and scientific materialism. After the war, there was incredible skepticism towards enlightenment rationality due to its consequences, including world wars and the Holocaust. This led to the growth of pluralism, with many different religious denominations and other religions appearing. People realised there were various ways to look at the world, not just one.

As a result, it became easy to fall into relativism. With so many different denominations and religions, how can one claim that one is right and another is wrong? This practical relativism emerged, leading to questions about the correct way to read texts. If there are many ways to interpret a text, who is to say that one interpretation is better than another? This rejection of absolute truth and the rise of relativism became significant themes in postmodern thought.

The secular meta-narrative of progress, which suggested that things were getting better through the development of science, faced a significant challenge during the world wars. The devastation of the First and Second World Wars led many to reject this overarching narrative. In the wake of this rejection, post-modernism emerged, questioning the existence of universal values. This raises an important question: what are universal values, and do they truly exist? A recent conversation highlighted this dilemma, particularly in the context of self-driving cars and the ethical decisions they must make when confronted with human beings in their path.

For instance, if a self-driving car must choose between hitting a child or an elderly person, what should it decide? Surveys conducted in the West indicated that people would prefer to run over the elderly person, reasoning that the child has a future ahead of them. Conversely, in some Eastern cultures, the perspective shifts, with individuals arguing that the elderly possess wisdom and knowledge that the child lacks. This presents a significant programming challenge for autonomous vehicles: how do we encode these ethical decisions? It becomes evident that human values are not universal but rather culturally determined, complicating the notion of a shared morality.

The concept of truth also comes into question. Truth is often seen as socially conditioned, influenced by cultural assumptions and the context in which one is raised. There is no absolute standard to determine whether a young or old person holds more value; such judgments are entirely dependent on cultural perspectives. This leads to the conclusion that if truth is relative, then absolute values may not exist either. The translation of texts, particularly religious texts, further complicates this issue. When translating the Bible, for example, one must grapple with the fact that no translation can be perfect due to the inherent differences between languages, which are social constructs reflecting their respective societies.

Every language serves as a unique lens through which to view the world, shaping our understanding of relationships and reality. This raises the question of whether an absolute truth can be expressed at all, given that all languages are relative. Mathematics is often cited as the closest thing we have to an absolute language, as it can describe the natural world with precision that human languages cannot achieve. However, even mathematical expressions can be interpreted in various ways, highlighting the inherent subjectivity in all forms of communication.

The post-modern insight that every text is an interpretation challenges the notion of a singular, correct understanding of any text, including religious ones. This perspective aligns with the principles of Unification Thought, which acknowledges the subjective nature of interpretation. The act of engaging with a text—whether it be a piece of literature, music, or scripture—inevitably involves personal values and experiences. Thus, while the text itself remains unchanged, the interpretation is always influenced by the reader's background and context.

In exploring structuralism and post-structuralism, we encounter thinkers like Ferdinand de Saussure, who introduced the idea of binary oppositions as a fundamental organising principle in human philosophy and culture. This binary framework categorises reality into opposing terms, such as good and evil, order and chaos. However, critics argue that this creates a violent hierarchy where one term dominates the other. The historical treatment of left-handed individuals, for instance, illustrates how cultural biases can shape perceptions of value and morality, further complicating our understanding of universal truths and ethical frameworks.

The concept of binary opposites has permeated European culture for centuries, with a clear division between man and woman. This patriarchal tradition has historically placed women in a subordinate position, a situation that began to change with the rise of feminism. Feminists sought equality and aimed to reverse the dominance of one binary over the other, often advocating for the removal of traditional male-centric narratives from educational curricula. This binary opposition, as noted by Derrida, creates a violent hierarchy where one term governs the other, leading to a rejection of structuralism and a call for deconstruction of these entrenched ideas.

Post-structuralist feminists argue that words and texts lack fixed or intrinsic meanings, allowing for multiple interpretations. They assert that language is a social construct, and thus, binaries like male and female are artificial constructs designed to maintain the power of dominant groups. The solution proposed by post-structuralists is to dissolve these categories altogether, as they are seen as problematic and limiting. This perspective leads to the idea of gender fluidity and the rejection of rigid classifications, aiming for a society where equality prevails without value judgments based on gender or sexuality.

In examining the implications of these ideas, we can see a spectrum of responses to the challenges posed by modernity. Some may long for the comfort of the pre-modern era, seeking a return to fundamentalism and absolute certainty. This approach often involves a rejection of modernity, as seen in certain Islamic movements that advocate for a return to traditional texts. However, this neo-orthodox stance can lack the vibrancy of original encounters with the divine, becoming a lifeless shell of belief.

On the other hand, secularization has led to a reduction of the divine in public life, as Nietzsche famously declared that 'God is dead.' This reflects a broader trend of removing the supernatural from various aspects of existence. In response, some individuals attempt to accommodate modernity by stripping religious teachings of their miraculous elements, reducing them to ethical guidelines. This reductionist view often portrays figures like Jesus merely as moral teachers, devoid of their supernatural significance.

Existentialism offers an alternative perspective, focusing on human existence and experience. Philosophers like Sartre and Heidegger sought to describe the nature of reality based on consciousness and lived experience. This approach views religion as a journey rather than a set of certainties, allowing for personal growth and exploration of authentic experiences behind traditions. It encourages individuals to engage with their beliefs as a work in progress, adapting and evolving over time.

As we explore our existential reality, we must consider what it means to be human. Every individual possesses a mind and body, and while our bodies are physically present, our minds may wander. Additionally, no one creates themselves; we all have parents who contribute to our existence. Human relationships are fundamental, as we interact with family, friends, and communities. Furthermore, we exist within a physical world governed by natural laws, such as gravity, which we cannot escape. These realities shape our experiences and desires, influencing our goals in life.

Basic desires and goals are common among all humans. Children often wish to grow up and gain independence, while adults seek happiness through relationships, family, and financial stability. The pursuit of these desires is intertwined with our existence as embodied beings, as we navigate our relationships with others and the natural world. Ultimately, achieving a harmonious mind-body relationship can lead to a fulfilling and joyful life, where individuals can engage in activities that bring them happiness.

Experience joy. You've got lots of good friends and family, you're happily married, and life is good. You feel joy and happiness because you have a good job or your own business, you've been living a creative life, and you've bought your own house. You're prosperous, and again, you feel that life is good. So, if you can fulfil these three basic desires, then you feel that life is good. The question is, is it easy? Is everybody actually experiencing joy in these three different dimensions of life? Sometimes people struggle with the mind-body connection. They can't control their physical body; they may become obese, alcoholic, or drug addicts. When you're in that situation of addiction, life can feel like hell, dominated by constant cravings and physical desires, making it difficult to get the mind-body connection right.

People often struggle to build good relationships. They want to experience joy through laughter, but sometimes they fall in love, get married, and it doesn't work out. They may get divorced, fall out with their children, parents, or neighbours, and then complain that no one comes to see them, feeling lonely. You have to consider why nobody wants to visit them; often, it's because arguments ensue when they do. There's a lot of loneliness in this world. Additionally, people struggle to manage their finances. They may earn a certain amount of money but spend more than they earn, leading to bankruptcy and homelessness. If you can't manage these three aspects of life, you can easily end up living in hell. Even if people can get these three right, they may still feel there must be more to life than this, experiencing a sense of emptiness.

At this point, we can start to bring in the idea of meaning in life and the need for God's blessing. Experiencing God can make all these challenges manageable and lead to joy. A person may come to the realisation that they are absolutely dependent upon God for their life. The best way to overcome alcoholism, for example, is to join a 12-step programme. The key realisation is that you can't help an alcoholic until they want to be helped, and they won't want help until they hit rock bottom and realise they need it. The first step is to acknowledge that they cannot do it by themselves and that they need help from a higher being, which we call God.

Now, let's discuss the concept of a blessing. In Hebrew, the word 'Barak' means to bless, praise, or salute, with the root meaning being 'knee'. The knee is the weakest part of the human skeleton, the part that most easily goes wrong. When people are frightened, they often feel weak at the knees. The wisdom behind this is that a blessing from God empowers us to do what is beyond our natural capabilities. Without God's grace, I cannot stop my knees from knocking; I cannot unite my mind and body to live a meaningful life; I cannot love my spouse or children without divine assistance. This is where the idea of fulfilling the three blessings comes into play. The problem of the Divine Principle starts with God and the three blessings He gave, but it should also start from human life and reality. This is why I need God—to help me manage my mind and body, my family, and my business.

The high points of human creativity often occur when individuals like Mozart, Haydn, Michelangelo, and Leonardo da Vinci touch the divine. They led incredibly devout spiritual lives, and this is expressed in their art, creating the greatest classics. In practice, a mature person becomes a true teacher, a true parent, and a true owner by relating to people and connecting with them. Is there an absolute universal standard? Yes, murder is universally accepted as wrong. If you ask anyone if they would mind being murdered, everyone would say yes. This is a fundamental agreement among all humans. Similarly, everyone agrees that rape is wrong, as is robbery. These represent an absolute standard of wrongness that all human beings can agree upon, as nobody wants to be robbed, raped, or murdered.

While there is no absolute standard of goodness, we can build a standard of wrongness. For instance, we can expand the idea that murder is wrong to include violence generally. If your mind and body are disunited, that leads to lying, which is also not considered good. We can reconstruct a traditional moral framework from an existentialist point of view. The question then arises: why be good? Following the law can be seen as a way to worship God. People keep the Sabbath because they want to become like God, inviting His presence into their lives. This makes every act meaningful and helps us become better people.

Living in a secular world, most people do not believe in God, as the term is often loaded, and they may not want to be part of an organised religion. How do you have a conversation with them? Only a tiny fraction of people are interested in questions like 'Why did God create?' or 'What is the purpose of life?' Instead, they are more concerned with achieving mind-body unity, improving relationships, and managing their finances. From there, you can gradually introduce theological concepts. In education, the best way to teach is to engage students, making them aware of their ignorance and fostering a desire to learn. You can't force someone to drink water, but you can make them thirsty. This approach is essential in teaching and in conversations about spirituality.