We need to believe that there is one, but in this case, “we” means “other people”. That’s very much part of post-modernism.

“Post-modern world”, “modernity project”, “unqualified success”, I don’t have to accept any of the implications of your second paragraph. It’s complete bullshit.

Whatever you think of post-modernism as a philosophy, we all have to accept that we are living in a post-modern world. If the modernity project had been an unqualified success, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Still a bit unclear on the concept.

No, that’s the concept, to be unclear.

If God doesn’t exist, then by what standard do we decide right from wrong?

I think if you scratch at statements like this long enough, the meaning is usually revealed as: “How can I be absolutely 100% sure that I’m right and other people are wrong?”

The answer is that you can’t – but is that a problem? I agree with Old Beezle about Rieff’s statement. What is wrong with being “condemned” to recognizing the human capacity for evil, and especially our capacity to rationalize evil and make it seem “normal”? This is a much saner basis for a free and open society than projecting our fears and desires onto a Supreme Being who is not answerable to human ideas of morality.

Unfortunately we do have some evidence that eliminating religion will not eliminate human self-righteousness.

Aj said:

Postmodernist nonsense…

Still a bit unclear on the concept.

But the crooked timber of humanity is frail indeed. If God doesn’t exist, then by what standard do we decide right from wrong?

Compared to ancient codes written by brutal societies, and the medieval interpretations of intentionally obscure ancient texts?

If a society recognizes no independent, transcendent guardian of the moral order, will it not, over time, lose its self-discipline and decline into barbarism? The eminent sociologist Philip Rieff, who was not a believer, said that man would either live in fear of God or would be condemned to live in fear of the evil in himself.

Postmodernist nonsense…

If a society recognizes no independent, transcendent guardian of the moral order, will it not, over time, lose its self-discipline and decline into barbarism?

It’s a fascinating tension at the heart of most religious thinking: We’re the children of a divine being, yet without an eternal watchman we’d rapidly descend into abhorrent behaviour. It’s like saying “I have the most perfectly behaved child in the world, but the moment he thinks you’re not looking the little f*cker’s setting fire to the furniture and torturing cats.” It’s crazy.

If God doesn’t exist, then by what standard do we decide right from wrong?

And if god doesn’t exist, then by what standard can we decide what smells bad?

If a society recognizes no independent, transcendent guardian of the moral order, will it not, over time, lose its self-discipline and decline into barbarism?

I will point out the fact that atheists believe there is no such Guardian setting the moral order of His self-proclaimed followers. The nonexistence of such a Guardian is made clear by their lack of self-discipline and pandemic barbarism.

A system with a guardian of the moral order would not suffer so. The fact that religions suffer the same problems of any human political system is proof positive that no-one superior to humanity is watching the store.