This is a wise and honest admission. Few people can understand it, so there's no shame in that. But we're not wise to draw philosophical conclusions about a theory we don't really understand, are we?
But Einstein himself does not attempt to deduce Relativism from the Theory of Relativity. That's something that's only been done by those who really didn't understand what Einstein said, and it makes an unwarranted jump from a theory of physics to a theory of morality, across the fact-value divide.I can understand descriptions intended for lay people.
My suggestion is that you should ignore such "descriptions for lay people," unless they do a much better job of justifying the connection they require you to make. There is no obvious or necessary rational connection between relativity and Relativism, despite the the root term "relative."
The connection between the scientific relativity, the cultural relativity, and the moral relativity is the principle beliefs depend on perspective.
No. On logic. What does "perspective" matter, if the perspective is wrong?
"The best we have"? Judged by whom? Certainly not universally, because people believe in very different ethical metaframeworks.The best we have for moral perspectives do not depend upon a supernatural monogod.
Yes and no.Jesus of Nazareth for instance was a faithful and committed Jew all his life
Jewish, He certainly is; but His teachings transform mere ritual Judaism into much more than a ritual. That's why the leading conventional Jewish teachers of His day, the Scribes and Pharisees, hated Him. He indicted them for mere ritualism, and undermined their claimed ethical authority. For the same reason, Judaism today is largely resistant to recognizing Jesus Christ as Messiah.
and his teaching is respected by Buddhists, Humanists, Muslims, Confucians,...
Not really. They all say they "respect" Him, then completely ignore what He actually said and did. That's not much "respect."
Those would be odd ethics if #1 referred to nothing at all, as you suggest it does. Then the ethics would read, "Love what does not exist, and for the sake of loving that which does not exist, love also what He did not create."...the two key ethics 1. Love God 2. Love your fellow man.
Make sense of that, if you can.
Two problems with this idea: firstly, that nobody who was actually obeying the words of Jesus Christ ever did what you imply...meaning only by disobeying, not obeying did anyone ever create such conflicts, and secondly, that during the last century, we managed to have bigger wars with more deaths than in all previous history combined -- but without needing any religion to do it. So if speaking of God is the real cause of wars and culture clashes, and not believing in one God fixes the problem, how did we do that?The old cosmos with God as supreme giver of moral law vanished and in its place we have God represented by what means the most to any individual. This would be a recipe for wars and culture clashes...