Thoughts about truth and instability

I have just read your book “True and Unstable.” This is the first book of yours that I have read, and in fact the first book that deals directly with logic that I have ever read. Throughout reading the book, I felt that I learned, was educated, and enjoyed myself very much. How do you say? “You woke me up from my dogmatic slumber.” Towards the end of the book, several thoughts arose in me, to which I would like to receive your comment if you can:

1. I am writing to you because of the criticism you wrote against postmodernism: Reading the book until the last part was very enjoyable, but from this part I began to feel a personal attack, as someone who finds postmodernism to be the only alternative to fundamentalism, and in fact perceives postmodernism as something similar to what you call syntheticism: postmodernists believe that there is no certain truth. However, one must balance ideas, values, and opinions about all of these. Since there is no truth, we will allow multiculturalism and everyone will have the opportunity to live their lives in the spirit of Mill’s harm principle, i.e. maximum freedom for everyone, as long as it does not harm another. Science in the postmodern world will strive for the truth, only it will never reach it, and all that can be done is to refute theories. A theory that does not meet Popper’s principle of refutation is not scientific and science must ignore it or not find much value in it. I believe that this is how most people perceive postmodernism, and not as an endless debate in which no one is right.
2. You demonstrated the principle of syntheticism on belief in God. You explained that for you the existence of God is a fact similar to the existence of gravity. You are a physicist, so I am afraid of falling into the trap of gravity, but let’s say we talk about a comparison between the existence of God and the fact that the Earth is round. You claim that your knowledge is the same in both cases because it is based on intuition. However, there is much empirical support for the fact that the Earth is round, including images taken from space that actually show the shape of the Earth. On the other hand, there is really no convincing proof for the existence of God, other than the fact that the Torah says that there is a God, and there is much evidence that there is no God (even though the idea does not really meet the principle of refutation, unlike the shape of the Earth). You are using intuition, at least as I understood it, in a way that can also be interpreted as a caricature: I perceive something in my consciousness, and therefore it is true for me. There is no difference between such a truth and the shape of the Earth. Perhaps we could say that intuition is “mental laziness” and not analytics (you didn’t write this, but I intuitively felt that there was a certain accusation against the left and liberalism. Maybe it’s just in my head, but on the other hand, that’s how I intuitively understood your words, and therefore they are true!).
3. To ridicule postmodernism, you provided the axiom that “murder is abhorrent,” and if even that cannot be achieved, then postmodernism falls into a caricature of itself. However, I think you ignored the fact that the term “murder” itself contains judgment: not all killing is murder. There are those who will define a particular killing as murder, and there are those who will not. If we have defined killing as murder, it means that we have already applied judgment to the act, and classified it as morally wrong. The case of Elor Azaria, for example, falls under all definitions in the Penal Code as murder in every sense, but he was tried for manslaughter and spent six months in prison. Beyond that, many saw him as a hero, not as a despicable murderer. I believe that this is murder as I perceive it in my own mind, but others have a different understanding and perception of the act. It is not possible to prove to them with signs and examples that they are wrong, and therefore in a certain sense they are not wrong.

I hope you don’t feel that I don’t know enough to be worthy of conversation. I know that I am not as educated as you, but I still read your book very carefully and understood it as much as my understanding allowed me. I hope you will answer. Have a good week.
Best regards,