Summarize and assess

In this note, Vattimo also emphasized that metaphysics have no place in this dialogue since metaphysics have already taken the path of interpreting their knowledge that is limited on scientific knowledge and approach—with it are very defined scientific system of belief and tradition i.e. objectivism.
At the latter part of his discussion, Vattimo concluded that Christianity should not be tied down on just one entity—which is always is the stereotypical perspective, particularly with Roman Catholicism. The concept of harmonious living, of everything that is good, ethical, and moral must be a sense of charity we feel for one another. And when there is the presence of God, there is Charity (Caputo &amp. Vattimo, p. 45). Thus, when we choose not to clash with one another, that means we are being charitable, thus we are being Christians. Ergo, we profess Christianity in a non-religious perspective.
One of the many critical arguments that Vattimo presented in his premise, towards his discourse on proving his point of a nonreligious Christianity is the importance of knowledge and its subjectivity. “In anything I must choose a perspective.” Science deliberately limited their knowledge because they devoid themselves of their private interests that does not concern their science (p. 27). Though science’s claims of objectivity had help put a finite order in our daily lives, it is clear that Vattimo have efficiently excluded metaphysics in his discourse because Christianity as a philosophical discourse could not be pursued with objectivity.
Another critical point that Vattimo made is that knowledge is culturally dictated, as well as the use of language. Therefore, interpretation is also culturally defined. The use of language as a part of a cultural system means that it has its own rules. As he cited, he could be praying the Lord’s Prayer, yet speaking on a spiritual language. Because Vattimo’s discourse is