Cultural Christians.

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 15261
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 975 times
Been thanked: 1801 times
Contact:

Cultural Christians.

Post #1

Post by William »

Elon Musk has identified himself as a cultural Christian in a new interview.

“While I’m not a particularly religious person, I do believe that the teachings of Jesus are good and wise… I would say I’m probably a cultural Christian,” the Tesla CEO said during a conversation on X with Jordan Peterson today. “There’s tremendous wisdom in turning the other cheek.”

Christian beliefs, Musk argued, “result in the greatest happiness for humanity, considering not just the present, but all future humans… I’m actually a big believer in the principles of Christianity. I think they’re very good.”
{SOURCE}

For debate.

Q: Is it better for the world to be a Cultural Christian than an all-out anti-theist?

Also.

Q: Is it better to be a Cultural Christian that belong to any organised Christian religion?

Cultural Christian Definition = Anyone that believes that the teachings of Jesus are good and wise.
Image

An immaterial nothing creating a material something is as logically sound as square circles and married bachelors.


Unjustified Fact Claim(UFC) example - belief (of any sort) based on personal subjective experience. (Belief-based belief)
Justified Fact Claim(JFC) Example, The Earth is spherical in shape. (Knowledge-based belief)
Irrefutable Fact Claim (IFC) Example Humans in general experience some level of self-awareness. (Knowledge-based knowledge)

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 15261
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 975 times
Been thanked: 1801 times
Contact:

Re: Cultural Christians.

Post #181

Post by William »

[Replying to The Tanager in post #179]
I think we both agree that the shape of the earth is objective, right?
The existence of the earth/universe is objective. How it is seen and experienced is subjective.

The human form is objective. How it is experienced is subjective.
I’m suggesting there are two generally understood and accepted senses of subjective/objective.
Both understanding and accepting are subjective attributes. That in itself does not mean they are true even if generally accepted as it may be a case of misuse of language.

Are you suggesting that there are two two generally understood and accepted senses for each, or one for each?
I have not argued for the existence of objective morality here. I have argued that atheism doesn’t rationally account for objective morality, if it existed.
Which would be another way of saying that atheism doesn't rationally account for God, if God existed. (no surprises there), unless you have other examples of objective morality which can be accounted for without God.
Image

An immaterial nothing creating a material something is as logically sound as square circles and married bachelors.


Unjustified Fact Claim(UFC) example - belief (of any sort) based on personal subjective experience. (Belief-based belief)
Justified Fact Claim(JFC) Example, The Earth is spherical in shape. (Knowledge-based belief)
Irrefutable Fact Claim (IFC) Example Humans in general experience some level of self-awareness. (Knowledge-based knowledge)

TRANSPONDER
Banned
Banned
Posts: 9237
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 1080 times
Been thanked: 3981 times

Re: Cultural Christians.

Post #182

Post by TRANSPONDER »

He is persisting with the same mistaken argument. There is (arguable) no objective morality even with a god, as it is that god's opinion, hust as mundane morality is ours.

Even worse, if it is Biblegod, human morality these days seems better than Biblegod's ever was.

And of course the dogma they can't ever shake, that unless there is some kind of Cosmic law of Morality it isn't valid. And we know the problem wit 'Only God's moraloty is valid'.

I happened on a site yesternight. '5 churches to avoid'. I though that worth a click, and the first crack out of the box, it seemed was any church with tolerance towards recent social easing of gender restrictions. They seemed to part of the ongoing religious fight against social progress, which is one reason why 'God's morality' (or Biblical) failed long ago.

At best we can have cherry - picked NT 'play nice' ethics, but that is merely taking human morality and claiming it for Jesus.

User avatar
The Tanager
Savant
Posts: 5753
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 77 times
Been thanked: 218 times

Re: Cultural Christians.

Post #183

Post by The Tanager »

William wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2024 4:09 amThe existence of the earth/universe is objective. How it is seen and experienced is subjective.

The human form is objective. How it is experienced is subjective.
Do you agree that all humans (subjectively) experience the shape of the earth as spherical? Yes, they may believe the earth is flat, but that doesn’t mean they experience the shape of the earth itself as flat.
William wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2024 4:09 amAre you suggesting that there are two two generally understood and accepted senses for each, or one for each?
Yes, I’m suggesting that there are two senses of both terms that are often used. Otherwise, you couldn’t say that the shape of the earth is an objective fact that we subjectively experience.
William wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2024 4:09 amWhich would be another way of saying that atheism doesn't rationally account for God, if God existed. (no surprises there), unless you have other examples of objective morality which can be accounted for without God.
First, of course atheism doesn’t rationally account for God; it is the assertion that God doesn’t exist. Second, arguing that atheism doesn’t account for objective morality is not an argument for God because it is possible that morality could be subjective.

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 910 times
Been thanked: 1314 times

Re: Cultural Christians.

Post #184

Post by Diogenes »

The Tanager wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2024 10:02 pm
First, of course atheism doesn’t rationally account for God; it is the assertion that God doesn’t exist. Second, arguing that atheism doesn’t account for objective morality is not an argument for God because it is possible that morality could be subjective.

Admittedly this is not central to your argument, but I find myself annoyed by the almost incessant use of the words "atheist" and "atheism." "Atheist" was (and is) an insult coined by Christians who assumed THEIR belief in "theism" was the standard, the default belief. Use of the word 'atheist' continues this falsehood about the 'truth' of theism.

I suggest "naturalist" is a better term. The naturalist simply believes in what is fairly and objectively observed. "Gods" are as irrelevant as Fairies. Naturalists (and 'atheists' if you insist) not only do not 'account for God,' they don't acknowledge 'Him' as any more pertinent than freaks and fairies, ghosts and goblins, demons and angels.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 15261
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 975 times
Been thanked: 1801 times
Contact:

Re: Cultural Christians.

Post #185

Post by William »

[Replying to The Tanager in post #183]
Do you agree that all humans (subjectively) experience the shape of the earth as spherical?
No.
Yes, they may believe the earth is flat, but that doesn’t mean they experience the shape of the earth itself as flat.
None of us experience the actual shape of the earth. The closest we might come to doing so is within the space station circling the planet, or through an OOBE.
Are you suggesting that there are two generally understood and accepted senses for each, or one for each?
Yes, I’m suggesting that there are two senses of both terms that are often used.
So there are two generally understood and accepted senses/terms/meanings for both subjective and objective? Two for each? (you don't say what these are).
Otherwise, you couldn’t say that the shape of the earth is an objective fact that we subjectively experience.
I can't say that as I do not subjectively experience the shape of the earth. I have not objectively experienced the shape of the earth.
First, of course atheism doesn’t rationally account for God; it is the assertion that God doesn’t exist.
It is the lack of belief in God(s). That is all it is.

The asserting - while from that position - is extra to simply lacking belief.
The asserting may come from a variety of positions, such as anti-Christian, anti theist, materialism, some types of naturalism...where is is usual to have a lack of belief in Gods + (whatever else spurs one one in that direction.)
Second, arguing that atheism doesn’t account for objective morality is not an argument for God because it is possible that morality could be subjective.
As has been pointed out, morality is subjective, even if there is a God and even if human morality derives from said God.
Image

An immaterial nothing creating a material something is as logically sound as square circles and married bachelors.


Unjustified Fact Claim(UFC) example - belief (of any sort) based on personal subjective experience. (Belief-based belief)
Justified Fact Claim(JFC) Example, The Earth is spherical in shape. (Knowledge-based belief)
Irrefutable Fact Claim (IFC) Example Humans in general experience some level of self-awareness. (Knowledge-based knowledge)

TRANSPONDER
Banned
Banned
Posts: 9237
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 1080 times
Been thanked: 3981 times

Re: Cultural Christians.

Post #186

Post by TRANSPONDER »

The Tanager wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2024 10:02 pm
William wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2024 4:09 amThe existence of the earth/universe is objective. How it is seen and experienced is subjective.

The human form is objective. How it is experienced is subjective.
Do you agree that all humans (subjectively) experience the shape of the earth as spherical? Yes, they may believe the earth is flat, but that doesn’t mean they experience the shape of the earth itself as flat.
William wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2024 4:09 amAre you suggesting that there are two two generally understood and accepted senses for each, or one for each?
Yes, I’m suggesting that there are two senses of both terms that are often used. Otherwise, you couldn’t say that the shape of the earth is an objective fact that we subjectively experience.
William wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2024 4:09 amWhich would be another way of saying that atheism doesn't rationally account for God, if God existed. (no surprises there), unless you have other examples of objective morality which can be accounted for without God.
First, of course atheism doesn’t rationally account for God; it is the assertion that God doesn’t exist. Second, arguing that atheism doesn’t account for objective morality is not an argument for God because it is possible that morality could be subjective.
I agree, but would say that Atheism in fact, does rationally account for God, just as Christianity accounts for all those other gods - they are human inventions.

I also agree that 'subjective' can be use to mean something just fantasised by humans, OR something that is real (a round earth) but which we don't realise or see.

I would prefer to not use the 2nd sense, though and it would imply that unknown facts were subjective, when of course they are literally not. So the term is best used for human imagination, which may or may not turn out to be right.

The subjectivity or factuality is of course, modified by verification, and we all knew tat including Theists, who use the 'poling up of circumstantial ecvidence' atgument to validate faithclaims.

That is, the theist apologists know the principle, but misuse it, as more verified circumstantial evidence does make an unproven more probable, as with relativity, Black holes and the Higgs - Boson before experiment validated them. Theist apologetics piles up a load of unverified claims and pretends they make for a verified claim.

But they never really got how logic works.

User avatar
The Tanager
Savant
Posts: 5753
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 77 times
Been thanked: 218 times

Re: Cultural Christians.

Post #187

Post by The Tanager »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2024 5:14 amHe is persisting with the same mistaken argument. There is (arguable) no objective morality even with a god, as it is that god's opinion, hust as mundane morality is ours.
If God exists and is omniscient, then it would also be his belief that the earth is spherical instead of flat. That doesn’t make physical shape a subjective feature of reality, though. If God exists and created the world, then he is responsible for the physical shape the earth has. God would be responsible for an objective fact because of how he wanted to create that thing. It would be the same with objective morality, not because of God’s opinion but because of God’s act of creation.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed Sep 04, 2024 7:52 amI agree, but would say that Atheism in fact, does rationally account for God, just as Christianity accounts for all those other gods - they are human inventions.
I understood William to mean it in a different sense since. In your sense, I completely agree that atheism accounts for God.

User avatar
The Tanager
Savant
Posts: 5753
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 77 times
Been thanked: 218 times

Re: Cultural Christians.

Post #188

Post by The Tanager »

Diogenes wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2024 10:38 pmAdmittedly this is not central to your argument, but I find myself annoyed by the almost incessant use of the words "atheist" and "atheism." "Atheist" was (and is) an insult coined by Christians who assumed THEIR belief in "theism" was the standard, the default belief. Use of the word 'atheist' continues this falsehood about the 'truth' of theism.

I suggest "naturalist" is a better term.
The early Christians were accused of being atheists themselves because they wouldn’t support the deities of the state, so I don’t think Christians coined the term. I’m sure (sadly) that many Christians have used that term as an insult since then. Christians aren’t immune to being jerks. But many terms start as insults and then are embraced by the ones insulted. ‘Christian’ was apparently an insult coined by Romans.

In the time and culture that atheism came to be used, theism was the standard stated designation (whether it was their actual belief is another issue and one I'm not claiming to know). Many atheists throughout history have had no problem with the term, as well, as it is an apt term to describe their view, just as ‘Christian’ is for mine. Using that term today says nothing about the truth of theism.

Having said all of that, since you take offense at it and 'naturalism' is (probably at least) as good a term to use (if that causes problems later, we can change it to something else), I'm fine with changing it in our discussion. I will try my best, but ask for grace if I slip back into it. I meant no disrespect and ask your forgiveness for not thinking through that it could be received in that way.

User avatar
The Tanager
Savant
Posts: 5753
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 77 times
Been thanked: 218 times

Re: Cultural Christians.

Post #189

Post by The Tanager »

William wrote: Wed Sep 04, 2024 12:03 am
Do you agree that all humans (subjectively) experience the shape of the earth as spherical?
No.
Yes, they may believe the earth is flat, but that doesn’t mean they experience the shape of the earth itself as flat.
None of us experience the actual shape of the earth. The closest we might come to doing so is within the space station circling the planet, or through an OOBE.
I can understand your confusion on what I meant. Sorry I wasn’t clearer. We do experience the actual shape of the earth, in the sense that if we travel around the globe we don’t, for example, fall off a flat edge, among many other ways. That’s the kind of thing I meant.

Would you agree that we all objectively experience the facts that come from the actual shape being what it is? Or do you think some people actually experience it as flat and, for instance, could fall off the edge?
William wrote: Wed Sep 04, 2024 12:03 amSo there are two generally understood and accepted senses/terms/meanings for both subjective and objective? Two for each? (you don't say what these are).
I did say them, but obviously not clearly. I agree with you that all of our experiences are subjective in the sense that we are the one having them with our mix of perceptions, feelings, etc. We are the subjects experiencing reality. That’s one sense. In this sense, an objective experience of reality seems a logical impossibility.

But we also experience subjective and objective truths of reality. The shape of the earth is the same to both of us. The taste of Brown Butter Bourbon Truffle ice cream may be different between us. Subjective, in this sense, means something like the definition bge offered earlier.
William wrote: Wed Sep 04, 2024 12:03 am
First, of course atheism doesn’t rationally account for God; it is the assertion that God doesn’t exist.
It is the lack of belief in God(s). That is all it is.

The asserting - while from that position - is extra to simply lacking belief.
The asserting may come from a variety of positions, such as anti-Christian, anti theist, materialism, some types of naturalism...where is is usual to have a lack of belief in Gods + (whatever else spurs one one in that direction.)
I was using the term in its traditional philosophical sense. The “lack of belief” is a relatively new use of the term. That doesn’t make it wrong; I’m just clarifying my terms so that you don’t equivocate between the two.
William wrote: Wed Sep 04, 2024 12:03 amAs has been pointed out, morality is subjective, even if there is a God and even if human morality derives from said God.
As I said to Transponder: If God exists and is omniscient, then it would also be his belief that the earth is spherical instead of flat. That doesn’t make physical shape a subjective feature of reality, though. If God exists and created the world, then he is responsible for the physical shape the earth has. God would be responsible for an objective fact because of how he wanted to create that thing. It would be the same with objective morality, not because of God’s opinion but because of God’s act of creation.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 15261
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 975 times
Been thanked: 1801 times
Contact:

Re: Cultural Christians.

Post #190

Post by William »

[Replying to The Tanager in post #189]
I can understand your confusion on what I meant. Sorry I wasn’t clearer. We do experience the actual shape of the earth, in the sense that if we travel around the globe we don’t, for example, fall off a flat edge, among many other ways. That’s the kind of thing I meant.

Would you agree that we all objectively experience the facts that come from the actual shape being what it is? Or do you think some people actually experience it as flat and, for instance, could fall off the edge?
How would I know?
More importantly, it does not matter to me what the shape of earth (or the biblical God) might be, because knowing such does not answer whether I exist within a created thing or not.

The experience of the thing is subjective and the thing is undeniable for that.
I agree with you that all of our experiences are subjective in the sense that we are the one having them with our mix of perceptions, feelings, etc. We are the subjects experiencing reality. That’s one sense. In this sense, an objective experience of reality seems a logical impossibility.
Indeed.
But we also experience subjective and objective truths of reality. The shape of the earth is the same to both of us. The taste of Brown Butter Bourbon Truffle ice cream may be different between us.
I cannot agree that the shape of the earth is an objective truth of reality which is the same for both of us. How can we know and even if we can know, how is that not subjective knowledge about what we perceive (as individuals) of an objective experience?
Subjective, in this sense, means something like the definition bge offered earlier.
What was bge's definition offered earlier?
I was using the term in its traditional philosophical sense.
What sense is that then?
If God exists and is omniscient, then it would also be his belief that the earth is spherical instead of flat.
Why would it be God's belief? Wouldn't it be God's knowledge? Why confuse things by injecting the conflation of words which have their particular separate meanings?
That doesn’t make physical shape a subjective feature of reality, though. If God exists and created the world, then he is responsible for the physical shape the earth has. God would be responsible for an objective fact because of how he wanted to create that thing. It would be the same with objective morality, not because of God’s opinion but because of God’s act of creation.
We exist in an experience which allows for us to do whatever we want in relation to that which is being experience (subjectively) so the act of creation re the thing created and being experienced allowing for that, appears to contradict your assertion that morality is within the"act" of creating the "thing".
Rather, it appears that what we do with our experience in the thing, is governed by collective humanity who learn through experience the best way to do things (or not) and what helps us to decide will have something to do with the created thing.
Is that what you a trying to portray re "because of God’s act of creation" that within the creation being experience, consequence is learned?

Even so, all of this only requires subjectivity re the object (thing) created whether in its parts (how we experience the planet) or as a whole (how God might experience a planet.)

Morality also doesn't appear to be able to assist in my knowing whether we exist within a created thing, or not.
Image

An immaterial nothing creating a material something is as logically sound as square circles and married bachelors.


Unjustified Fact Claim(UFC) example - belief (of any sort) based on personal subjective experience. (Belief-based belief)
Justified Fact Claim(JFC) Example, The Earth is spherical in shape. (Knowledge-based belief)
Irrefutable Fact Claim (IFC) Example Humans in general experience some level of self-awareness. (Knowledge-based knowledge)

Post Reply