Cultural Christians.

[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.

[The Tanager]

What is the argument for the claim that morality would necessarily be subjective under naturalism?

The phrasing could probably be better because I don’t think it is necessarily ruled out, but every version of naturalism I’ve seen ends up leading to subjective morality, taken at face value (unless one simply appeals to blind faith for objective morality).

[The Tanager]

You still haven't explained what "objective morality" is let alone that anything would "lead" to it.

Until you do, I see no reason to accept whatever it is you are arguing and so, continue to accept that all morality is subjectively sourced.

I've tried to explain it a number of different ways. I've tried to correct your misunderstandings. You didn't respond to my latest attempt. If you still don't get it, I'm not sure I have another way to try to explain it.

[bluegreenearth]

The phrasing could probably be better because I don’t think it is necessarily ruled out, but every version of naturalism I’ve seen ends up leading to subjective morality, taken at face value (unless one simply appeals to blind faith for objective morality).

Accordingly, you must revise your original analysis of the two main views as follows:

(1) if theism is true, then morality could be objective

(2) if naturalism is true, then morality could be objective

[William]

DP

[William]

Me. What is the sentence attempting to show?

"Objective morality = the goodness/badness of an act does not depend on the person (e.g., anyone in the same situation can steal if their family is starving)"

LLSGPT. The sentence is attempting to demonstrate that objective morality involves assessing the goodness or badness of an action independently of individual perspectives or circumstances. It suggests that, under objective morality, the morality of an action (such as stealing) would remain consistent regardless of who performs the act or why.

However, the example given ("anyone in the same situation can steal if their family is starving") seems to contradict the intended point. Instead of illustrating objective morality, it reflects a situation-dependent (or relativistic) view of morality, where the act of stealing is judged differently based on the specific context (e.g., necessity due to starvation).

To clarify, a better example of objective morality would be something like: "Stealing is always wrong, regardless of circumstances or motives." This emphasizes that the moral value of the act does not change based on personal situations.

[Replying to The Tanager in post #237]

There is no thing in nature which say's one shouldn't steal. It is an invention of humans and is sourced in subjectivity. Judging and punishing does not mean that morality is objective/sourced objectively.

Morality, including concepts like "one shouldn't steal," is a human invention and is rooted in subjective values and cultural norms. Nature itself doesn't impose moral rules; it simply is. What humans often do is create moral systems to regulate behavior for the well-being and functioning of society.

Even though societies may judge and punish actions like theft, it doesn't mean those moral standards are objectively sourced. The enforcement of rules is a social construct, reflecting collective agreements or power dynamics rather than any inherent moral truths existing independently of human perception.

This highlights the distinction between the existence of moral norms and their origins. Just because a society widely agrees on a moral principle and enforces it, this doesn't make the principle objectively true - it's still based on subjective human perspectives, experiences, and needs.

[William]

DP

[The Tanager]

Accordingly, you must revise your original analysis of the two main views as follows:

(1) if theism is true, then morality could be objective

(2) if naturalism is true, then morality could be objective

No, the phrasing on (2) needs to be better than that to catch the point I’ve been making. Yes, it’s not logically impossible, but there have been no successful attempts to show how morality could be objective if naturalism is true. If you have one, I’m open to analyzing it.

[The Tanager]

LLSGPT. The sentence is attempting to demonstrate that objective morality involves assessing the goodness or badness of an action independently of individual perspectives or circumstances. It suggests that, under objective morality, the morality of an action (such as stealing) would remain consistent regardless of who performs the act or why.

However, the example given ("anyone in the same situation can steal if their family is starving") seems to contradict the intended point. Instead of illustrating objective morality, it reflects a situation-dependent (or relativistic) view of morality, where the act of stealing is judged differently based on the specific context (e.g., necessity due to starvation).

To clarify, a better example of objective morality would be something like: "Stealing is always wrong, regardless of circumstances or motives." This emphasizes that the moral value of the act does not change based on personal situations.

No, LLSGPT doesn’t take into account the distinction I made between absolute and objective morality. Remaining consistent regardless of the who question is what objective morality gets at. Remaining consistent regardless of the why question is what absolute morality gets at. It confusingly conflates the two questions into one.

There is no thing in nature which say's one shouldn't steal.

I agree there is nothing in nature which says that. This is what I mean when I say nature alone doesn’t give us purpose.

It is an invention of humans and is sourced in subjectivity.

This is just a claim. Support it with actual reasoning.

Judging and punishing does not mean that morality is objective/sourced objectively.

I didn’t say it did.

[TRANSPONDER]

Accordingly, you must revise your original analysis of the two main views as follows:

(1) if theism is true, then morality could be objective

(2) if naturalism is true, then morality could be objective

No, the phrasing on (2) needs to be better than that to catch the point I’ve been making. Yes, it’s not logically impossible, but there have been no successful attempts to show how morality could be objective if naturalism is true. If you have one, I’m open to analyzing it.

You are still doing it wrong, as all the god - apologists seem to do. If naturalism 'is true' (is the right explanation) then morality does not have to be objective to be true (the right explanation). It is the faithbased assumption that morality is given by a god (name your own) that underlies the idea that it is 'objective', which it still is not if given by a god, as it is still just that god's opinion.

And if the god is supposed to be Biblegod, it seems (at least to some Christian apologists) thast the morality it gave us is not the same one that it uses itself.

The Morality apologetic fails on so many levels.
[Replying to The Tanager in post #248]


Still doing it wrong. Still basing the argument on the idea that morality has to be objective to be valid. It has no more to be objective (by which you mean a set of rules dictated by a god that does not use them itself) than art, literature, music or rules of games, and yet we regard those as perfectly valid.

The entire basis of the morality argument is based on a false assumption - that morality is god - given, and another, that it is Biblegod, and yet another, that it is invalid unless it is. What is worse, is that, like all of these 'Origins' arguments, it does not show which god it was gave us moral sense.

The morality argument has been dead and washed up on a beach and dried to a blackened husk since the '80's, and the Bible - apologists still keep pushing it.

And yet the god - botherers still expect us to treat Christians with Respect and take their arguments seriously, when the arguments are frankly dumb, and the persistent repetition of dead and buried arguments , frankly, dishonest.

I say again, I am thankful every day not to be a Christian.

cue:

[The Tanager]

You are still doing it wrong, as all the god - apologists seem to do. If naturalism 'is true' (is the right explanation) then morality does not have to be objective to be true (the right explanation).

I never said that morality has to be objective to be true. You keep claiming I’m saying things I never have.

Still doing it wrong. Still basing the argument on the idea that morality has to be objective to be valid. It has no more to be objective (by which you mean a set of rules dictated by a god that does not use them itself)

I have never defined or meant ‘objective’ in that way. You keep claiming I’m saying things I never have.

than art, literature, music or rules of games, and yet we regard those as perfectly valid.

Here you are equivocating (unintentionally) on ‘valid’. Yes, subjective morality is valid (1) in the sense that people have their preferences that one kind is better than another. But it is not valid (2) in the sense that one person’s preference is better than another person’s preference.

Are you saying you think art, literature, music, games, and morality (if it is also subjective), is valid in sense 2? That, say, my preference for indie folk is worse than Jimmy’s preference for classical?