Cultural Christians.

[William]

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

"While Im not a particularly religious person, I do believe that the teachings of Jesus are good and wise I would say Im probably a cultural Christian," the Tesla CEO said during a conversation on X with Jordan Peterson today. "Theres 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 Im actually a big believer in the principles of Christianity. I think theyre 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.

[TRANSPONDER]

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 Im 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 Im 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 persons preference is better than another persons 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 Jimmys preference for classical?

I still think you are playing with words. "I did not say that" But I'm taking the sense of what you meant (as I see it - and you can say what you meant if you intended something else) and looking into the implications. If you accept morality as valid if not objectively real (like a law of physics) then there is nothing to discuss, personal choice within the valid working of art, literature or morality being irrelevant.

I think, in fact I'm sure, that you are confused about the subjectivity of human constructs, like music, art, sport or morality. It becomes valid because the rules we make enable it to work. What preferences we then have are our own choice, but if we 'choose' to disregard the rules, we risk invalidating the thing or discrediting ourselves (1). Though here, the rules are not limited. Music, art and indeed morality progresses, though the more communication we have, the more agreement there is.

Rules can be examined. Cubism broke the rules of art, and serialism broke the rules of music. The appearance of what is now called 'Woke' broke the rules of morality in the 70's and a good thing, too. But it does not invalidate the constructs and leave us with nothing. No more than Quantum invalidates Newton's laws, which theists sometimes try to imply.

Bottom line I suppose (and I know you did not say this) is that subjectivity and evolution of human social constructs is no excuse to dismiss them and appeal to some supposed god - given immutable law. I doubt that you would suggest it does. So the morality discussion is, as i may have said, long since made pointless.

(1) i am well aware I am breaking the rules (of authority consensus) on the gospels. Mark is not the original; they were written by Greek Christians, nothing of what Jesus supposedly said is what he did say, and...going out on a limb....many of what Jesus did, he really did. But I'm taking the risk that within the rules of analysis, deduction and textual critiism, I'm right, on evidence, and I will be validated or disproved, if, that is, anyone reads or remembers what I argued.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #248]

LLSGPT doesnt 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.

I am using LLSGPT as a means to try and make sense of your argument in order to understand what your argument actually is. That way you can evaluate the replies and adjust accordingly and perhaps in this way, progress may happen between us.

Me. I have this reply from the person arguing for objective morality...

"LLSGPT doesnt 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."

Apparently I did not give the options he gave so GPTs reply is being critiqued...I do so now, with the following.

"Absolute morality = the goodness/badness of an act does not depend on the situation (e.g., all stealing is bad or its opposite)

Relative morality = the goodness/badness of an act depends on the situation (e.g., its okay to steal if your family is starving to death)

Subjective morality = the goodness/badness of an act depends on the person (e.g., its okay for you to steal if your family is starving to death, but its not okay for me in that exact same situation)

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)

Youll probably notice that an objectivist can be either an absolutist or a relativist."

Would this alter in any significant way, the answer GPT originally gave to me?

LLSGPT. Given the distinctions you've now provided, the original response could be slightly refined to acknowledge the differentiation between absolute and objective morality as defined by the other person. Here's a modified version of the response that takes these distinctions into account:

The original sentence provided is attempting to illustrate that objective morality concerns itself with the actions moral value independent of the individual performing it, while absolute morality would evaluate the action independent of any circumstances.

Objective Morality (as defined): The goodness or badness of an act does not depend on who performs it. For example, if anyones family is starving, stealing food might be considered morally permissible under this framework, as long as the situation remains consistent.

Absolute Morality: The goodness or badness of an act is constant and does not change regardless of the circumstances. For instance, stealing would always be wrong, even if it were done to feed a starving family.

In the original response, there was a focus on how the example given seemed to suggest relativistic rather than objective morality because it tied the actions morality to a specific situation (family starving). However, the clarification provided by the other person helps distinguish that under objective morality, as long as the circumstances are the same, the moral judgment remains consistent across different individuals. This contrasts with subjective morality, where the judgment can change based on the individuals perspective, even within the same situation.

Therefore, while the essence of the original critique remains valid in highlighting the situational aspect, the refined explanation here acknowledges the difference between objective and absolute morality, as defined by the other person. It would not significantly change the original response but would add clarity based on the newly defined terms.

Me. For my part, I am attempting to understand the others argument re "Objective Morality", and turn to LLSGPT in an effort to find clarity.
With this new information, please provide an updated response to the original one.

LSSGPT. Clarifying the Critique:
The original response critiqued the sentence for suggesting that the morality of an act was situation-dependent, which seemed to contradict the concept of objective morality. However, based on the new definitions:

Objective Morality (as defined here) does allow for situation-based moral judgments, as long as the judgment is consistent across all individuals in the same situation. This means that the critique should have focused on the difference between subjective and objective rather than between objective and absolute morality.
Updated Understanding:
The revised understanding is that objective morality, in this context, refers to moral judgments that are consistent across different individuals but may vary with the situation. This is different from absolute morality, which remains consistent across all situations and individuals.

Therefore, the original sentence does reflect objective morality as defined by the person, where "anyone in the same situation" would have the same moral evaluation applied to their actions, even if that evaluation changes with the context.

The argument that God provides a foundation for objective morality is compelling for those who believe in a divine being who is external to and independent of human perception and experience.

You are still conflating two distinct questions here. (1) If theism is true, would (or could) it lead to morality being objective and (2) should we believe in objective morality. Ive only been making arguments for (1), not (2). The discussion in (1) can be understood and accepted by both theists and naturalists without the naturalist becoming a theist. Thats because they are distinct questions.

So if I am understanding correctly, "Objective Morality" as defined, is something that can be recognised as a distinct form of morality (re the list given) and theism "could lead to" the conclusion that objective morality actually exists?
Whereas I think that theism more likely would create this "Objective Morality" rather than being "lead" to it (as if it actually exists without human participation).
Humans creating something and then declaring that it always existed seems to me to be questionable.

Given that I am not adverse to the idea of discovery but argue that this can be achieved (and appears to be achieved) through the subjective device, to claim something as objective which is obviously sourced in a subjective manner, the argument for Objective Morality still depends upon there being an actual objective GOD.

Im not opposed to the idea that moral principles can be discovered, but I see this discovery process as inherently subjectiverooted in human perception, reasoning, and cultural context. Claiming that morality is objective when it clearly arises from these subjective processes seems inconsistent. For morality to be truly objective, there would need to be an independent source, such as an actual objective GOD. Otherwise, what is being labeled as "objective morality" is still ultimately grounded in subjective human experience, no matter how universal or consistent it appears.

The argument for objective morality is ultimately contingent on the existence of an objective GOD.

[The Tanager]

I still think you are playing with words. "I did not say that" But I'm taking the sense of what you meant (as I see it - and you can say what you meant if you intended something else) and looking into the implications.

Dont read into what others are saying and then hold them accountable to that, instead of what they actually meant. I have shared what Ive meant numerous times.

I think, in fact I'm sure, that you are confused about the subjectivity of human constructs, like music, art, sport or morality. It becomes valid because the rules we make enable it to work. What preferences we then have are our own choice, but if we 'choose' to disregard the rules, we risk invalidating the thing or discrediting ourselves (1). Though here, the rules are not limited. Music, art and indeed morality progresses, though the more communication we have, the more agreement there is.

Rules can be examined. Cubism broke the rules of art, and serialism broke the rules of music. The appearance of what is now called 'Woke' broke the rules of morality in the 70's and a good thing, too. But it does not invalidate the constructs and leave us with nothing. No more than Quantum invalidates Newton's laws, which theists sometimes try to imply.

You are talking here about what people do with subjective realities, not what subjectivism is. Weve been talking about what subjectivism means, so dont confuse that by talking about what people do with subjective realities.

Subjectivism is the view that progress and regress are statements about the preferences of the person, not the act itself. Regarding the act itself, subjectivism says it is neither good nor bad. Under subjectivism, abusing a child is not good or bad. Thats the second sense of validity I was just talking about.

[The Tanager]

So if I am understanding correctly, "Objective Morality" as defined, is something that can be recognised as a distinct form of morality (re the list given) and theism "could lead to" the conclusion that objective morality actually exists?

Yes.

Whereas I think that theism more likely would create this "Objective Morality" rather than being "lead" to it (as if it actually exists without human participation).

You are confusing ontology (the order of creation) and epistemology (the order of knowing) again. God (not theism, but theos) creates objective morality. Thats the ontology.

The truth of theism (that God does exist, not God itself) could lead to the truth of morality being objective. Thats an epistemological move from knowing God exists to the conclusion that human morality could be an objective feature of reality.

Humans creating something and then declaring that it always existed seems to me to be questionable.

Thats absolutely questionable. You havent established that humans created morality, though.

Given that I am not adverse to the idea of discovery but argue that this can be achieved (and appears to be achieved) through the subjective device, to claim something as objective which is obviously sourced in a subjective manner, the argument for Objective Morality still depends upon there being an actual objective GOD.

Im not opposed to the idea that moral principles can be discovered, but I see this discovery process as inherently subjectiverooted in human perception, reasoning, and cultural context. Claiming that morality is objective when it clearly arises from these subjective processes seems inconsistent.

Again, take notice of the difference between ontology and epistemology. Yes, morality being objective can be reached if there is an actual objective God. Im aware of no other way that can be reached, but I dont think one can rule it out as being logically impossible. Ive consistently asked naturalists to show a way and they are never able to (except to resort to blind faith). This is ontology. This is about how things come to be. This is not being sourced in a subjective manner.

Humans learn about morality and reason to morality in subjective ways. This seems to be what you are talking about. But that doesnt negate what was just said. You seem to think these compete against each other, but they are two distinct issues that I think are both true.

For morality to be truly objective, there would need to be an independent source, such as an actual objective GOD. Otherwise, what is being labeled as "objective morality" is still ultimately grounded in subjective human experience, no matter how universal or consistent it appears.

Yes, this is what Ive been claiming all along.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #254]

You havent established that humans created morality, though.

Apparently, you haven't established that humans didn't create morality, so we are equally positioned, yes?

For morality to be truly objective, there would need to be an independent source, such as an actual objective GOD. Otherwise, what is being labeled as "objective morality" is still ultimately grounded in subjective human experience, no matter how universal or consistent it appears.

Yes, this is what Ive been claiming all along.

What is required now, is for you to support your claim.

God (not theism, but theos) creates objective morality. Thats the ontology.

That's the claim. What is your evidence?
For example, what process does GOD use in order to create the supposed "objective morality"?

Humans learn about morality and reason to morality in subjective ways. This seems to be what you are talking about. But that doesnt negate what was just said. You seem to think these compete against each other, but they are two distinct issues that I think are both true.

I do not think these "compete" since I am still unsure of what is meant by "objective morality". Perhaps they are in conflict or perhaps not. Evidence supporting GOD as an objective thing is required, then we can debate the pros and cons re that to see if indeed our positions actually are in conflict (compete) with one another.

[The Tanager]

Apparently, you haven't established that humans didn't create morality, so we are equally positioned, yes?

No, because my argument hasn't been about whether humans actually created humanity or not, while you are using a positive claim there to respond to something I've said.

What is required now, is for you to support your claim.

Which I've already done. Remember what my claim is: if theism is true, then morality could be objective. Not: theism is true, or morality is objective.

I have argued that the presence of 2 things would lead to objective morality: creation of an objective nature and creation of objective purpose. Some forms of theism can give us both of those things. You have two ways to rationally reject that. (1) argue that no theism can give both things or (2) argue that those two things alone wouldn't give us objective morality. Or, if you don't understand something, then (3) ask for clarification about why those two things would give us objective morality or something else you don't understand.

Which path are you taking: 1, 2, or 3?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #256]

Apparently, you haven't established that humans didn't create morality, so we are equally positioned, yes?

No, because my argument hasn't been about whether humans actually created humanity or not, while you are using a positive claim there to respond to something I've said.

I assume you meant "humans actually created morality"?

If so, then there is no requirement for me to prove this is the case, because observation of historical humanity shows us that this appears to be the actual case.
Do you disagree with that assessment, and if so, why?

Remember what my claim is: if theism is true, then morality could be objective. Not: theism is true, or morality is objective.

If that is all you are saying, then that would be more of a logical statement rather than a claim, providing;

If Theism = belief we exist within a created thing which then = belief in GOD, (a creator) of that thing, then morality could be objective IF said creator is an objective entity passing on morality in an objective manner.

[The Tanager]

I assume you meant "humans actually created morality"?

If so, then there is no requirement for me to prove this is the case, because observation of historical humanity shows us that this appears to be the actual case.
Do you disagree with that assessment, and if so, why?

I do disagree. What observations are you talking about? Which ones show that humans created morality? Not their own moral opinions, but morality itself.

If that is all you are saying, then that would be more of a logical statement rather than a claim, providing;

If Theism = belief we exist within a created thing which then = belief in GOD, (a creator) of that thing, then morality could be objective IF said creator is an objective entity passing on morality in an objective manner.

Yes, but I'm also explaining the objective manner said creator uses to pass on morality. As I've said, that manner is it's act of creating humans with (1) an objective nature that includes (2) an objective purpose.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #258]

observation of historical humanity shows us that this appears to be the actual case.
Do you disagree with that assessment, and if so, why?

What observations are you talking about? Which ones show that humans created morality? Not their own moral opinions, but morality itself.

I dont see a clear distinction between morality and moral opinions because moral opinions are expressions of our sense of morality. Human history demonstrates that morality, as we understand and practice it, has always been shaped by human thought and culture. No other species on this planet engages with morality to the same extent that humans do. If you believe theres a distinction between human-created moral opinions and a separate, independent morality, Id be interested in your explanation. How do you see objective morality existing independently of human influence, and what observations support that view?

If Theism = belief we exist within a created thing which then = belief in GOD, (a creator) of that thing, then morality could be objective IF said creator is an objective entity passing on morality in an objective manner.

Yes, but I'm also explaining the objective manner said creator uses to pass on morality. As I've said, that manner is it's act of creating humans with (1) an objective nature that includes (2) an objective purpose.

Im curious about what you mean by "an objective nature" for humans. Can you provide an example of what this would look like? Similarly, what do you consider to be an "objective purpose" for humans, and why would a creator be necessary to define that purpose? If this creator is truly objective and imparts morality in an objective manner, why does it remain unseen or unverified as an objective entity in the world? Understanding your perspective on these points would help clarify the connection between the creators existence and objective morality.

[The Tanager]

I dont see a clear distinction between morality and moral opinions because moral opinions are expressions of our sense of morality. Human history demonstrates that morality, as we understand and practice it, has always been shaped by human thought and culture. No other species on this planet engages with morality to the same extent that humans do. If you believe theres a distinction between human-created moral opinions and a separate, independent morality, Id be interested in your explanation. How do you see objective morality existing independently of human influence, and what observations support that view?

Now transfer this line of reasoning to the human scientific endeavor. Human history demonstrates that the scientific endeavor, as we understand and practice it, has always been shaped by human thought and culture. No other species engages with the scientific endeavor to the same extent that we do. Does this mean the scientific endeavor and the facts about physical reality that it gives us is actually subjective? No, right?

If you agree, then your observation of historical humanity also doesnt show us that morality appears to be subjective and you still have the burden to back up your positive claim that "humans actually created morality", if you want don't want to drop that critique.

Im curious about what you mean by "an objective nature" for humans. Can you provide an example of what this would look like?

That we are made of physical stuff that can be damaged in certain ways and benefitted in other ways.

Similarly, what do you consider to be an "objective purpose" for humans,

A possible objective purpose would be that humans are supposed to care for each other, benefitting them rather than damaging them for ones own gain and stuff like that. There could be other ones, so don't get caught up on the question of what is our objective purpose(s) and why think that is true. The point is that humans are given specific goals they are meant to accomplish.

and why would a creator be necessary to define that purpose?

It seems to me that all sides agree that agents have purpose, but non-agents do not. In naturalism, nature is not an agent; it doesn't have purposes.

If this creator is truly objective and imparts morality in an objective manner, why does it remain unseen or unverified as an objective entity in the world?

How are those two things related?