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]

and the ontological argument for morality is associated with Michael Huemer and from what I say requires a law of morality apart from what humans think about it.

And so it is Not an argument for a god, as you posted, it has to be like a law of physics, natural existing whether there is a cosmic mind doing it (it would be that god's opinion anyway) or not.

Let’s clear some things up.

(1) there is “ontology” which is a branch of metaphysics (within philosophy) that deals with the nature of being or existence. There are tons of issues under this branch.

(2) “Ontological arguments” are arguments (within ontology, but one small part of the broad discipline of ontology) that argue from the possibility that X exists to X actually existing. That is why they are called “ontological” arguments rather than teleological, moral, scientific, etc. There are various ontological arguments. There is an ontological argument for God, with the first well-known one being Anselm’s. There is an ontological argument for morality by Huemer. Huemer thinks he has proven moral realism (what we’ve been calling moral objectivism). I don’t think his argument is good, but that’s beside the point. I said nothing one way or the other about his ontological argument and I wasn’t making an ontological argument for morality myself.

So why did I say that I was talking about ontology and not epistemology? Because I was doing (1), not (2). I was talking about what the hypothetical existence of morality would be. I wasn’t talking about how we come to know (i.e., epistemology) about morality, moral truths, etc. William has been talking about how we come to know morality, so I needed to distinguish what he was after from what I was claiming.

If it is dependent on what God says, then it is just the God's opinion and has questionable validity.

The moral framework I’ve been arguing for doesn’t depend on what God says, but what God does in creating humans and the rest of the world. That is a key difference.

And from what I say the arguments seem to have the usual problem with Philosophy - itr happens in a bubble where it ignores science and tried to reach conclusions using philosophical rules. Like whether there are moral absolutes .

They do not ignore science. They use science when science has anything of use to say and apply philosophy. Every worldview does this. You constantly do this just as well.

I had a look and it was Ga od, God all the way and the only ne to get onto the naturalist argument was #330 "1) Opinion alone wouldn’t make morality objective
2) Consensus does not make morality objective
3) Consequentialism has nothing to do with whether morality is objective or subjective, but is a later question
4) God, depending on the specific characteristics and choices, could lead to objective or subjective morality

And you drag God into it again.

To claim you were just arguing a philosophical argument that wasn't to do with God was pretty crafty.

I didn’t say my claims didn’t have anything to do with God. I said I haven’t made a moral argument for the existence of God. I’ve been discussing what morality would be if certain worldviews (theism and naturalism) were true. Those are clearly two different things.

But just you above quote suggests you are suffering from an idea that morality has to be objective to be valid. This is just not a sound argument and it is theism (requiring a god to dictate morals, which doesn't make it objective anyway) skewing t your premises and making your whole argument invalid, which i recall was what I had been saying all along.

You had better have some good explanation or it you are on the edge of looking very bad indeed.

Define ‘valid’. I’ve talked here (or in the other thread just like this one) about two senses of ‘valid’. I think subjective morality is valid in one sense but not the other.

[The Tanager]

Given that you’ve repeatedly claimed that objective morality exists in this ontological sense, I’m curious about a couple of things:

Concrete examples: Since you’re focused on ontology, does this mean that providing concrete examples of objective morality isn’t necessary to prove that it exists? If so, how do we know what these moral truths are, and how do we distinguish them from subjective interpretations of morality?

Are you asking for proof that a concrete example (like the one I’ve said over and over again: don’t abuse a child) is objectively true? Or something else?

The Ten Commandments: You’ve mentioned the Ten Commandments as an example of objective morality. How do these commandments fit into your ontological view? Are you saying that the commandments themselves are objectively true in the sense that they reflect fixed moral truths, or is their objective nature tied to the fact that they are divinely given?

I’m saying they reflect fixed moral truths (that were determined by God creating reality with specific natures and humans with moral agency and the purpose of doing good to the world).

Would you say that your view is more aligned with Cultural Christianity, where the moral framework and traditions of Christianity shape your beliefs and worldview, or do you see yourself as more of a follower of Jesus, focused on his teachings and relationship with him? I’m curious about how you personally approach your faith and how that might influence your view on morality.

I see myself as a follower of Jesus, focused on his teachings and relationship with him.

If someone like Musk views the teachings of Jesus as valuable for guiding morality (but without embracing them as divinely ordained truths), would that be considered subjective or objective morality? Is this similar to your framework, where there is an objective moral standard, or would this be more aligned with the subjective process of adopting cultural values without divine grounding?

I think it would be subjective.

In the thread’s opening post, there’s a question about whether it’s better for the world to be Cultural Christian rather than anti-theist. Given our discussion of morality and the Subjective GOD, do you think there’s value in embracing the moral teachings of Christianity (even without theological commitment) compared to rejecting religion altogether?

Yes, I think there’s value in embracing the moral teachings rather than rejecting religion altogether. But I think I one can only coherently say that if they believe in objective morality, which I think would logically point to the theological commitment.

Another question in the post asks whether it’s better to be a Cultural Christian than to belong to an organized Christian religion. Since you’ve been discussing objective morality in relation to divine authority, do you think Cultural Christians—who may appreciate Christian teachings without adhering to formal doctrines—are still participating in objective morality, or is their morality shaped more by subjective interpretation?

I think both are true because the first speaks of the ontology question, while the second speaks of the epistemology question. Since I believe objective morality exists, they would be participating in it (without knowing so). But I also think their moral opinions are being shaped by their subjective interpretations.

[POI]

My current position is that morals are likely not objective, regardless of naturalism or theism. You may disagree? If we disagree, I'd really like to know how a moral is objective under theism?

As I've been saying, under theism, one way morality would be objective is if God created reality with specific natures to where X is damaging (that is very simplified, of course) and moral agents with the objective purpose of seeking the good of others. In short form, objective natures with objective purpose logically equals objective morality. This doesn't apply to all theisms.

I don't see how this position does not also work under naturalism then?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #342]

Tanager, we have already been over this. The difference between why I think that child abuse is wrong does not allow you to categorise me the same as you categorise yourself.
Another part of your argument requires questioning. If child abuse is objective morality that it "is wrong in an absolute sense, independent of human interpretation" without humanity, child abuse would not be a thing.

The understanding seems to be that you are saying that the objective universe was built in such a way that - on the event of human forms evolving and subsequently utilised by sentience - the human personality would naturally discover that child abuse was morally wrong "because the cold mindless universe" makes that so and since that universe is created, that means the Creator must be an objective reality and as such - all things from The Creator - are evidence of Object. Thus, all things are objective - including morality.

In that sense, I understand that only the epistemology can be regarded as real. The contrasting objective reality is a construct, and the constructor is only epistemology real, rather than objectively real as something that can be visibly identified as an object.

Humans are largely unaware of this factor to their being and gravitate towards objectifying The Creator/Constructor even to the point of religious iconizing.

Humans are unaware that the are actually The Creator and are experiencing an objective simulation and what they perceive as child abuse comes from within their very nature – not objective nature (from the universe mirage) but subjective nature (from the conscious sentience (the Real).)

The wrongness of child abuse is not a fixed, universal moral truth waiting to be discovered in the fabric of the universe. Rather its discovery is within the fabric of consciousness.

In reality, humans are The Creator—even in the sense of possessing divine omnipotence, and ability to express that within the limitations of our chosen experience as a collective entity.

For me the embracing of Ontology as real and necessary is to construct a way in which to avoid embracing the deeper reality the exist in each of us.

We exist within a seemingly objective simulation—a world that appears to be independent and fixed. However, this simulation is not "real" in the way we usually understand reality. It is a construct of consciousness, (The Creators) a projection that arises from The Creators subjective experience.
The Real, in this sense, is not the external universe we perceive, but the conscious sentience that generates it, which – for us having a human experience within its seemingly unchanging structure…(which is nevertheless constantly changing) ...are co-creating as we are unconditionally as aspect of/”children” of The Creator Mind.

My view diverges fundamentally from yours. I reject the notion that moral truths, such as the wrongness of child abuse, exist as fixed, universal facts in the fabric of the universe. Instead, these truths arise from within consciousness. What you refer to as "objective reality" is, in my view, a construct—a simulation generated by consciousness.

Humans are not merely passive observers in this reality; we are co-creators who possess divine potential within the limitations of our chosen human experience. While ontology asks us to wait for external forces to act, epistemology empowers us to recognize our true nature and the responsibility we have in shaping the reality we experience.

This doesn’t mean that we as collective humanity can change the greater universe to our liking/bidding simply by wishing. We are deep within the simulation and have purposefully limited ourselves through the human experience. Even so, we have great power and influence over our collective immediate local circumstance which has the potential to literally build Heaven on Earth.

Ontology would have me wait for some external GOD to come and do the building for us.
Epistemology gives us potential access to our true selves and requires acknowledgment of one’s subjective circumstance – even as far “back” as the “Almighty GOD”.

This can be tied in with the thread subject, Cultural Christianity. While Cultural Christianity emphasizes an external Creator and an objective moral order, I understand that this framework obscures the deeper truth: we are co-creators of reality, and moral truths arise from within human consciousness. The wrongness of child abuse is not a fixed, universal truth embedded in the universe but an inner moral discovery made through our subjective experience.

The embrace of ontology in Cultural Christianity fosters passivity, encouraging people to wait for external intervention. In contrast, epistemology allows us to recognize our true nature as creators, giving us the power to influence our world and shape our collective future. This view challenges the traditional objectivist thinking in Cultural Christianity and opens up the possibility of a more empowered and creative human experience.

And finally this can be tied in with Elon Musk as a Cultural Christian. Elon Musk’s identification as a Cultural Christian demonstrates how the ontological framework of Christianity provides a pragmatic structure for moral and ethical decision-making. Musk uses these values to achieve extraordinary things, yet his focus on far-reaching external progress—such as colonizing Mars—reflects the limitations of an ontological approach.

While Cultural Christianity offers a useful moral guide, it fails to address the deeper epistemological potential of human consciousness. Musk’s achievements, while impressive, remain rooted in the external world "out their".
To build Heaven on Earth, we must look inward and engage with the creative power that lies within us, moving beyond the limits of ontology and into the realm of epistemology, where we recognize our true role as co-creators of reality.

[The Tanager]

Tanager, we have already been over this. The difference between why I think that child abuse is wrong does not allow you to categorise me the same as you categorise yourself.

I’m categorizing you based on everything you’ve been saying.

Another part of your argument requires questioning. If child abuse is objective morality that it "is wrong in an absolute sense, independent of human interpretation" without humanity, child abuse would not be a thing.

Yes, and without physical objects, shape would not be a thing, either. I’m not understanding the problem.

The understanding seems to be that you are saying that the objective universe was built in such a way that - on the event of human forms evolving and subsequently utilised by sentience - the human personality would naturally discover that child abuse was morally wrong "because the cold mindless universe" makes that so and since that universe is created, that means the Creator must be an objective reality and as such - all things from The Creator - are evidence of Object. Thus, all things are objective - including morality.

No, I don’t think we just naturally discover it. I think there are natural elements (the starting point of the conscience, for instance), but I also think reasoning has to come into play.

I also don’t think everything that comes from the Creator is evidence of those things being objective features of reality. I’ve said that some theisms, that have creations, would lead to subjective morality. I believe taste is subjective.

In that sense, I understand that only the epistemology can be regarded as real. The contrasting objective reality is a construct, and the constructor is only epistemology real, rather than objectively real as something that can be visibly identified as an object.

Objective reality cannot be a construct. What we believe about objective reality certainly can be constructed (that’s epistemologically constructing a false reality).

For me the embracing of Ontology as real and necessary is to construct a way in which to avoid embracing the deeper reality the exist in each of us.

Ontology, by definition, must be about what is real. This statement shows great confusion on your part, as though I’m saying the ontology is real and the epistemology is not real and you are saying the reverse. I think both are real; it’s not one or the other. I don’t know how else to try to explain what I see as your confusion, so perhaps it’s time to move on.

While ontology asks us to wait for external forces to act, epistemology empowers us to recognize our true nature and the responsibility we have in shaping the reality we experience.

Ontology doesn’t ask us to do anything, much less wait for external forces to act. I’m not advocating for us to wait for external forces to act. You have taken a very specific idea (the objectivity of morality), misunderstood it, and applied it to issues that it isn't addressing.

[The Tanager]

I don't see how this position does not also work under naturalism then?

If the formula is N (objective nature) + P (objective purpose) = M (objective morality) and naturalism doesn’t provide P, then this formula can’t work under naturalism. Naturalism asserts that there is no objective purpose in nature.

[POI]

Naturalism asserts that there is no objective purpose in nature.

I say an applied purpose is subjective, whether it be from naturalism or theism.

[The Tanager]

I say an applied purpose is subjective, whether it be from naturalism or theism.

Okay, but do you have good reasoning to support that claim that we can consider and discuss so that we can see if this belief is rational or not?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #345]

No, I don’t think we just naturally discover it. I think there are natural elements (the starting point of the conscience, for instance), but I also think reasoning has to come into play.

It seems you’re drawing a distinction between naturally occurring elements, like the conscience, and the role of reasoning in understanding moral truths. I’m curious, though—how do you see the relationship between these two? If the conscience is part of our natural makeup, do you see it as something that gives us an initial sense of morality, which is then shaped or refined by reasoning?

Additionally, in the context of a created universe, how do you view the interaction between natural conscience and reasoning? Do you believe both are direct reflections of the Creator’s will, or is there some other process at work that shapes how we come to understand moral truths like the wrongness of child abuse?

I also don’t think everything that comes from the Creator is evidence of those things being objective features of reality. I’ve said that some theisms, that have creations, would lead to subjective morality. I believe taste is subjective.

Thank you for your clarification. The question remains: Where in all that objective reality experience do we get a sense of God's morality? If morality is truly objective and comes from the Creator, how do we directly encounter or discern this morality in our subjective experiences within the objective?
Further, regarding taste and subjectivity, I view "taste" in a broader sense, including how individuals perceive and "taste" different images or concepts of God. However, in the Subjective God Model (SGModel), there is no need to image God as an objective entity. The interaction between the individual personality and the Creator's voice is more of a co-creative process, without the requirement to visualize or conceptualize God as something fixed or objective. Mind to mind.

In this framework, morality isn’t necessarily about an objective external standard but rather an inner experience shaped by the relationship between the individual and the Creator. Does this resonate with your understanding of how we encounter morality, or do you see it as being grounded more in objective reality?

Objective reality cannot be a construct.

I see that your positive claim hasn’t been supported with examples.
Could you clarify what you mean by this? Are there specific reasons or examples that lead you to understand objective reality is not a construct?

How do you reconcile that claim with the understanding that we exist within a reality created by God? If reality is created by God, wouldn’t that imply that it is, in some way, a construct of God's will or design? I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on how these ideas fit together.

What we believe about objective reality certainly can be constructed (that’s epistemologically constructing a false reality).

Thank you for the clarification. However, I’d like to point out that epistemology is concerned with knowledge, not just belief. While it’s true that our beliefs about objective reality can be constructed, epistemology aims to understand how we gain knowledge, and that knowledge can be accurate or false, depending on the process. It’s not necessarily the case that epistemological constructs result in false realities.

So, it’s not simply about belief, but about how we know what we know. Could you clarify if you’re suggesting that our attempts to know objective reality through epistemological means are inherently flawed?

Ontology, by definition, must be about what is real. This statement shows great confusion on your part, as though I’m saying the ontology is real and the epistemology is not real and you are saying the reverse. I think both are real; it’s not one or the other. I don’t know how else to try to explain what I see as your confusion, so perhaps it’s time to move on.

I understand that ontology, by definition, is about what is real, and I’m not suggesting that one (ontology) is real and the other (epistemology) is not. My point wasn’t to deny the reality of ontology but rather to suggest that sometimes the focus on ontology as an intellectual exercise can be used to avoid engaging with a deeper, more personal reality that exists within each of us.

In other words, I’m not saying ontology isn’t real—just that focusing on it alone can sometimes keep us from exploring the subjective, inner aspects of existence that can also reveal deeper truths about ourselves. I hope this clarifies my position.

Ontology doesn’t ask us to do anything, much less wait for external forces to act. I’m not advocating for us to wait for external forces to act. You have taken a very specific idea (the objectivity of morality), misunderstood it, and applied it to issues that it isn't addressing.

My point wasn’t about ontology itself asking us to do anything, but rather that a focus on external objective realities, as in ontology, can sometimes shift our attention away from the active role we play in shaping the reality we experience—something that epistemology highlights.

Epistemology empowers us to understand how we come to know and recognize our true nature, which in turn reveals the responsibility we have in shaping our subjective and objective experiences. I didn’t mean to misunderstand your view of the objectivity of morality, but rather to explore how it relates to the inner, personal responsibility we each have in co-creating our reality.

_______________________

While I appreciate the clarification you provided, I noticed that several key points in my argument remain unaddressed, and I’d like to hear your thoughts on them.

First, the distinction I’m drawing between ontology and epistemology is important. I’m suggesting that ontology encourages passivity—waiting for external forces to act—while epistemology empowers us to recognize our role in shaping reality. How do you reconcile this with your understanding of ontology?

Additionally, I emphasized that humans are not just passive observers but co-creators of reality, and that reality itself is a construct generated by consciousness. I’d be interested in your view on the co-creative nature of reality, and whether you see any merit in the idea that moral truths, such as the wrongness of child abuse, arise from within consciousness rather than being fixed universal truths.

Finally, I brought up Elon Musk as an example of how Cultural Christianity’s ontological framework provides moral guidance but can still limit the deeper potential for human creativity. I’d love to hear your thoughts on this as well, particularly how you see the relationship between ontology, Cultural Christianity, and the power of human agency in shaping our collective reality.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on these points!

[POI]

I say an applied purpose is subjective, whether it be from naturalism or theism.

Okay, but do you have good reasoning to support that claim that we can consider and discuss so that we can see if this belief is rational or not?

I'm honestly not sure how much of this you are willing to discuss, based upon your response on the bottom of post 330? I think the rational way forward, is to select some specific moral value or duty, and then peel back all the onion layers to see where the assertion originates, objectively or subjectively. Using a specific example seems a rational course to examine. Case/point, is euthanasia ever good? If it is sometimes good, exactly when, and based upon (who/what/other) actually objectifies such a ruling of (good or not good)?

I guess we would first need to pick a hypothetical god, for discussion. Will the Christian God do? If so, is this Christian God the ultimate source, who also gives his moral values to humans, so that we mirror his morals values? Meaning, we inherently know right from wrong, because this god gave it to us? If not, exactly what hypothetical god are you referring to, and MORE IMPORTANTLY, how would you prove this hypothetical god even exists any more than me placing forth the hypothetical of us living in a simulation? Because if you cannot prove your hypothetical god any more than I can argue that simulation is reality, then this entire discussion is nothing more than a mental exercise (alone), with no real conclusions, unless by happy accident.

Under naturalism, I trust you and I agree that such morality is subjective. Again, unless we are in a simulation, can we do any more to demonstrate theism, other than to propose an absolute hypothetical, much like simulation? If not, then I may not be too interested in exploring all these hypotheticals, again