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.”
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.
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)
Your question implies it is better to embrace a moral code than to oppose a moral code. Antitheists do not oppose moral codes, they oppose supernatural contexts for moral codes. Your dichotomy is inaccurate.
As to your question, "is it better for the world," to be a cultural Christian or an antitheist? The world will languish in unspeakable horror either way. I cannot imagine either group alleviating any of the world's woes: mockery, cruelty, savagery, poverty. Both sides will be appalled at misery, since neither camp lacks empathy, but both will be equally frustrated in their attempts to remedy the affliction.
William wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 8:00 pmQ: 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.
I think being cultural Christian is a good thing, if it means one thinks the teachings of Jesus are good, because I think it means people would do less harm to others. I don't think anti-theism brings anything good.
Belonging to some religion is not necessary good, because it doesn't necessary mean person has a good understanding of good and right and it does not necessary mean one follows the teachings of Jesus. By what i see there are many people in religions that are evil and don't follow Jesus.
Right at the start of apologetics (1980's) this matter cam up and I adopted the Sig "The truth is important". This had been anticipated with the atheist meme "Hard truths or comfortable lies". It is never the best course or even the safest one, to place what one wants to believe ahead of what is true.
Then, of course, we get epistemology or how we determine what is true. Quite simply and without the trickery of sophistry and semantic juggelry, reason and evidence is the best way to truth, not trusting to what Christian apologists call 'Unreliable human perceptions" but what can be tested, demonstrated and confirmed, by science, and not what is ironically, imperfect human perceptions, placed by preference above question, leading to superstition, delusion and Dogma.
The fact is that the claims of religions have been losing ground and we still have a long way to go. The debunk of Bible and Quran and even the flawed dogmas of Buddhism are hardly touched on, because, I think, non - believers don't think too much into it, and believers don't question enough about it.
But bit by bit, the religions have to give way with stubborn resistance and threats, from trying to ban Life of Brian (which did not mock Jesus but only the tendency of human delusion and cult - thinking) and Buddhism, where the 'disrespectful to Buddhism' card was played so often the surface had worn off. And I don't need to tell anyone about the reaction of Islam to anything they don't like.
So it only remains to test the claims against the evidence and not let the Dogmatic side play their sophistry tricks, which they call "Philosophy". The God claim is not the default, remote possibilities to not count equally with better hypotheses, and appeal to unknowns proves nothing at all.
These are principles that ought to be generally understood, but, as I have said before now, we do not teach critical thinking or logical reasoning, because those who decide what we are taught and told do not use it themselves and would be appalled at the idea that those they give direction to should ever start to question.
Of which, one last comment, rather than leave that last hanging. The West has given the world democracy, and while we may sniff and sneer and admire the mystical Tosh of the Mystic east (and you - wall will know how I love 'em, or I used to when I could) everyone uses it or pretends it does. And the US gave us a society where the Church did not govern the country. At least in theory. In fact religions interfere in society everywhere and they have no business doing so, not even for the bad excuse that they can teach us to be good. It is ethics that covers that and the religions only hi - jack that credit for themselves. And we fell for it every time, buying the lie that society would collapse without it.
I think and suggest that understanding ethics and what it is (a human device to play the game of society) and what it is not (a cosmic Law of right and wrong) is what is not only true, but will be better for us. And the little but of ethical value religions brought to us will become as obsolete as the little bit of value that alchemy and astrology brought us has been superseded by science.
A cultural Christian is one who intends to use Christianity as a tool in order to force morality upon others. I mean, think about it. The key tenet of Christianity is that Jesus rose from the dead. Do you believe that these "cultural Christians" believe this in any way? If they do not believe that Jesus rose from the dead, then they believe Christianity to be based upon some sort of falsehood. This seems to demonstrate those who want to use what they believe to be false in order to enforce what they believe to be some sort of moral code upon all others.
The funny thing is, Christianity has nothing to do with teaching us how to be moral. Rather, Christianity teaches us that we are all immoral, and that we are to grab ahold of the righteousness of another. Christianity teaches us to give up on the chase after morality, and are to rather serve others, not out of obligation to some sort of moral code, but rather out of love for what has been done for us. In other words, Christians have been set free from law, in order to serve not out of obligation to the law, but rather from the heart with love. I mean, just look at the parable of the "good Samaritan". Those who passed by leaving the man in the ditch did so because they were tied to some sort of moral code which would not allow them to help the man in the ditch. However, the Samaritan was not tied to any sort of moral code, and was able to get in the ditch with the man in order to care for him.
Again, Christianity has nothing to do with teaching folks how to be moral. Christianity teaches us that we are all immoral, and that none of us are any more moral than the other. However, our immorality has been covered by the death and resurrection of Jesus, in order to set us free from the law which can only condemn us, in order that we may now serve others out of gratitude for what God has done for us.
Our culture is in desperate need of hearts being changed by the Gospel, which sets us all free from law. It is useless to attempt to enforce a moral code upon hearts which have not been changed. However, there is no need for any sort of moral code being placed upon those whose hearts have been changed by the Gospel.
You were doing so well until you leaped from there being no cosmic law of morals and it was just what we do id, to a human sacrifice which both body and spirit apparently survived, so it was a bounced cheque paid for sin, and does nothing that God couldn't have done anyway.
This is no basis for telling anyone else how to livem in this culture or any other.
I think we can look to democracy, separation of religion and state (which we could well do with here in UK) and understanding what we are and why and how we think what we do, and what morality and indeed religion is and how we invent it and then we may make progress, not in peddling the tall stories of the Bible to ourselves or anyone else.
Q: Is it better to be a Cultural Christian than belong to any organised Christian religion?
A: I think so. Religion represents more conflicting voices in the mix. If one thinks that the words of Jesus are good and wise, of what use is that if one cannot envision a world operating politically toward building that vision into reality.
1. This highlights a distinction between cultural Christianity and organized religion, emphasizing the potential conflicts within organized religious institutions. This is a valuable perspective, suggesting that adhering to the teachings of Jesus does not necessitate involvement in organized religion.
2. This underscores the importance of translating the teachings of Jesus into practical, political actions to create a better world. This pragmatic approach provides a compelling argument for focusing on the essence of the teachings rather than the institutional framework.
3. While the point about conflicting voices in organized religion is valid, I can also acknowledge the potential and real benefits of community and shared values that organized religions can and do provide.
Q: Is it better for the world to be a Cultural Christian than an all-out anti-theist?
A: I think that anyone who thinks the teaching of Jesus are good and wise need not be called/refer to themselves as “Christians” cultural or otherwise.
In the case of Elon, while obviously intelligent, I am not convinced he is “wise”, but he is defiantly an opportunist, so operates at some level of wisdom.
I think it is better to be a non-theist than an anti-theist and I think Elon is a non-theist with tendency toward being a theist – due to his belief that we are likely existing within a simulation.
1. It is an interesting point that one can appreciate the teachings of Jesus without necessarily identifying as a Christian. This reflects a more inclusive and flexible approach to spiritual and philosophical beliefs.
2. My analysis of Elon Musk introduces a nuanced view of wisdom and intelligence, suggesting that wisdom involves more than just intellectual capability. By labeling him as an opportunist, I provide a critical perspective that adds depth to the discussion.
3. The preference for non-theism over anti-theism indicates a more open and less combative stance towards religion. This is a constructive approach that promotes dialogue and understanding rather than conflict.
4. Elon Musk's belief in the simulation hypothesis as a tendency towards theism adds an interesting dimension to my argument. It highlights the complexity of belief systems and how they can evolve.
To expand on why non-theism might be preferable to anti-theism, I offer a few examples and further reasoning:
1. Promoting Tolerance and Open-Mindedness:
Non-theism, which includes a range of positions such as agnosticism, secularism, and apatheism, generally adopts a more neutral stance towards religious beliefs. This neutrality can foster an environment of tolerance and open-mindedness. For example:
Dialogue and Understanding: A non-theist is more likely to engage in respectful dialogue with religious individuals, seeking to understand their perspectives rather than dismissing them outright. This can lead to mutual understanding and reduce societal polarization.
Interfaith Collaboration: Non-theists can work alongside religious individuals on common causes, such as social justice, environmental protection, and humanitarian efforts, without the antagonism that might arise from an anti-theist stance.
2. Avoiding Conflict and Promoting Social Harmony:
Anti-theism often involves a direct opposition to religious beliefs, which can lead to conflict and division. In contrast, non-theism can contribute to social harmony by not actively opposing religion. For example:
Community Cohesion: In a diverse society, non-theism can help maintain community cohesion by respecting the plurality of beliefs. Anti-theism, on the other hand, can alienate religious communities and create unnecessary friction.
Reducing Hostility: By not actively opposing religious beliefs, non-theism reduces the likelihood of hostile encounters and promotes a more peaceful coexistence.
3. Encouraging Personal Exploration and Growth:
Non-theism allows for a more personal and introspective approach to spirituality and belief. It encourages individuals to explore and question without the need to adopt an adversarial stance. For example:
Individual Journey: A non-theist approach supports individuals in their personal journey of exploration and understanding, whether that leads them towards spirituality, secularism, or somewhere in between.
Intellectual Freedom: Non-theists can appreciate and study religious philosophies and practices without the pressure to conform or oppose, leading to a richer and more nuanced understanding of human culture and history.
4. Philosophical Flexibility:
Non-theism provides a more flexible philosophical framework, which can adapt to new ideas and evidence. This flexibility is crucial for intellectual and scientific progress. For example:
Scientific Inquiry: Non-theists can remain open to new scientific discoveries that may challenge or support various metaphysical claims, without the dogmatic opposition often seen in anti-theism.
Philosophical Evolution: As new philosophical insights emerge, non-theists can integrate these into their worldview without the rigidity that might come from an anti-theistic perspective.
Further Reasoning:
Pragmatism: From a pragmatic standpoint, non-theism is more conducive to achieving practical goals. By avoiding the combative stance of anti-theism, non-theists can build broader coalitions and work more effectively towards common objectives.
Empathy and Compassion: Non-theism often aligns with a compassionate and empathetic outlook, recognizing that religious beliefs can provide comfort, community, and moral guidance for many people. By respecting this, non-theists contribute to a more empathetic society.
Avoiding the Us vs. Them Mentality: Anti-theism can create an "us vs. them" mentality, which is counterproductive to fostering a cohesive and inclusive society. Non-theism, with its more neutral stance, avoids this pitfall and promotes a more inclusive approach to different worldviews.
In summary, non-theism's neutrality, respect for diverse beliefs, and openness to dialogue and collaboration make it a more constructive stance compared to anti-theism. By promoting tolerance, social harmony, personal growth, and philosophical flexibility, non-theism can contribute positively to both individual lives and broader societal dynamics.
Re that summary, religion also harbors anti-theism in relation to being intolerant toward other religions.
Many organized religions have historically harbored elements of anti-theism or intolerance towards other religions. This internal contradiction within religious groups further supports the argument for non-theist "cultural Christians".
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)
That''s a good point. Religions are divisive. Thew is a meme or Axiom; "There are many religions; there is only one science". Despite the efforts of anti- atheists to point to different kinds if atheists, there is on;t one kind - the kind that does not believe the god - claim. The rest is just people.
That''s a good point. Religions are divisive. Thew is a meme or Axiom; "There are many religions; there is only one science". Despite the efforts of anti- atheists to point to different kinds if atheists, there is on;t one kind - the kind that does not believe the god - claim. The rest is just people.
I think that atheists have placed themselves in a sealed room on that point.
For example, Simulation Theory introduces the element of a creator mind without having to dress the mind up in various held beliefs re the nature and motives of said mind.
Said creator(s) of the simulation could still be regarded as "God(s)" (because of the meaning of the word) thus, atheists (as you have defined them) would have no chance of even wanting to examine in detail the idea of Simulation Theory, simply in order to uphold the dictates of the position of their kind (the kind that does not believe the god - claim)
However, re the possibility of us existing within a reality simulation, one can (in theory) still treat other people according to the belief that we exist within a real thing which came about without any mindfulness, and mindfulness (re humans) emerged from a chaos and has the opportunity to design ways in which to get a more permanent foothold in the only thing believed to being real.
My own "anti-atheism" has more to do with the sealed room than the people within said room.
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)
1213 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2024 4:27 am
Belonging to some religion is not necessary good, because it doesn't necessary mean person has a good understanding of good and right and it does not necessary mean one follows the teachings of Jesus. By what i see there are many people in religions that are evil and don't follow Jesus.
While this is sadly true, the God of the bible is a God of ORDER. He has not always had a visible organised religion on earth but when he has, as is the case today, he has gathererd his people together into it for their well being and edification.
DO WE NEEDS TO BELONG TO AN ORGANISED RELIGION TO SERVE GOD?
Those that believe that it is not necessary to be part of an organised religion to serve God today are effectively saying they do not need their Christian brethern ( 1 Cor 12: 21-25) and are rejecting a chief aspect of God's is purpose in these last days. Further, the "anti-organised religionists" risk losing out on everlasting life by failing to support Christ's brothers* who represent the earthly part of God's universal organisation ( See Matthew 25:50, 41)
