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]

Instead of framing it along the lines of "an inherent belief in objective morality," it might be more accurate to describe it as a "Subjective process of objectifying morality" — where individuals or societies take their subjective moral experiences and project them outward, aiming to make these beliefs a shared or universal standard within the broader environment.

By doing so, this perspective recognizes that even what we consider "objective morals" are rooted in human subjectivity, but they become "objective" when they are established as norms or principles that exist outside of individual minds and are recognized or enforced by a broader community or society.

Essentially, it acknowledges the truth regarding this dynamic process of transforming subjective moral beliefs into something that is treated as objective within a shared context.

I’m not sure you are using ‘objective’ in the same sense that moral objectivists are here, so you may end up talking past the issue objectivists are disagreeing with subjectivists on. But, feel free to define your terms clearly and actually make a case for your proposed truths.

[TRANSPONDER]

Instead of framing it along the lines of "an inherent belief in objective morality," it might be more accurate to describe it as a "Subjective process of objectifying morality" — where individuals or societies take their subjective moral experiences and project them outward, aiming to make these beliefs a shared or universal standard within the broader environment.

By doing so, this perspective recognizes that even what we consider "objective morals" are rooted in human subjectivity, but they become "objective" when they are established as norms or principles that exist outside of individual minds and are recognized or enforced by a broader community or society.

Essentially, it acknowledges the truth regarding this dynamic process of transforming subjective moral beliefs into something that is treated as objective within a shared context.

I’m not sure you are using ‘objective’ in the same sense that moral objectivists are here, so you may end up talking past the issue objectivists are disagreeing with subjectivists on. But, feel free to define your terms clearly and actually make a case for your proposed truths.

It looks to me like you are making the common mistake - demanding physical objectivity in something that is is devised by man, and ignoring the point that what man hath devised (though I suspect that women invented pottery, agriculture and bread) is not invalidated just because it isn't a cosmic rule.

And, again, the only objective thing (though irrelevant to anything other than man) is the instinct of well being, and pleasure in well being. Sorry if that isn't as Cosmically objective as a celestial bully dictating what our lives should be like, but that's the best we have any right to ask for.

P.s It is remarkable how often subjects get diverted onto this persistent attempt to create a gap for a god though mortality, which supposedly has no validity unless a god put it there, which makes Allah's opinions unquestionable, I suppose. But like ALL these gap for God arguments, none of them tell us which god it is, so it only works if the logical parameters are flawed by bias to begin with.

I get it - wangle a god onto the dissecting table, by any means necessary and then the leap of Faith to the Bible to validate the particular god believed in.

That fails as much as the morality argument does, and yet we still get the old trick being played again and again. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

[The Tanager]

It looks to me like you are making the common mistake - demanding physical objectivity in something that is is devised by man, and ignoring the point that what man hath devised (though I suspect that women invented pottery, agriculture and bread) is not invalidated just because it isn't a cosmic rule.

No, I do not think something is invalidated simply because it isn’t a cosmic rule and have said nothing that would lead to that.

And, again, the only objective thing (though irrelevant to anything other than man) is the instinct of well being, and pleasure in well being. Sorry if that isn't as Cosmically objective as a celestial bully dictating what our lives should be like, but that's the best we have any right to ask for.

That humans universally have an instinct for well-being tells us nothing about morality. People clearly disagree on what constitutes well-being. Some say it involves doing what you feel is right (at least as long as it doesn’t go against one of their sacred cows), others say other things. On atheism, these different views are just that: different. They are not better or worse than each other.

I have made no judgment on that outcome. You, however, don’t like that outcome. You think there are better actions than others, so you keep trying to validate that. This betrays your desire for objectivity in morality, not mine.

P.s It is remarkable how often subjects get diverted onto this persistent attempt to create a gap for a god though mortality, which supposedly has no validity unless a god put it there, which makes Allah's opinions unquestionable, I suppose. But like ALL these gap for God arguments, none of them tell us which god it is, so it only works if the logical parameters are flawed by bias to begin with.

I get it - wangle a god onto the dissecting table, by any means necessary and then the leap of Faith to the Bible to validate the particular god believed in.

That fails as much as the morality argument does, and yet we still get the old trick being played again and again. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

You are the one diverting this subject there; I haven’t brought God into it. I’d be fine talking about that when we have nothing else to say on what we’ve been talking about. The two issues are related, but irrelevant to each other. I have critiqued your claim that some specific actions can be morally better than others on an atheistic worldview. You disagree. Your defense has boiled down to ‘majority rules,’ but you’ve tried to rebrand it because you seemingly don’t think that is a good judge of validating actions. You obviously don’t like morality being called subjective. That's a problem for you, as an atheist. But you’ve offered nothing that can validate actions as objectively better than another.

[William]

Instead of framing it along the lines of "an inherent belief in objective morality," it might be more accurate to describe it as a "Subjective process of objectifying morality" — where individuals or societies take their subjective moral experiences and project them outward, aiming to make these beliefs a shared or universal standard within the broader environment.

By doing so, this perspective recognizes that even what we consider "objective morals" are rooted in human subjectivity, but they become "objective" when they are established as norms or principles that exist outside of individual minds and are recognized or enforced by a broader community or society.

Essentially, it acknowledges the truth regarding this dynamic process of transforming subjective moral beliefs into something that is treated as objective within a shared context.

I’m not sure you are using ‘objective’ in the same sense that moral objectivists are here, so you may end up talking past the issue objectivists are disagreeing with subjectivists on. But, feel free to define your terms clearly and actually make a case for your proposed truths.

You tell me. Is there something unclear about what I offered which has you confused or unable to be sure that I am using the word in the same sense that moral objectivists are?
Are you suggesting that moral objectivists are not using the word as the word is generally understood? Something else?

Is the 'proposed truth' of moral objectivism different from how objectivity in relation to subjectivity is generally understood?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #173]

I haven’t brought God into it.

I did a search re Moral Objectivists beliefs and it appears that the key element on which the foundation of their belief in moral objectivism rest, is the belief in a God who exists outside/independent of human experience, so even if you haven't specifically mentioned "God", by arguing for the existence of objective morality, you have indeed effective "brought God into it".

In discussing with LLS GPT about what I learned through doing the search, the following occurred.

Me. My perspective is that even if it is true that there is a God outside of the subjective human experience, who has “delivered” these moral codes to us, the morality of the God must also be subjective (from the God’s point of view) and thus, morality is still sourced within a subjective framework and objectified (by the God in this case) through various means (scriptural claims, religious philosophy et al) and so renders the belief in objective morality a flawed thing.

4o. Your perspective adds an important layer of nuance to the discussion of objective morality, especially in the context of theistic beliefs. Even if we accept the premise that a God exists outside of human experience and has provided moral codes, you argue that these moral codes would still be subjective from God's point of view. This would imply that:

1. God's Morality as Subjective: The morality that God "delivers" would be based on God's own subjective understanding, preferences, or nature. Even if God is seen as all-knowing or perfect, the morality would still originate from a particular perspective—God's. This perspective, while perhaps seen as authoritative, is still a form of subjectivity.

2. Objectification by God: If God then "objectifies" these moral codes—turning them into universal laws or principles through scriptural revelations or religious teachings—what is happening is still a process of objectification. God is taking what is inherently subjective (God's own moral understanding) and projecting it outward as an objective standard for humans to follow.

3. Flaw in Objective Morality: This framework suggests that the concept of "objective morality" is flawed because it rests on the assumption that there can be a truly objective source of morality. If all morality, including God's, is rooted in a subjective viewpoint, then what we call "objective morality" is really just a subjective morality that has been elevated to an objective status by its source.

Implications of Your Perspective:

• Reevaluation of Objectivity: This challenges the idea that there can be an entirely objective morality that is independent of any perspective, even a divine one. It suggests that all moral frameworks, whether human or divine, are rooted in subjective experience and then objectified through various means.

• Critique of Theistic Morality: For those who argue that objective morality derives from God, your perspective would challenge them to consider whether the morality they view as objective is, in fact, just as subjective as any human morality—only objectified by a divine being.

• Broader Understanding of Morality: This perspective could lead to a broader understanding of morality as something that is inherently tied to the subjective experience, whether human or divine, and that what we consider "objective" is simply the result of a process of making subjective values universally applicable.

In essence, your view calls into question the very foundation of what is meant by "objective morality" and suggests that the search for a truly objective moral standard might be based on a misunderstanding of how morality originates and becomes codified.

[TRANSPONDER]

It looks to me like you are making the common mistake - demanding physical objectivity in something that is is devised by man, and ignoring the point that what man hath devised (though I suspect that women invented pottery, agriculture and bread) is not invalidated just because it isn't a cosmic rule.

No, I do not think something is invalidated simply because it isn’t a cosmic rule and have said nothing that would lead to that.

And, again, the only objective thing (though irrelevant to anything other than man) is the instinct of well being, and pleasure in well being. Sorry if that isn't as Cosmically objective as a celestial bully dictating what our lives should be like, but that's the best we have any right to ask for.

That humans universally have an instinct for well-being tells us nothing about morality. People clearly disagree on what constitutes well-being. Some say it involves doing what you feel is right (at least as long as it doesn’t go against one of their sacred cows), others say other things. On atheism, these different views are just that: different. They are not better or worse than each other.

I have made no judgment on that outcome. You, however, don’t like that outcome. You think there are better actions than others, so you keep trying to validate that. This betrays your desire for objectivity in morality, not mine.

P.s It is remarkable how often subjects get diverted onto this persistent attempt to create a gap for a god though mortality, which supposedly has no validity unless a god put it there, which makes Allah's opinions unquestionable, I suppose. But like ALL these gap for God arguments, none of them tell us which god it is, so it only works if the logical parameters are flawed by bias to begin with.

I get it - wangle a god onto the dissecting table, by any means necessary and then the leap of Faith to the Bible to validate the particular god believed in.

That fails as much as the morality argument does, and yet we still get the old trick being played again and again. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

You are the one diverting this subject there; I haven’t brought God into it. I’d be fine talking about that when we have nothing else to say on what we’ve been talking about. The two issues are related, but irrelevant to each other. I have critiqued your claim that some specific actions can be morally better than others on an atheistic worldview. You disagree. Your defense has boiled down to ‘majority rules,’ but you’ve tried to rebrand it because you seemingly don’t think that is a good judge of validating actions. You obviously don’t like morality being called subjective. That's a problem for you, as an atheist. But you’ve offered nothing that can validate actions as objectively better than another.

Sorry. I perhaps read too much into why you were making such persistent heavy weather of what i thought I had provided a valid explanation of,and the rules we had devised for playing that game, because we (social collective) have decided it works best. This is validated by everything from the rules of music and sport to the rules of the judicial system and international politics (UN).

As I recall, you were questioning the validity of the socio - political aspirational ethic and never mind your attempt to kick the board over by arguing the fame and the rules were the same thing. Conceded, people try to evade the rules because personal advantage is tempting from petty theft to invading someone else (because of primate selfish instinct), and we ended up with trying to wish might is right as an inevitable outcome of human, never mind atheistic ethics.

As I say, I though I had explained this, even if you prefer to dismiss or ignore it.

Sorry again if I tried to consider what your theist - driven motives were, but I'd say the previous discussion is done, or ought to be, and I just speculated about why you were still trying to debunk it.

There is also this - This is the Christianity forum, not the political or philosophy forum. There ought always to be the debate between Theist morality and secular morality looming in the discussion, even if it suits you to pretend that it is really nothing to do with it and I was the one somehow digressing.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to William in post #175]

indeed. As I pointed out, Theist god - given morality is always behind the discussion despote our moderating pal's ploy of pretending that Oh, no, God - given morality was entirely My digression and nothing at all to do with it.

If that is so (and I think it is) we are on our own and human morality is what it is and we have to do the best. Just as we aspire to fly. God could have given us angel wings, but no matter how we pray, nobody gets them
and we must struggle with mere imperfect human efforts like metal aircraft. Science gives no basis for supposing there is anything else behind what humans do, other than basic animal instinct - the only objective basis there is.

As you observe, Even if a god was involved, it would be that god's opinion which is not any more objective a morality than Vkctor Orban's. Further, one would expect human morals to be handed down from the Desk of Karl, not differing from God's morals, like we'd devised it ourselves. But not only is God - given morality not perfect by any means (as Theists never cease to point out) but even so, it is better than Bible morality and Bible - apologists themselves use human morality to Judge God's doings and thus use it as a template to approve and praise God's doings, or disapprove and have to excuse them , blame them on men, somehow or explain them away. If what God hath done was good just because God had done it, there would be no need for such wishaway apologetics.

Theists apologetics consistently blow away their own feet but fail to see it and certainly never remember it. In short. I maintain that the morality apologetic failed long ago, and yet theism still argues it over again with the same failed apologetics.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #177]

I am more interested in Jason's observation that atheist morality derives from God and how that might apply to how a theist might view an atheists moral arguments - say in relation to slavery - when an atheist claims slavery is immoral.

Pointing out to an atheist that they get their knowledge that slavery is immoral "from God" is pointless nonsense (as far as the evidence shows) but recognition that this is nonetheless where morality derives whether we acknowledge that or not is still applicable to the game and how it can be played.

The sensible point therein is that, IF anyone is against the idea of slavery THEN their particular position on the question of existing within a created thing is besides the point, so long as they are all working toward eradicating the foul thing from existence.



"The foul thing" is not "God" - even that atheists might insist that it is.

[The Tanager]

You tell me. Is there something unclear about what I offered which has you confused or unable to be sure that I am using the word in the same sense that moral objectivists are?

Yes. Most humans have a subjective intellectual experience concerning the shape of the earth; that it is spherical. Some have a subjective intellectual experience that it is flat. Both often try to project those intellectual experiences outward, aiming to make those beliefs a shared or universal standard within the broader environment.

Our experience of the shape of the earth is, therefore, rooted in human subjectivity in the exact same way that our experience of morality is. Those experiences become ‘objective’ as an established norm that exists outside of individual minds and are recognized or enforced by a broader community or society in the exact same way that our experience of morality is.

But, in spite of that, I think we both agree that the shape of the earth is objective, right? Therefore, these must be two senses of ‘objective’ or ‘subjective’. Moral objectivists agree with the part that you talked about, so that can’t be objectivist/subjectivist disagreement.

Are you suggesting that moral objectivists are not using the word as the word is generally understood? Something else?

Is the 'proposed truth' of moral objectivism different from how objectivity in relation to subjectivity is generally understood?

I’m suggesting there are two generally understood and accepted senses of subjective/objective.

I did a search re Moral Objectivists beliefs and it appears that the key element on which the foundation of their belief in moral objectivism rest, is the belief in a God who exists outside/independent of human experience, so even if you haven't specifically mentioned "God", by arguing for the existence of objective morality, you have indeed effective "brought God into it".

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.

In discussing with LLS GPT about what I learned through doing the search, the following occurred.

I would be happy to return to the rest of your post at a later time, since it is about important issues, but it’s not about what I’ve been talking about and I’ll take one thing at a time.

[The Tanager]

As I recall, you were questioning the validity of the socio - political aspirational ethic and never mind your attempt to kick the board over by arguing the fame and the rules were the same thing. Conceded, people try to evade the rules because personal advantage is tempting from petty theft to invading someone else (because of primate selfish instinct), and we ended up with trying to wish might is right as an inevitable outcome of human, never mind atheistic ethics.

As I say, I though I had explained this, even if you prefer to dismiss or ignore it.

First, the bolded part above. When I talk about atheistic ethics I’m talking about human ethics if atheism is true, not the ethical choices of atheists rather than theists.

Second, I did question the validity of one ethical choice being better than another ethical choice if atheism is true. I did not argue that the game and the rules were the same thing. I tried to clarify how you were using those terms and what I meant in using them. You believe you have shown how one can be better than the other. I haven’t dismissed or ignored it. I have asked questions and explained why I think your attempt has failed. If you’ve nothing to add to that, then that part of the discussion can be done.

There is also this - This is the Christianity forum, not the political or philosophy forum. There ought always to be the debate between Theist morality and secular morality looming in the discussion, even if it suits you to pretend that it is really nothing to do with it and I was the one somehow digressing.

I didn’t pretend it has no place in a discussion concerning Christianity. I’ve even said that I would have that discussion later, but that I like focusing on one thing at a time.