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]

think we can all guess; the round the houses adds up to no more than window - dressing for 'God says so (or gives us the morals, somehow), so that is the objectivity of morals'.

Don’t guess; respond to my actual points and actual claims. I have not been arguing for God’s existence or the existence of objective morality. You may only want to talk about that, but I’m not.

[The Tanager]

Now, when it comes to objective morality, the key difference I see is this: In your framework, objective morality is a set standard, external to humans, that GOD has established—a fixed moral "truth" that the world ought to progress toward. But from my perspective, what’s being presented as "objective" is really filtered through human subjectivity and institutional interpretation. Yes, humans might strive toward a standard that we perceive as moral progress, but that perception is subjective, shaped by our understanding and experiences.

You are conflating two things. Ontology. And Epistemology. I’ve been talking about ontology. You claim you disagree, but then talk about epistemology. From what you’ve said, if you understood this difference, you would see that we agree on the ontology question. That is the question of moral objectivism/subjectivism.

You’ve been talking about epistemology. This is the question of how we learn about morality. Here we actually do disagree. You say it’s through subjective experiences alone. I say it’s both subjective and objective. This is not the philosophical question of moral objectivism/subjectivism.

[TRANSPONDER]

Now, when it comes to objective morality, the key difference I see is this: In your framework, objective morality is a set standard, external to humans, that GOD has established—a fixed moral "truth" that the world ought to progress toward. But from my perspective, what’s being presented as "objective" is really filtered through human subjectivity and institutional interpretation. Yes, humans might strive toward a standard that we perceive as moral progress, but that perception is subjective, shaped by our understanding and experiences.

You are conflating two things. Ontology. And Epistemology. I’ve been talking about ontology. You claim you disagree, but then talk about epistemology. From what you’ve said, if you understood this difference, you would see that we agree on the ontology question. That is the question of moral objectivism/subjectivism.

You’ve been talking about epistemology. This is the question of how we learn about morality. Here we actually do disagree. You say it’s through subjective experiences alone. I say it’s both subjective and objective. This is not the philosophical question of moral objectivism/subjectivism.

Ontology is philosophical arguing for the existence of a god, isn't it? Which is what i said above, and you said you were not talking about that. All the ontology arguments I have seen failed, even though they don't tell you which god has to be there because we can imagine it.

[The Tanager]

Ontology is philosophical arguing for the existence of a god, isn't it? Which is what i said above, and you said you were not talking about that. All the ontology arguments I have seen failed, even though they don't tell you which god has to be there because we can imagine it.

No, ontology is the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being. God's existence is one of the questions within ontology, but there are many others. There is an ontological argument for God's existence, but it has nothing to do with morality. I think it is flawed.

[POI]

My claims have been about what kind of morality would follow from theism and naturalism being true.

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?

[TRANSPONDER]

Ontology is philosophical arguing for the existence of a god, isn't it? Which is what i said above, and you said you were not talking about that. All the ontology arguments I have seen failed, even though they don't tell you which god has to be there because we can imagine it.

No, ontology is the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being. God's existence is one of the questions within ontology, but there are many others. There is an ontological argument for God's existence, but it has nothing to do with morality. I think it is flawed.

Ok and thanks. Ontological argument for morality, I'll look that up.

Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world—e.g., from reason alone. In other words, ontological arguments are arguments from what are typically alleged to be none but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists.(Stanford Encyclopaedia)

I'll check that there is a branch of Ontological argument dealing with morals and ethics or if not I shall be requiring an apology.

Ok, you seem clear

Moral ontology is asking if morals objectively exist independently to be discovered by people, or if morals are merely a mental construct of people and therefore inseparable from people.11 Oct 2015

I'll look further but of course I reckon that morality is devised by humans and do not exist independently. The only objective basis is an instinct for human survival and well being (relatively speaking) as a mechanism for that.

Hmm...well obviously the Ontological argument for God (or A god) is far and away the principal one, 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.

This is the argument i did know but asociated with proving God or not.

If n morals exist apart from God, then God is not required for morality
(p.s, rather we need human morality to judge the god's actions - which is what we find ev en believers do with the Bible).

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

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 .

Biology tells us there are - relative to humanity, and they are relative, too. I'll have to check your posts now I know what you are getting at. Of course, given the forum, theism ought to be the object of the discussion, not just philosophy or science, but you'll know that

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.

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.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #334]

1. I understand you’re coming from an ontological perspective when it comes to objective morality, meaning you’re focused on the existence of moral truths independent of human perception or experience. I can see why you’re distinguishing this from epistemology, which is how we come to understand those truths.

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?

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 just trying to get a clearer picture of how you see the connection between objective morality and concrete examples like the commandments within the framework of ontology.

2. I’ve been reflecting on the nature of our discussion, particularly regarding objective morality and your views on Christianity. I’m wondering if part of our different perspectives might come from how we approach Christianity itself.

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.

This distinction might help me better understand the basis for your argument on objective morality and how it fits within your Christian worldview.

3. Given our discussion around objective morality and Cultural Christianity, I think the thread’s opening post about Elon Musk identifying as a Cultural Christian might add an interesting dimension to what we’ve been talking about.

Musk describes himself as a Cultural Christian, saying he believes the teachings of Jesus are good and wise, but he isn’t particularly religious. In many ways, he seems to be embracing the moral framework of Christianity, but without the deeper theological commitment to being a traditional follower of Jesus. His position is centered around the wisdom of Christian teachings rather than an ontological belief in the divine authority behind them.

This raises some relevant questions that might tie back to what we’ve been discussing:

Objective morality and Cultural Christianity: 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?

Cultural Christianity vs. Anti-theism: 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?

Cultural Christianity vs. Organized Religion: 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’d be interested to hear your thoughts on how Cultural Christianity fits into your view of objective morality. Does someone like Musk, who finds value in Christian teachings without necessarily believing in GOD’s moral authority, still align with your perspective on moral objectivism?

[TRANSPONDER]

While I have been warned before about posting posts to announce that i am not going to post i have looked through your post, William, old chum, and find it something I should leave as it it arguing within the theist bubble.

As analogy, it's like arguing whether the old UK 70's Real democracy' communism was the same or different and better or worse than imported soviet communism, a real problem in those days.

I'd say (if this happened in my union at the time) never mind that, the real question is whether we should condone it or not.

So debating the rival merits of religious vs. Secular morality is not the question; it is - or should be - whether on evidence, secular morality is the only one we have and we just have to make the best of it.
The ponderous post above seems to me like navel gazing while angels dance on pinheads and I won't be investing and I'm out.

[oldbadger]

...........
So debating the rival merits of religious vs. Secular morality is not the question; it is - or should be - whether on evidence, secular morality is the only one we have and we just have to make the best of it.
.............

Hi all...... I've not been able to post much on this thread because I don't really understand the word 'moral' as any more than a lump of rhetoric used in conversations about righteousness in its various forms.

As far as I can see, 'morality' is worn according to cultures, nationalities and more, but in fact it is such a multi faceted descriptive that it is useless without the addition of a clear directive being offered alongside it. Religions cling to it often, just as they cling to words like 'Sin' which is so wrongly applied, imo.

For example, is it immoral or sinful to break one of God's Mosaic laws? One law requires that a raised wall be erected around roofs for the protection of people, now is it a sin or immoral to ignore that law? Rather it would be an offence or misdemeanour or nothing according to where you live.......but immoral? Meh!

[The Tanager]

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.