[
Replying to The Tanager in post #351]
It can be shaped and refined by reasoning, experiences with other entities (humans, GOD), desires, all sorts of stuff I’m sure. It can be refined or dulled.
While I agree that many factors can shape or refine our sense of morality, there’s a deeper issue here that relates to how we each view GOD and the sources of moral guidance. From your perspective, external forces—often claiming to represent GOD— play a significant role in shaping morality. However, in my view (the Subjective GOD Model), morality arises from a co-creative process between our individual being and the Creator, rather than being imposed by external forces.
This brings me to the critique of Cultural Christianity. Historically, rather than sharpening moral sensibilities, Cultural Christianity has often dulled them, with atrocities and injustices being justified or ignored under its influence. To truly sharpen one’s sense of morality, I understand that we must actively work to rectify those historical wrongs and acknowledge the harm caused by such missteps. It’s through this process of accountability and action that we can truly refine our moral compass.
So, I’m curious: Do you believe that morality is primarily shaped by external forces claiming to represent an external GOD? Additionally, how do you see the role of correcting historical atrocities in sharpening one’s moral sense?
I think a natural conscience and reasoning do both reflect GOD’s will, but I also think other factors help shape our moral understanding and coming to moral truths.
It’s interesting that you see both natural conscience and reasoning as reflections of GOD’s will. I’d be curious to hear more about the other factors you believe help shape our moral understanding. Could you elaborate on what those factors might be, and how they work alongside conscience and reasoning to bring us to moral truths like the wrongness of child abuse?
Additionally, how do you see this process playing out in the context of human responsibility? If our moral understanding is shaped by multiple factors, do you think we are primarily responsible for refining our morality, or are we more reliant on external influences, for that refinement?
This doesn’t make logical sense to me. Either GOD is something other than us or GOD is just us. If GOD is something other, then GOD is an objective entity. If GOD is just us, then GOD is non-existent, or, a synonym for “us”. Mind to mind is two objective entities relating to each other. You seem to want a third category that, to my mind, logically can’t exist.
So, I think that there must be a language problem here between us, because I don’t think you are an illogical thinker. I just can’t grasp your meanings.
I’ve already explained that in the Subjective GOD Model (SGM), there is no separation between us and GOD. The confusion seems to stem from the fact that your model doesn’t allow for the possibility that we are GOD and GOD is us. Since we've already discussed this, I’d prefer not to go over the same ground again.
If you’re open to it, we could move forward by discussing the implications of our differing models instead of continuing to revisit this point of misunderstanding. Does that sound fair?
I think this is definitionally true. I think definitions are one of the few things that one can be 100% certain about. An objective reality is something like: ‘something that exists, independently of any conscious awareness of it.’ It’s the opposite, in a sense, of a construct.
My view is that if no consciously aware entity exists, then no construct exists. In other words, for something to be said to exist, there must first be conscious awareness. We already agree that we exist within a created thing, so there’s no confusion on that point.
To further illustrate this, let’s consider an example based in materialism. If we assume that the universe was not created and simply exists on its own, one could argue that the universe could still exist even if no conscious entity (including GOD) existed. Without any form of conscious awareness to observe or interact with it, the universe still exist but without any meaning or purpose.
That is not what I am arguing.
From my perspective, the existence of anything—whether we label it objective or subjective—requires consciousness to recognize or interact with it. Without consciousness, (a clearly subjective thing) there’s no way to verify or even understand that something exists.
Given our agreement that we exist within a created thing, how do you reconcile this idea with your definition of objective reality as something independent of consciousness? Are you arguing from the materialist or the theist position? (That is likely the source of your confusion - your argument appear to be a conflation between materialism and theism).
In the broad sense of ‘construct’, but not the narrowed focus I thought you were talking about when talking about our epistemological construction of ideas/concepts.
Thanks for making that distinction, but I’m curious—is there really a need to differentiate between the broad and narrow definitions of a "construct" in this context? If we agree that reality is created by GOD, then doesn’t that imply that everything—whether it’s our conceptualization of ideas or the broader structure of reality—is ultimately a construct in some way?
I’m not sure if a separation between "GOD’s construct" and our "epistemological constructs" is necessary, since both could be seen as part of a larger process of creation. What do you think?
No, I don’t think they are inherently flawed. In the contexts I’ve studied in, “construct” has largely (maybe entirely) been used to speak to its falsehood, so I carried that understanding over.
Thank you for clarifying. I understand now that your use of the term "construct" has been influenced by a context where it’s associated with falsehood. However, I think it’s possible to view "construct" more broadly—without it necessarily implying something false or flawed. For instance, the idea that reality itself could be a construct of consciousness or GOD’s will doesn’t imply that the reality we experience is false, but rather that it’s shaped through a process.
Do you think there’s room to consider "construct" in this broader sense, where it could apply to both divine creation and human perception, without necessarily involving falsehood?
Okay. I agree. You seemed to me to say that as though you were disagreeing with something I claimed, instead of just making a totally separate point. When the discussion is an ontological point/issue (like my claim was from the beginning), focusing on that alone is paramount to understanding.
I appreciate the insights you’ve shared, but I think it’s important to stay aligned with the thread’s original topic. The focus here is on the practical and philosophical implications of Cultural Christianity, particularly in relation to Elon Musk’s comments and how they compare to anti-theism or organized religion.
The thread is not primarily about ontology, so if that’s an area you’d like to explore further, perhaps it would be more fitting to create a separate thread dedicated to ontological discussions. That way, we can keep this conversation focused on the intended questions about Cultural Christianity and its impact on society.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on those aspects if you’d like to continue within that context.
I disagree with it. I don’t think ontology encourages passivity.
To clarify, the passivity I’m referring to isn’t about ontology in general, but specifically about Cultural Christianity. My argument is that Cultural Christianity, which involves embracing Christian teachings without deeper engagement or commitment, leads to passivity. This passivity manifests in people adopting moral frameworks without taking active steps to challenge injustices or make meaningful changes in the world, or genuinely make amends instead relying on external forces or traditional values (such as hope in Christ's return) to guide their actions.
In this context, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on whether Cultural Christianity, as described by Elon Musk, might encourage this kind of passivity, or whether you think it offers a strong moral foundation that prompts people to actively engage in shaping their reality.
First, I agree we are co-creators of reality (we have free will).
Second, you’ll have to define “construct” and explain what you mean about reality being generated by consciousness more for me to comment there.
Third, I think the wrongness of child abuse does not arise from within consciousness, but through objective nature and objective purpose.
I appreciate that we agree on the idea of humans as co-creators of reality, but I’d like to clarify that, in my view, co-creation happens within the framework of free will as it operates in the subjective interaction between the individual and the subjective GOD they are building a relationship with. This relationship, and the choices made within it, then "injects" into the objective world—much like a stone causing ripples on a lake.
Regarding the term "construct," I’ve already explained how I understand it earlier in the conversation, so I’ll refer you back to that clarification. In short, I see reality as shaped by consciousness in this co-creative process between the individual and the divine.
On the subject of moral truths like the wrongness of child abuse, I understand that you view these as arising from an objective nature and purpose. From my perspective, these moral truths arise within consciousness—specifically, through the dynamic relationship between individual consciousness and the subjective GOD. I see morality as evolving and co-created through this process, rather than being fixed, universal truths.
Even if you hold that moral truths have an objective basis, how do you see the role of consciousness, free will, and personal relationship with GOD shaping our understanding and application of those truths in the objective world?
In closing, there are several key aspects of my argument that I don’t think we’ve fully explored yet. I’d like to bring these back into the conversation:
Passivity in Cultural Christianity: One of my main critiques of Cultural Christianity is that it tends to foster a kind of passivity, where individuals might adopt Christian teachings without actively engaging in efforts to challenge injustice or improve the world. Instead, there’s a tendency to wait for external forces or divine intervention. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on this critique, especially in light of Elon Musk’s identification as a Cultural Christian. Do you think Cultural Christianity can encourage passivity, or does it prompt active engagement with the world?
The co-creative nature of reality: While we touched on the idea of humans as co-creators through free will, I don’t think we fully explored how I see reality as a construct generated by consciousness. In the Subjective GOD Model (SGM), reality is shaped by the interaction between individual consciousness and the subjective GOD, with this interaction influencing the objective world. I’d like to hear more of your thoughts on this co-creative view of reality, and how it fits or contrasts with your understanding.
Moral truths arising from consciousness: You mentioned that you view moral truths like the wrongness of child abuse as coming from objective nature and purpose. My perspective, as I’ve shared, is that these moral truths arise from within consciousness and are co-created through the relationship between individuals and the subjective GOD. Could you share more about how you view the role of consciousness in shaping our understanding and application of moral truths, even if you hold that they are ultimately objective?
Elon Musk and Cultural Christianity: A key part of this thread revolves around Elon Musk’s identification as a Cultural Christian. He has expressed support for the teachings of Jesus while distancing himself from organized religion. Do you have any thoughts on Musk’s perspective, and how it might reflect broader trends in Cultural Christianity? Does it suggest a form of Christianity that is more adaptable to modern values, or do you see potential issues with this approach?
Cultural Christianity vs. organized religion: This thread also raises the question of whether it’s better to be a Cultural Christian than to belong to an organized Christian religion. Cultural Christianity allows individuals to embrace the moral teachings of Jesus without subscribing to the full framework of organized religion. Do you think this is a meaningful or effective way to engage with Christianity, or do you think organized religion provides a more comprehensive and meaningful structure?
Epistemology and personal agency: Lastly, while we discussed ontology, I want to bring back the point I made about epistemology. I understand that you don’t see ontology as encouraging passivity, but I’m interested in hearing more about your thoughts on epistemology as a pathway for individuals to actively shape their understanding of reality. In the Subjective GOD Model, epistemology allows individuals to engage directly with their reality and act as co-creators, which contrasts with a reliance on external authority. How do you see this interaction between personal knowledge, free will, and the shaping of reality?
I think these points are crucial to the broader discussion.
but I think it is important to understand what is going on. Just as Aristotles' colour principles fail because he did not know what colour was, and somehow it seems to have been missed or forgotten that Maga is just the Tea party renamed (Like Tyre, it's still the same thing 
) and the Tea party was religious fundamentalist science denial used as a weapon against science like climate change and vaccines. This is what we have, and some have sorta let it slip that they know, but it is all sorta missed. 
