Cultural Christians.

[William]

Elon Musk has identified himself as a cultural Christian in a new interview.

"While Im not a particularly religious person, I do believe that the teachings of Jesus are good and wise I would say Im probably a cultural Christian," the Tesla CEO said during a conversation on X with Jordan Peterson today. "Theres 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 Im actually a big believer in the principles of Christianity. I think theyre 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.

[TRANSPONDER]

That sounds misleading, William.

If from a god, that god exists so is not subjective. Even if we perceive or even just act on what it communicates to us, it may look like it would if it was subjective (just from the human mind) but was actually objective; an objective Law or moral system at least, given by an objectively extant being.

Of course one could argue that it was that god's subjective opinion but it would be objective as a Thing given to us by an existing being.

So to avoid confusion I'd say that a morality from a god is objective (aside we might contest its' opinion) and only what is from the human mind (even if based on a common instinct or set of instincts) is subjective, and never the twain should meet.

[William]

I appreciate your concerns Transponder and understand why my position might initially seem misleading to you; especially given the common subjectivist/objectivist frameworks we often work within.

However, its important to clarify that the view Ive been presenting doesnt fit neatly into either of those extremes. Instead, Ive proposed a different approach that blends aspects of human experience with a broader influencea Subjective GODwhich shapes moral understanding in a personal and contextual way. To help clarify, Id like to reference key points from a recent interaction with Tangager who engaged with this topic.

1. Request for Concrete Examples: In my discussion with Tangager - the moral objectivist, I repeatedly asked for clear examples of objective morality, as its difficult to discuss the concept in a meaningful way without them. This is relevant because if were going to engage in a debate about objective versus subjective morality, we need concrete examples to work with. Tanager didnt/ wasnt able to provide this, which highlighted a significant gap in the his position.

2. Subjective GOD Framework: I introduced the idea of a Subjective GODa guiding influence that operates within human consciousness and experience, shaping morality without imposing universal, external laws. This is different from traditional objectivism, which posits an external creator who imposes fixed moral rules, and from subjectivism, which often views morality as purely a product of human invention. My view suggests that moral guidance is co-created through a broader influence, but still experienced subjectively.

3. Universal Moral Intuition (UMI): During that interaction, I discussed moral intuitions such as the instinctual rejection of harm (e.g., child abuse), which could be understood as part of a Universal Moral Intuition (UMI). This shared moral sense, though felt subjectively, may be influenced by a broader source. Its important to note that Im not suggesting this is an objective rule imposed on all humanity, but rather a shared intuition (sourced with a subjective GOD) thats interpreted through individual and cultural lenses.

4. Resistance to Moral Intuition: Another key point was the concept of resistance to moral intuitions, which can be either willful or unconscious. Some individuals might suppress or be disconnected from these intuitions due to various factors, which complicates the idea that morality is purely human-driven. It suggests that there may be broader influences at play, even if the experience remains subjective.

5. Critique of Objectivism: Ive raised concerns about the objectivist models reliance on universally binding laws imposed by an external creator. Given the diversity of moral frameworks across cultures and history, it seems problematic to claim that morality is universally imposed in a way thats external to human experience. Instead, morality appears to evolve and adapt through subjective human experiences, which further complicates the objectivist position.

6. Subjective vs. Objective Creator: One of the major differences in my view is how I see GODs influence. Tanager proposed that morality might be discovered in relation to an objective purpose imposed by a creator. However, I see morality as something that evolves through subjective encounters with a Subjective GODa force working through, rather than above, human experiences. This isnt about arbitrary or relative morality; its about understanding morality as a co-creative process between the individual and a broader influence, still rooted in subjectivity.

Given these points, I understand my position isnt misleading, but instead offers a more nuanced and flexible way to approach morality. It challenges the traditional extremes of subjectivism and objectivism, showing that theres a middle ground where moral understanding can be fluid and personal, while still shaped by something broader than just human instincts or cultural norms.
----------------------
Rather than focusing on the limitations of subjectivism or objectivism, I understand its more productive to explore how morality is shaped by the interplay between individual experience and broader influences, without resorting to the extremes of either traditional framework. It seems clear that subjectivists, in particular, resist this approach, possibly because it challenges the comfort of their established framework.

However, by engaging with this broader perspective, we open up new possibilities for understanding morality as something fluid, contextual, and influenced by more than just human invention, yet not bound by universal, external laws.

Rather than insisting that subjective experience and broader influences must remain separate, I propose we explore how they can logically and meaningfully intersect, leading to a more comprehensive view of moral development. This middle ground offers a new way of engaging with morality, one that can account for both subjective experience and the broader, non-external influences, which come into play not only through our subjective consciousness but also through influences related to our objective experiences.

By acknowledging that these broader influences interact with us through both subjective and objective dimensions, we can form a richer understanding of how morality develops. This allows us to move beyond the rigid boundaries of traditional subjectivism and objectivism, embracing a more nuanced framework that respects the complexity of human experience while considering the broader forces at work.

Exploring this intersection offers the potential for a more holistic approach to moralityone that doesnt rely on the extremes of either side but integrates the deeper influences that shape both our subjective understanding and our objective realities.

[bluegreenearth]

"Objective" means mind independent. "Subjective" means mind dependent. In no sense is an intended purpose a mind independent reality. That describes a logical contradiction.

That is not true. If it were, then (if theism is true) physical reality would have to be called a subjective reality since it comes from a Mind. But neither theists nor non-theists in this debate believe that theists are asserting that.

Objective means something more like that the standard of value lies outside of the minds of those beings talked about as moral agents. Subjective means that the standard of value comes from the minds of those being talked about as moral agents.

Correct, if theism is true, then physical reality is a subjective reality given the established philosophical definitions of "objectivity" and "subjectivity." Even though it wasn't being asserted, that is the logical conclusion of the argument for theism, and intellectual honesty should compel theists to acknowledge and accept it. Using proprietary definitions for "objective" and "subjective" in an attempt to avoid this absurd outcome is both logically fallacious and intellectually dishonest. In any case, the concept of "value" that is featured in your proprietary definitions is also unavoidably subjective. Furthermore, a "standard of value" is a misleading phrase because it is not based on an objective standard but on an agreement between two or more agents who share a subjective value for a thing. Therefore, given your proprietary definition of "objective," no thing originating from the mind of a god can be objective because the standard of value is coming from the mind of a god who is claimed to be a moral agent and the minds of theists as moral agents who agree to share that subjective value. Accordingly, theistic morality is subjective, even according to your own proprietary definition of "subjective."

[The Tanager]

Agreed. I don't think I have ever contested that. But what has it to do with the argument from morality

As Ive tried to tell you multiple times, I have not talked about the argument from morality in this thread. Ive only talked about the thing youve said you never contested. You thought I was talking about the argument from morality when I never did.

[The Tanager]

My position centers on morality being shaped by the influence of a Subjective GOD working through human experience, rather than a purely arbitrary or relative system. It might be more productive to focus on this distinction rather than continuing to discuss moral subjectivism, which doesnt seem applicable here.

The difference in our views may lie in how we understand the influence of GOD. In my view, the Subjective GOD operates through human experience and consciousness rather than as an external force imposing universal, objective rules. This means that the moral guidance we receive from GOD is deeply intertwined with our subjective experiences, cultural context, and personal growth.

If your view sees GODs influence as distinct from human experienceacting as a separate, external source of moral authoritythen thats where we differ. I see it that GODs influence is more fluid and contextual, working with us through our experiences rather than apart from them.

I think Gods influence comes in both ways. As to your view, what is the difference between your view and the view of an atheist who says we are morally influenced through our subjective experiences? What does adding GOD to it do? What point is there to call it GOD, if GOD doesnt add anything beyond what the experience itself would?

Could you confirm whether the Ten Commandments align with what youre referring to as objective morality?

Yes, they do.

I also think its important to connect this to the idea of three types of claims:

Unjustified Fact (UF):
Justified Fact (JF):
Irrefutable Fact (IF):

I think youll need to clarify again, exactly what you mean here. Is this categorization mainly about what is true about reality or is it more about how we form our beliefs or something else?

[The Tanager]

Correct, if theism is true, then physical reality is a subjective reality given the established philosophical definitions of "objectivity" and "subjectivity." Even though it wasn't being asserted, that is the logical conclusion of the argument for theism, and intellectual honesty should compel theists to acknowledge and accept it. Using proprietary definitions for "objective" and "subjective" in an attempt to avoid this absurd outcome is both logically fallacious and intellectually dishonest.

Can you give sources for these established philosophical definitions? I dont think that is how the traditional philosophical literature uses these terms. Most theists are never accused of believing physical reality is a subjective feature.

In any case, the concept of "value" that is featured in your proprietary definitions is also unavoidably subjective. Furthermore, a "standard of value" is a misleading phrase because it is not based on an objective standard but on an agreement between two or more agents who share a subjective value for a thing.

Why? I appealed to Oxford Languages, which doesnt connect it with subjectivity. What source are you appealing to to get your definition?

Therefore, given your proprietary definition of "objective," no thing originating from the mind of a god can be objective because the standard of value is coming from the mind of a god who is claimed to be a moral agent and the minds of theists as moral agents who agree to share that subjective value. Accordingly, theistic morality is subjective, even according to your own proprietary definition of "subjective."

I cant see where you are getting this from. How does my definition of objective [i.e., where the standard of value lies outside of the minds of those beings talked about as moral agents] make it so God being the standard is definitionally subjective? Humans are the moral agents. God is the source outside of the minds of all moral agents that is the standard of value. By my definitions, God is an objective source for human morality.

[bluegreenearth]

I cant see where you are getting this from. How does my definition of objective [i.e., where the standard of value lies outside of the minds of those beings talked about as moral agents] make it so God being the standard is definitionally subjective? Humans are the moral agents. God is the source outside of the minds of all moral agents that is the standard of value. By my definitions, God is an objective source for human morality.

To exempt a god from being a moral agent is special pleading. Sure, under your theistic model, a god's morality lies outside your mind. However, it doesn't lie outside the god's mind. Therefore, morality is inherently subjective. To adopt a god's subjective morality as your standard is your subjective choice, but it doesn't logically follow that anyone else ought to make the same choice.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #285]

I think Gods influence comes in both ways. As to your view, what is the difference between your view and the view of an atheist who says we are morally influenced through our subjective experiences? What does adding GOD to it do? What point is there to call it GOD, if GOD doesnt add anything beyond what the experience itself would?

I think we've found significant common ground on a few key aspects, particularly the subjective nature of GODs interaction with human experience. We both agree that GOD influences morality in a way that is deeply intertwined with human consciousness, working through our experiences rather than simply imposing external, objective rules.

This shared understanding recognizes that morality grows through personal and subjective experiences, and that this interaction doesnt necessarily require a personified, objective image of GOD. In fact, from my perspective, theres no need for GOD to be imagined as an objective agent for this moral guidance to be valid or real. This fluid, contextual presence of GOD aligns more with the way human beings experience growth and moral development.

Where we may differ, and where our discussion could focus, is on whether GODs influence also acts in an external, objective way. You seem to hold that GOD influences morality both subjectively and objectively. In contrast, I see GODs influence as working within and through subjective experiences exclusively, without the need for a rigid, objective framework.

In terms of atheists, I see them as either ignorant, willfully resistant, or incapable of connecting morality to any sense of GODwhether external or internal. Their focus is entirely on human-centered explanations for morality, which is a major point of distinction between my view and theirs.

By highlighting these areas of agreement and difference, we can hopefully move forward in understanding how subjective and experiential influences shape our views of morality and GODs role in it.

Weve established that the Ten Commandments align with what youre referring to as objective morality, which I appreciate as a clear example of your stance. Now, Id like to shift the conversation to how we might categorize the story of how the Ten Commandments were received. I believe this is essential because it touches on the foundation of the authority behind these moral guidelines.

I propose that we consider this in terms of three types of claims:

Unjustified Fact (UF): A claim that is presented as fact but lacks sufficient evidence or justification.
Justified Fact (JF): A claim that is supported by sufficient evidence, making it reasonable to accept as true.
Irrefutable Fact (IF): A claim that is so well-supported that it is beyond reasonable doubt.

I think its important to clarify whether we treat the story of the Ten Commandments being handed down by GOD as a UF or JF. This categorization is essential because it influences how we interpret the commandments themselveswhether we view them as divinely inspired or as a product of human culture and subjective experience.

Would you agree to treat the story of the Ten Commandments as a Justified Fact (JF), or would you argue that it remains an Unjustified Fact (UF) in light of the available evidence?

[The Tanager]

To exempt a god from being a moral agent is special pleading.

No, it isnt. I actually havent said anything about whether God is a moral agent or not. That would still be an open question. Im not saying I dont have a view there, but just that I havent even addressed that issue one way or the other. We are talking about human morality and whether the source of this morality is objective or subjective to the moral agents involved (i.e., humans).

Sure, under your theistic model, a god's morality lies outside your mind. However, it doesn't lie outside the god's mind.

Just that morality lies outside of some mind isnt what makes it objective. In your view, my morality lies outside of your mind, but that doesnt make you an objectivist about morality.

Therefore, morality is inherently subjective.

What you said before this isnt sound, so this doesnt logically follow.

To adopt a god's subjective morality as your standard is your subjective choice, but it doesn't logically follow that anyone else ought to make the same choice.

I agree. Neither does it logically follow that anyone else ought to believe the earth is spherical because I have adopted that belief.

[The Tanager]

I think we've found significant common ground on a few key aspects, particularly the subjective nature of GODs interaction with human experience. We both agree that GOD influences morality in a way that is deeply intertwined with human consciousness, working through our experiences rather than simply imposing external, objective rules.

To make sure it wasnt misunderstood, I think God influences our moral opinions through our subjective experiences, including experiencing the logical nature of an objective moral law. I dont think the moral rules change because of our subjective growth/degrowth in understanding.

In fact, from my perspective, theres no need for GOD to be imagined as an objective agent for this moral guidance to be valid or real.

This is the confusing bit. If GOD isnt objectively external in some way, then the moral guidance is really just from ourselves. This was the point I was trying to get at with talk about the difference between an atheist and you. I realize there are differences; Im saying that without a GOD who is, in some sense, other than yourself, whats the point of calling that GOD at all?

Would you agree to treat the story of the Ten Commandments as a Justified Fact (JF), or would you argue that it remains an Unjustified Fact (UF) in light of the available evidence?

I would say it is a JF.