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.

[William]

According to Sir Richard, he would rather be living in a Cultural Christian society than any other, so it is more acceptable to him.
Elon also seems to be thriving...

...because of a society which is "culturally Christian", or because of a society which allows a small number of individuals to become obscenely wealthy and many to starve?

[Replying to William in post #46]

Which do you think it is and why?

Also, which would you rather it be?

This is definitely the latter kind of society. The proof is everywhere.

Yes - but would you rather a small number of individuals become obscenely wealthy and many to starve, or would you prefer something different? (perhaps a system of parity)

I would rather no particular religion be exclusively credited with whatever beneficence there is in the culture.

What benefits are you referring to?

[Purple Knight]

Just to clarify, the black swan fallacy is to show that a claim that goes against the general evidence has not equal weight, but that the general evidence is not 100% proof (white swans were the norm, but black swans existed even though we knew about them, but a claim there were black swans was not a credible one until verified, just as a claim that blue or red swans exist is valid). This means that appeal to unknowns or unverified undisprovables have no validity.

I think we suffer from the assumption of modern information here. We have the internet, photos and videos are everywhere, and if there were really blue swans somebody probably would have caught one on camera by now.

But only 50 years ago I'd probably have said, well, we know there are black and white swans, and we know about cardinals and bluebirds (bluebirds are not blue but iridescently blue, but let's ignore that for now) so the claim that there are no red or blue swans is extraordinary. The claim that there are no gods, is not just "Jehovah doesn't exist" but Zeus doesn't exist, Wematanye doesn't exist, and anything we would rightly call a god doesn't exist. That is at least as extraordinary as "Jehovah exists" or "Jesus rose from the dead."

I'm admitting those are both extraordinary and probably not true. But "nothing that can rightly be called a god exists," is also extraordinary and probably not true.

You can't disprove that magical things happen, you can just say they probably don't. Maybe Jesus did walk on water or raise the dead. For all we know, we'll someday be able to raise the dead and walk on water too. Yesterday's magic is tomorrow's science, if we're making progress. If we're regressing, yesterday's science will be tomorrow's magic. Curtains come down, versus more curtains go up. Maybe when all the curtains come down, there's still magic.

This would be true if there is no natural/supernatural split in reality. Do you have any good support for that conclusion?

No. I admitted that when all curtains come down, there might still be magic. What I can say is that not everything we thought was magic when we knew nothing, turned out to be magic, so it's a good bet (because we still don't know everything) that we still have some curtains to pull down and some false magic to bring into the light and figure out what actually makes it tick.

Why would the existence of the supernatural mean that God believes in might makes right? Could you explain the moves you are making there more?

What I'm saying is, if it's all true, miracles to me are a red flag. Not miracles are a red flag to say none of it is true. Miracles are a red flag against God if it's all true. Because why is he throwing his supernatural weight around? Why not just teach right from wrong without miracles? It's still truly right and wrong, isn't it?

No mythical! Someone that has never gotten a single thing wrong is mythical.

We should probably unpack this because we're talking about like six things here, all of which are correctly called mistakes.

And you are claiming you have met (not just one, but a few) who have never made any of the listed mistakes since the day they were born.

Anyway, since you admit such a claim is a guess on your part and cannot be verified or corroborated, I cannot see how this can be the basis of a logical debate.

"Every last person has made a mistake" is also a guess.

And if you really, really, really want to go there about infantile life fully counting, let's go there. My person who has never made a mistake ever, is a newborn baby 0 minutes old.

[The Tanager]

No. I admitted that when all curtains come down, there might still be magic. What I can say is that not everything we thought was magic when we knew nothing, turned out to be magic, so it's a good bet (because we still don't know everything) that we still have some curtains to pull down and some false magic to bring into the light and figure out what actually makes it tick.

Okay, when you said "You can't disprove that magical things happen, you can just say they probably don't," the "probably" part threw me. I don't think one can even say it is probable that "magical things" don't happen without assuming (or supporting) naturalism as true.

What I'm saying is, if it's all true, miracles to me are a red flag. Not miracles are a red flag to say none of it is true. Miracles are a red flag against God if it's all true. Because why is he throwing his supernatural weight around? Why not just teach right from wrong without miracles? It's still truly right and wrong, isn't it?

I don't think the miracles in the Bible are directly about right/wrong, but about calling people towards trusting in God (which will indirectly affect views of right/wrong).

[Purple Knight]

No. I admitted that when all curtains come down, there might still be magic. What I can say is that not everything we thought was magic when we knew nothing, turned out to be magic, so it's a good bet (because we still don't know everything) that we still have some curtains to pull down and some false magic to bring into the light and figure out what actually makes it tick.

Okay, when you said "You can't disprove that magical things happen, you can just say they probably don't," the "probably" part threw me. I don't think one can even say it is probable that "magical things" don't happen without assuming (or supporting) naturalism as true.

If, every time or almost every time, something has seemed fantastical to you, and then turned out to be totally explainable, you can get to "magic probably doesn't happen" just by experience.

What I'm saying is, if it's all true, miracles to me are a red flag. Not miracles are a red flag to say none of it is true. Miracles are a red flag against God if it's all true. Because why is he throwing his supernatural weight around? Why not just teach right from wrong without miracles? It's still truly right and wrong, isn't it?

I don't think the miracles in the Bible are directly about right/wrong, but about calling people towards trusting in God (which will indirectly affect views of right/wrong).

That's what I'm getting at. There's an assumption that you should trust people more if they have supernatural powers. Why on Earth would you do that? They might be a supervillain. Power is not the same as righteousness. If you think it is, you've already lost because you're a weak human without any strong supernatural abilities.

If you would go, "Oh look at him regenerating blind people to sightedness and coming back from the dead, God would not vest such power in someone unrighteous," then that puts you in an uncomfortable place when you see white people mowing down Native Americans with guns they have, and the Native Americans do not. You must then say, well, God wouldn't let those people get guns unless he was on their side. And maybe the people mowing them down did think that. Maybe they thought, those people are primitive because God doesn't favour them, they must be evil then. But this is not how the world works. Might does not make right. And this is true whether your might is a gun, a tank, or telekinesis.

[JehovahsWitness]

"Every last person has made a mistake" is also a guess.

No its an extrapolation based on observable reality. This is why we don't walk off cliffs, speculating that since we have not interviewed every human on earth, there might be one "a few" that can defy the laws of gravity. Nor do we conclude that despite not claiming to do so, and no evidence to support the idea, our local postman can fly.



JW

[TRANSPONDER]

Just to clarify, the black swan fallacy is to show that a claim that goes against the general evidence has not equal weight, but that the general evidence is not 100% proof (white swans were the norm, but black swans existed even though we knew about them, but a claim there were black swans was not a credible one until verified, just as a claim that blue or red swans exist is valid). This means that appeal to unknowns or unverified undisprovables have no validity.

I think we suffer from the assumption of modern information here. We have the internet, photos and videos are everywhere, and if there were really blue swans somebody probably would have caught one on camera by now.

But only 50 years ago I'd probably have said, well, we know there are black and white swans, and we know about cardinals and bluebirds (bluebirds are not blue but iridescently blue, but let's ignore that for now) so the claim that there are no red or blue swans is extraordinary. The claim that there are no gods, is not just "Jehovah doesn't exist" but Zeus doesn't exist, Wematanye doesn't exist, and anything we would rightly call a god doesn't exist. That is at least as extraordinary as "Jehovah exists" or "Jesus rose from the dead."

I'm admitting those are both extraordinary and probably not true. But "nothing that can rightly be called a god exists," is also extraordinary and probably not true.

''' (cut as i don#t want to invade tanager's post)It's a small but valid point I think to distinguish between an unknown possibility (like a blue, or color neither white nor black) variety of swan, and of course the more the 'unknown' is reduced the less of a gap for God, or in this case a gap for a red or blue swan becomes. This works in all ways like the more we know about ancient history, the less likely it is that the Exodus was a real event, and the same with the Disappearing God' which has to be pushed beyond what we know into whatever gaps remains.

So if a different species of swan is not an extraordinary claim but an unproven one, meaning it is not believable, but can't be entirely ruled out, on a sliding scale of probaility, depending on what we know, and an extraordinary claim like a variety of fire - breathing swan existing, which is contrary to all the science we know.

Thus a resurrection is an extraordinary claim, because 'miracles don't happen'. It's just useful in my mind to use a particular ter, with a particular meaning, so as to avoid confusing the unproven with the scientifically impossible or at least very improbable.

[The Tanager]

If, every time or almost every time, something has seemed fantastical to you, and then turned out to be totally explainable, you can get to "magic probably doesn't happen" just by experience.

That seems to ignore background information and how that plays into probability in specific cases.

That's what I'm getting at. There's an assumption that you should trust people more if they have supernatural powers. Why on Earth would you do that? They might be a supervillain. Power is not the same as righteousness. If you think it is, you've already lost because you're a weak human without any strong supernatural abilities.

It depends on how one is throwing their supernatural weight around, though. We shouldnt assume we can trust those with supernatural powers or mistrust them. Its more about the context in which it is done. I think the miracle stories of the Bible, if true, give reason to trust in a loving God versus the alternative.

If you would go, "Oh look at him regenerating blind people to sightedness and coming back from the dead, God would not vest such power in someone unrighteous," then that puts you in an uncomfortable place when you see white people mowing down Native Americans with guns they have, and the Native Americans do not. You must then say, well, God wouldn't let those people get guns unless he was on their side. And maybe the people mowing them down did think that. Maybe they thought, those people are primitive because God doesn't favour them, they must be evil then. But this is not how the world works. Might does not make right. And this is true whether your might is a gun, a tank, or telekinesis.

I agree with you that might doesnt make right; I just dont see how miracles are an example of might makes right. The Bible certainly kicks against the view that prosperity (money, military power, a comfortable life, etc.) is evidence of Gods favor.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to William in post #51]

Yes - but would you rather a small number of individuals become obscenely wealthy and many to starve, or would you prefer something different? (perhaps a system of parity)

Can you make a case for the former over the latter?

And if "Cultural Christianity" is the way to go, would you endorse Christian Socialism?

[Purple Knight]

"Every last person has made a mistake" is also a guess.

No its an extrapolation based on observable reality.

Is it because every last person you know and have observed for a reasonable length of time, has made a mistake in your observation, or because they, also, humbly chant this quasi-religious, "everybody makes mistakes" mantra and thereby admit to having made mistakes themselves? I get worse fed up with atheists though, who in the context of their atheism will say that they don't take anything on faith, then just go with the group claim without trying to verify it, on something like this.

And what kind of mistakes are you talking about? Because I'm not counting typos. The idea that we have to get down on our knees because our typos make God very angry, and beg him for forgiveness, and that Jesus died as a blood sacrifice for our horrible unforgivable typos so we could get that forgiveness, is ludicrous.

This is why we don't walk off cliffs, speculating that since we have not interviewed every human on earth, there might be one "a few" that can defy the laws of gravity. Nor do we conclude that despite not claiming to do so, and no evidence to support the idea, our local postman can fly.

I agree. After observing him for a long time, and he's never flown, it's a reasonable assumption that the postman can't fly. As long as you don't start from "everybody makes mistakes" is some sort of universal law like gravity, and you go from nothing and observe, you won't be very convinced of this supposed law.

But you know, gravity is a very good analogy for it. Because entropy does pull on everything, making it messier. And to preserve order you have to push back. It's just like gravity really. And most things can't fly for that reason. But some can. And people said man could never make a machine good enough to make him fly, but then he did.

[Purple Knight]

It's a small but valid point I think to distinguish between an unknown possibility (like a blue, or color neither white nor black) variety of swan, and of course the more the 'unknown' is reduced the less of a gap for God, or in this case a gap for a red or blue swan becomes. This works in all ways like the more we know about ancient history, the less likely it is that the Exodus was a real event, and the same with the Disappearing God' which has to be pushed beyond what we know into whatever gaps remains.

So if a different species of swan is not an extraordinary claim but an unproven one, meaning it is not believable, but can't be entirely ruled out, on a sliding scale of probability, depending on what we know, and an extraordinary claim like a variety of fire - breathing swan existing, which is contrary to all the science we know.

The fact that "blue swans exist" is in this particular zone of not verified but not really able to be ruled out unless we have a lot of information (which we happen to) means that blue swans do not exist is extraordinary.

Thus a resurrection is an extraordinary claim, because 'miracles don't happen'. It's just useful in my mind to use a particular term, with a particular meaning, so as to avoid confusing the unproven with the scientifically impossible or at least very improbable.

If we do manage to resurrect people, this changes though. I do agree with it, but this is what Christians will seize upon if we do ever resurrect people. They will then say, aha, we always knew it was all true, you just needed to catch up.