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.

[Purple Knight]

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.

I think people should not ignore their own experiences in favour of what others tell them.

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.

Sending someone around healing people does suggest kindness. But the fact that he has these powers at all suggests otherwise. It feels like God is saying, "I am the giver of superpowers, so my morality must be right, listen to those who speak my words." It would be cleaner to me, morally, if God didn't feel like he had to give out powers and have them perform supernatural feats, to get people to listen. And it lays the groundwork for people who have more power (supernatural or not) thinking that God loves them more.

And I said nothing definitely. I admitted maybe it was necessary. I just said it was a red flag.

[JehovahsWitness]

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

No its an extrapolation based on observable reality.

. As long as you don't start from "everybody makes mistakes" is some sort of universal law like gravity...

However one chooses to catagorize it it is an accurate descriprion of the human condition, as inevitable as the pull of gravity.

[William]

[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?

Can you, since you are the one who brought this argument into the discussion.

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

I am not arguing for or against Cultural Christianity. You appear to be the one doing that.

So - - in relation to your protestations, would you rather a small number of individuals become obscenely wealthy and many to starve, or would you prefer something different?

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

There's the problem with reading the bible with a faithbased mindset. And I have done that myself - just accepted what everyone else did. Bit If the miracle - stories are 'true' (a record of what Jesus did) then the 'background', or context suggests that they were fakes done so as to impress the followers, Blind Bar - Timaeus and most notably the raising of Lazarus..in fact, they are all a bit fishy.

But If they didn't actually happen, then they tell us nothing about a god, loving or otherwise, but only about a bunch of frauds, writing lies in order to bamboozle people into Faith.

"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.

I get a bit fed up with Bible apologists in that their mindset - their Faith in fact gets in the way of thinking straight if it doesn't produce the result they want. Just look at 'atheists don't take anything on Faith', but then go with the consensus or 'groupthink', as you call it. Atheists rather follow evidence rather than faith, but theist apologists look for excuses to get around where the evidence points and even denial of what science (not groupthink) says if it doesn't suit the particular set of dogmas the believers have faith in.

If I followed the flying postman point correctly, it seems a problem with burden of proof again. When the norm is that people don't fly (unless with technical assistance of course) the burden of proof falls on the one who suggests there might be one or two who do. That is, we don't believe that claim until they verify it. This simple logic seems impossible for Theist apologists to grasp.

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

Those would both be fallacious reasoning and a problem, symptomatic of the inverted logic of religious apologetics. It doesn't matter whether one calls the claim of a blue or red swan unverified or 'extraordinary', the logic is that we do not say the sub - species is impossible (thus it is not 'extraordinary') but the claim is not believable until verified. The problem is always that a Believer (or dogmatist) seems to want Their unverified claim to be given credence and all the others not, aside from waving away evidence they don't care for on the grounds that nothing is 100% sure.

They can only do this is people lket them get away with it, and we do not teach critical thinking. We don't need to; just simple rules to stop being fooled.

Thus if Bible apologists try to pull the claim that the resurrection must be true (or credible) because science has managed to raise a corpse to life (which had darn near happened, sometimes) then it can be just countered with 'It did not happen then because they did not have the medical knowledge we do now'. They then will protest 'it was a miracle'. The we say 'Then the modern medicine is irrelevant to that miracle claim'.

Just because we can fly to the moon now does not verify old stories of a man carried to the moon in a blanket held by a team of swans.

[oldbadger]

Cultural Christian Definition = Anyone that believes that the teachings of Jesus are good and wise.

Surely a Cultural Christian would need to believe in the resurrection of Jesus......yes?

[TRANSPONDER]

Cultural Christian Definition = Anyone that believes that the teachings of Jesus are good and wise.

Surely a Cultural Christian would need to believe in the resurrection of Jesus......yes?

Evidently not, Dawkins says he is a cultural Christian but doesn't credit Christianity much.

I guess I'm culturally Christian, too, though I don'rt beleive much of it, and not the resurrection.

I'm also somewhat culturally Buddhist, though obviously came to it rather late.

Culture in fact has no permanent effect on what ones' beliefs are.

To use music as an example, Rimsky - Korsakov was not a Believer, yet his music drew on the religious music of Russia, as much as the folk music. Culture does not dictate what beliefs are.

[oldbadger]

Cultural Christian Definition = Anyone that believes that the teachings of Jesus are good and wise.

Surely a Cultural Christian would need to believe in the resurrection of Jesus......yes?

Evidently not, Dawkins says he is a cultural Christian but doesn't credit Christianity much.

I guess I'm culturally Christian, too, though I don'rt beleive much of it, and not the resurrection.

I'm also somewhat culturally Buddhist, though obviously came to it rather late.

Culture in fact has no permanent effect on what ones' beliefs are.

To use music as an example, Rimsky - Korsakov was not a Believer, yet his music drew on the religious music of Russia, as much as the folk music. Culture does not dictate what beliefs are.

Oh! I've got it!
This seems to be what I've always called 'small christians', people who attend baptisms, weddings and funerals where priests, pastors, padres, reverends and vicars usually attend but who don't get any more involved than that.

I suppose I was once a cultural hypocrite because my Father would take me straight to the pub (to the children's corner) after any of those occasions.

[William]

Cultural Christian Definition = Anyone that believes that the teachings of Jesus are good and wise.

Surely a Cultural Christian would need to believe in the resurrection of Jesus......yes?

According to?

The definition is simply enough.
"Anyone who believes that the teachings of Jesus are good and wise."
Apparently Richard and Elon think that is the case and therefore refer to themselves as "Cultural Christians."

I think that is a fair enough approach to the teachings of Jesus as portrayed through the Christian Bible, for those calling themselves "atheists" who live in Christian Societies.

In some ways it may even be regarded as a recognition that these Christian Societies altogether number the greater percentage and Sir Richard recognizes that he cannot hope to convert them all to atheism, but it is still an attempt of sorts to clarify that one is not against the idea that the teachings of Jesus are "good and wise" even while one is against the idea of the non good and wise actions of the religious institutions which altogether constitute Christian Society.

In that, one can argue that Elon is being good and wise/following the teachings of Jesus and taking advantage of what Christian Society has provided re a small number of individuals able to become "obscenely wealthy" (as Athetotheist put it) while the majority struggle with providing food and shelter - health and wellbeing for themselves.

Essentially, working with what has been made available to him through a social opportunity largely supported (through participation) by those calling themselves "Christians".

[Purple Knight]

If I followed the flying postman point correctly, it seems a problem with burden of proof again. When the norm is that people don't fly (unless with technical assistance of course) the burden of proof falls on the one who suggests there might be one or two who do. That is, we don't believe that claim until they verify it. This simple logic seems impossible for Theist apologists to grasp.

That's exactly what JW was saying, actually. I'm pushing back because yes, we all know postmen probably can't fly. Nobody has seen it, nobody has recorded it, it's quite reasonable at this point to say postmen can't fly. BUT...! This, "everybody makes mistakes" thing is only the norm in that people all seem to believe it and say it. I've seen people who I've observed for a long time and they never made a significant mistake (not like, a typo, like an error in judgment) in my observation. And this, also, is exactly like the flying postman. After observing something for a long time, and it never does that thing, we are justified in assuming it doesn't do that thing.

And "everybody makes mistakes" really pisses me off because it's an example of a religious idea that everybody just accepts and nobody questions, even if they claim to be reasoned, skeptical, thinking atheists. Atheism is gaining traction but at the same time, the better ideas that have led people to become atheists (before it was so popular) are losing traction. Never before has society claimed so strongly that it is reasoned, and been so far from it.

The idea that one should question what one is told was never championed for its own sake, but only because it was convenient, to get rid of the old moral establishment and install a new one, which of course now can't be questioned either.

What I was getting round to, though, is that the idea that everyone makes mistakes is absolutely necessary for Christians to believe or their worldview would fall apart: People should forgive others because they themselves need forgiveness, and hypothetically if someone never made a mistake, and didn't need to be forgiven, it would be totally righteous for them to be an absolute ogre to everyone else. What an awful idea; I reject it. If you're going to forgive someone, it should be because they need it, not because you do. It's not right to grab another slave and shake him for fifty cents, regardless of whether you owe your master fifty dollars or not.

Just because we can fly to the moon now does not verify old stories of a man carried to the moon in a blanket held by a team of swans.

I know, but I don't want anyone to feel I'm moving the bar. So I'm never going to hang my hat on, "That was never observed," especially if I think it'll be observed in the near future. I don't even think it's the resurrection or the superpowers that poke any holes in Christianity. It's God's behaviour that does.