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.

[The Tanager]

You should consider everything, but most people (I don't do this, but most do) have to make a decision about what we think is true and what isn't. If we have looked for blue swans, and not found any, the reasonable position is that there probably aren't any.

I agree. But we shouldnt say other animals cant be blue simply because we havent found any blue swans. That analogy is closer to the point I was making.

Because the only reason anyone listens to what Jesus said is that he performed miracles. Otherwise everyone preaching a moral shift, on a street corner, on an internet forum, everyone claiming that their way was moral, would have to be listened to. But we don't. We instead dismiss them. I can only think this is because they lack magical powers, and if not for his supernatural abilities, Jesus would have been one more crazyloo.

That is not the only reason anyone listens to Jesus. And many people dismiss Jesus today because of the claimed miracles, not because of the teaching. Also, we can judge between different moral claims, we dont have to listen to them all simply because they are moral.

And have you looked for prophets who embodied love on street corners? Or do you prefer Jesus without having listened to the local crazy? Now, if that local crazy had supernatural powers, you might take more notice, wouldn't you? You can say that's just getting your attention. But the question is, why does it do so? It doesn't do that for me. I'd be like okay he has superpowers. I have to reevaluate slightly what I thought was possible. But my assessment of the morality of what that guy says, will be exactly the same.

My reaction is the same as yours. Okay, they have supernatural powers, but that doesnt mean what they say is necessarily good. The same with Jesus; that's why I said go with Jesus because of his embodiment of love, not because of his supernatural abilities.

[TRANSPONDER]

You should consider everything, but most people (I don't do this, but most do) have to make a decision about what we think is true and what isn't. If we have looked for blue swans, and not found any, the reasonable position is that there probably aren't any.

I agree. But we shouldnt say other animals cant be blue simply because we havent found any blue swans. That analogy is closer to the point I was making.

Because the only reason anyone listens to what Jesus said is that he performed miracles. Otherwise everyone preaching a moral shift, on a street corner, on an internet forum, everyone claiming that their way was moral, would have to be listened to. But we don't. We instead dismiss them. I can only think this is because they lack magical powers, and if not for his supernatural abilities, Jesus would have been one more crazyloo.

That is not the only reason anyone listens to Jesus. And many people dismiss Jesus today because of the claimed miracles, not because of the teaching. Also, we can judge between different moral claims, we dont have to listen to them all simply because they are moral.

And have you looked for prophets who embodied love on street corners? Or do you prefer Jesus without having listened to the local crazy? Now, if that local crazy had supernatural powers, you might take more notice, wouldn't you? You can say that's just getting your attention. But the question is, why does it do so? It doesn't do that for me. I'd be like okay he has superpowers. I have to reevaluate slightly what I thought was possible. But my assessment of the morality of what that guy says, will be exactly the same.

My reaction is the same as yours. Okay, they have supernatural powers, but that doesnt mean what they say is necessarily good. The same with Jesus; that's why I said go with Jesus because of his embodiment of love, not because of his supernatural abilities.

No. Nono. No and No again. (Tove Johansson). Until a blue swan is proven there is no valid reason to propose it as a probability, never mind a life -changing fact. The miracle - claims of any religion raise eyebrows, so why should the ones in the Bible get a free pass? And morality is better left to human reason. At best, religious inspiration exhortations, like political rallies or football chants need practical methods to try to obtain results.

And other religious moral codes are not necessarily good, and that applies to the Bible, too. The exhortation to love is all very fine, but requires a bit of thought and in no way validated the Bible or the lifestyle advice of Jesus, which we do not actually find it convenient to follow.

[The Tanager]

No. Nono. No and No again. (Tove Johansson). Until a blue swan is proven there is no valid reason to propose it as a probability, never mind a life -changing fact.

I completely agree.

The miracle - claims of any religion raise eyebrows, so why should the ones in the Bible get a free pass?

They shouldnt and Ive never said otherwise.

And morality is better left to human reason.

I agree. And human reason shows that atheistic worldviews cannot ground good and evil rationally.

And other religious moral codes are not necessarily good, and that applies to the Bible, too.

I agree.

The exhortation to love is all very fine, but requires a bit of thought and in no way validated the Bible or the lifestyle advice of Jesus, which we do not actually find it convenient to follow.

Convenience has nothing to do with truth. I didn't claim Jesus' exhortation to love validated the Bible or his lifestyle advice.

[Purple Knight]

So you touched on 2 points, that Jesus did miracles, so we should believe he was divine. As I say, the veracity of the gospel story is questioned and should be questioned a darn sight more than it is.

The other is that Gospel morality is good in itself. This is also open to question, because really, we are using humanist morals to evaluate Gospel morality as valid. In terms of faith, Islamic morality has as much claim even if we think it flawed, because 'Who are we to question God?" If Allah says Quranic morality is right, then human morals should align with that, as it aligned with slavery in the Bible before 1860.

Shouting about Love is all very well, and we all get the pink fuzzy feelings which they think are Jesus in their hearts, when what they have is a blood pumping mechanism (You may trust me on this ). The temptation to do chlidlike faith and consider it rather a nasty and wicked thing to do to ask someone to wake up and smell the coffee is well understood, and we sympathise. But remain unintimidated by emotional blackmail. (3)
But it is not good reasoning or rationale, and the fact is that it doing nobody any favors to keep up belief that Santa brings the presents when one has got past the age of 8

P.s. the Santa analogy is as valid as the Blue or red swan, but god - apologists never get it. In my experience, they look for irrelevant nit - picks or evasions, and I still don't know whether they they are being deliberately evasive or they don't know they are....and, as usual I already know the answer - logic and evidence (even if wrong and twisted) only are there to serve the Faith.

I actually don't think Santa works as a good analogy for God because the most hardline counter-skeptic would learn there was no Santa once he leanrt he had to wrap his children's presents himself. Santa is a deliberate deception anyone can gain perfect evidence of. God is... probably a deception... but at very least not in every instance deliberate. And it's not claimed that he does anything (like bring presents) which we can that easily and perfectly disprove.

But you have a very good point about using humanist morals to evaluate Biblical morals. If the go-by really is faith, we still have to have judgment first, to decide what to have faith in. So the go-by must still be our own judgment.

[Purple Knight]

I agree. But we shouldnt say other animals cant be blue simply because we havent found any blue swans. That analogy is closer to the point I was making.

Okay, but it's still the case that if you've looked for a blue animal for a long time and never found one, you're going to have to decide there probably aren't any.

My reaction is the same as yours. Okay, they have supernatural powers, but that doesnt mean what they say is necessarily good. The same with Jesus; that's why I said go with Jesus because of his embodiment of love, not because of his supernatural abilities.

So if Jesus had done exactly what he had done, tipped the tables, protested something which was wrong, been sentenced to death, but never had any powers and didn't rise from the dead, you'd still worship him? Not just go with his teachings, but worship him? Because lots of people without powers die as martyrs. The singular reason Jesus is so venerated above those others does seem to be that he had powers.

And many people dismiss Jesus today because of the claimed miracles, not because of the teaching.

I know they do. But they shouldn't be doing that; it's almost worse than trusting someone because of miracles. Tell them I hate them.

[TRANSPONDER]

No. Nono. No and No again. (Tove Johansson). Until a blue swan is proven there is no valid reason to propose it as a probability, never mind a life -changing fact.

I completely agree.

The miracle - claims of any religion raise eyebrows, so why should the ones in the Bible get a free pass?

They shouldnt and Ive never said otherwise.

And morality is better left to human reason.

I agree. And human reason shows that atheistic worldviews cannot ground good and evil rationally.

And other religious moral codes are not necessarily good, and that applies to the Bible, too.

I agree.

The exhortation to love is all very fine, but requires a bit of thought and in no way validated the Bible or the lifestyle advice of Jesus, which we do not actually find it convenient to follow.

Convenience has nothing to do with truth. I didn't claim Jesus' exhortation to love validated the Bible or his lifestyle advice.

So, largely we are on the same page. The problem is the usual one - Faithbased assumptions. This one being that there ought to be some kind of natural (apart from human construct) basis for morality (good and evil). And atheism, or rather material naturalism, cannot provide this.
It can. Inasmuch as an instinct for natural well being (survival, sustenance and safety) can be accounted for by evolution. Social instincts are observed in animals. Humans developed society (farming, and then communities) as they developed tool - making and language. We do not need to invoke religions and Holy Books as accounting for this (though the earlier peoples did) and morals and ethics (a more sophisticated view than the rather childish good and evil as cosmic laws, never mind personifications) is better understood as an ongoing evolution, like technology and science, rather than a perfectly designed system that somehow it is our fault that we fail to understand and apply.

Morals and ethics is in our own hands, and is better served by understanding what we are, not by letting ourselves be told legends like pandora's box or Eden as placeholders for our ignorance, these days, wilful rather than unavoidable.

[The Tanager]

Okay, but it's still the case that if you've looked for a blue animal for a long time and never found one, you're going to have to decide there probably aren't any.

Absolutely. But if someone is saying "here is some evidence for a blue animal" and you respond back something like "but since all the other evidence Ive seen says there arent blue animals, I must reject that", thats not rational. That was the point I was making.

So if Jesus had done exactly what he had done, tipped the tables, protested something which was wrong, been sentenced to death, but never had any powers and didn't rise from the dead, you'd still worship him? Not just go with his teachings, but worship him? Because lots of people without powers die as martyrs. The singular reason Jesus is so venerated above those others does seem to be that he had powers.

We were talking about why trust what Jesus taught, now you are asking about believing Jesus was God or not. Those are two different issues. The resurrection from the dead is a good reason to believe Jesus is who he said he was. It's not, alone, a good reason to side with his moral stance.

[The Tanager]

So, largely we are on the same page. The problem is the usual one - Faithbased assumptions. This one being that there ought to be some kind of natural (apart from human construct) basis for morality (good and evil).

What do you mean by morality (good and evil)? I think objective good and evil cant be gained from a natural basis, but subjective preferences can certainly be gained from a natural basis. But calling subjective preferences good/evil or right/wrong is completely unhelpful.

And atheism, or rather material naturalism, cannot provide this.
It can. Inasmuch as an instinct for natural well being (survival, sustenance and safety) can be accounted for by evolution. Social instincts are observed in animals. Humans developed society (farming, and then communities) as they developed tool - making and language.

Material naturalism can give us subjective preferences as to what "well-being" consists of, but not objectivity. It can give us that it is good for "us" to survive, be sustained, and be safe, but it cant tell us who is included in the "us" or what it means to thrive as a species. If humans had evolved like praying mantises, wed say it is "good" for the female to kill their mate, but we think differently.

Morals and ethics is in our own hands, and is better served by understanding what we are, not by letting ourselves be told legends like pandora's box or Eden as placeholders for our ignorance, these days, wilful rather than unavoidable.

If morals and ethics are in our own hands then there is no such thing as "better"; its only different. That is what material naturalism logically leads to.

[TRANSPONDER]

So, largely we are on the same page. The problem is the usual one - Faithbased assumptions. This one being that there ought to be some kind of natural (apart from human construct) basis for morality (good and evil).

What do you mean by morality (good and evil)? I think objective good and evil cant be gained from a natural basis, but subjective preferences can certainly be gained from a natural basis. But calling subjective preferences good/evil or right/wrong is completely unhelpful.

And atheism, or rather material naturalism, cannot provide this.
It can. Inasmuch as an instinct for natural well being (survival, sustenance and safety) can be accounted for by evolution. Social instincts are observed in animals. Humans developed society (farming, and then communities) as they developed tool - making and language.

Material naturalism can give us subjective preferences as to what "well-being" consists of, but not objectivity. It can give us that it is good for "us" to survive, be sustained, and be safe, but it cant tell us who is included in the "us" or what it means to thrive as a species. If humans had evolved like praying mantises, wed say it is "good" for the female to kill their mate, but we think differently.

Morals and ethics is in our own hands, and is better served by understanding what we are, not by letting ourselves be told legends like pandora's box or Eden as placeholders for our ignorance, these days, wilful rather than unavoidable.

If morals and ethics are in our own hands then there is no such thing as "better"; its only different. That is what material naturalism logically leads to.

You are still doing it wrong and for the usual reasons. Well...two. Ignoring unwelcome evidence. In this case that survival and instinctive preferences for well - being is all nature needs to provide, and tribal, then social demands results in the evolution of an ethical construct as in any other human development. God has no more to do with it than in science, technology, literature or sport.

Right and wrong here means correct on evidence and logic. There is a right way to do that, and a wrong. Wrong is in multiplying logical entities without good reason. (Parsimony or Occam's razor) this is right, if unhelpful to theists efforts to make morality a gap for God. Name your own, anyway, as such arguments are unhelpful to any particular religion.

The other wrong thing (again) is looking for objectivity. There is none. No more than objectivity in any other humans construct, like art, literature, technology and sport

The rules have to be observed (somewhat) to make it work, or objectivity lies in what is discovered, like metallurgy, architectural stresses, principles of flight or health and medicine.

So ethics is a mix of logic and game rules; we observe the rules to play the game of happy Societies. That is all the objectivity it is valid to demand. Demanding Cosmic rules of ethic is unhelpful at best, trying to make a gap for a god at worst.

'Better' is what contributes to our survival and well being. What is pleasing to us is the innate instinct that needs no god and demanding there be some cosmic physics or a divine creator of what suits us best is the ultimate in faithbased delusion.

Morality hasn't been an argument for theism since the nineties, and yet the religious and theists apologists keep doing it.

cue... mpan, whine, complain.

."Yes, I know..it isn't perfect". Human efforts is never perfect. It evolves, makes mistakes tries to cope with wrong turns and mistakes. it is Unhelpful (at best) to want to junk it all and turn to old books that really have outlived their usefulness.

[The Tanager]

'Better' is what contributes to our survival and well being.

Okay, what does well-being consist of?