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]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #226]

God thinks it is wrong to beat up someone for being homosexual.

What evidence can you give to support that this is the case?

Because humans were designed with a nature that can be damaged and a purpose to treat other humans as valuable images of God that should not be damaged.

Again, what evidence can you give to support these assumptions?

What makes you think that the human form is made in GODs image? (That would mean GOD would have a human looking form too).
It could just as well be that what GOD is interested in not being damaged is that which experiences being human - the mind could be what is meant by the image of GOD. That would adequately explain the subjective nature of morality. Why humans (regardless of religious or non religious beliefs) bring morality into the world through the human form.

God was responsible for that being the case and, therefore, grounds objective morality.

This assumes GOD is an objective reality. Why should we assume that, instead of accepting that GOD is a subjective reality?
Why do you think/believe that GOD has to be an objective reality?

But, again, this part of the discussion is about what would follow if theism (or naturalism) is true, not (1) if theism or naturalism is actually true or (2) which specific moral actions are good and evil.

But doesn't your position set the two against one another? If GOD is subjective, then why would either be untrue?

Why would a naturalist not harming another human be less true an action than a theist not harming another human, when the action gives the same result?

[TRANSPONDER]

Darned if I didn't post on this just now on another thread.

The morality argument is dead. The claim that our morality is based on God's nature (or what he put into us) is not only a faithclaim without any real validity, but doesn't even tell us which god gave us our moral code.

The Faithbased methodology is to try to rubbish or invalidate anything else other than 'God' as a possible argument, which is futile, as if we can't be sure of any human knowledge, then concluding that it isn't 'possible' (for any origin theory other than God) fails as well. We cannot know what is or is not possible. We know this with trying to dismiss Cosmic Origins, Life and consciousness as 'Impossible' with a god doing it,. and then we won't know which god.

But of course faithbased thinking does not work logically or even evidentially; it starts with idoctrinated faith c lims and dismisses any other possibility on good reasons, bad or no reasons, since we know the Best kind of faith is the one that believes a claim even if undeniably disproved.
Like the one that the Bible is a moral book and a good guide for human morals. It isn't, not even the NT.

Like the One Corinthian, 14. 34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

Paul was of course a man of his time, as well as being a cheat, liar and deceiver, which is why we might excuse this but we should not take it as a guide.

[The Tanager]

If the god happens to not exist in reality, is the mistaken belief in the god sufficient to logically justify the claim that one action is better than another? I'm trying to understand if you are arguing that objectivity is grounded in the god or grounded in theism.

The objectivity is grounded in God existing (and creating in a certain way), if God exists at all, not in theism as a belief held.

[The Tanager]

It could be any example. God thinks it is wrong to beat up someone for being homosexual.But, again, this part of the discussion is about what would follow if theism (or naturalism) is true, not (1) if theism or naturalism is actually true or (2) which specific moral actions are good and evil.

What evidence can you give to support that this is the case?

You are missing the point. The example doesnt matter. I have tried to tell you that, but you kept asking, so I offered one to see if you meant that in an unexpected way. It appears you dont. It could have been a completely opposite example: God thinks it is right to beat up someone for being homosexual. How is that wrong? Because rule following trumps all and humans were designed to be moral enforcers. God was responsible for that being the case, and therefore, grounds objective morality.

I have said nothing towards the issues of (1) and (2) above. [Or the others you ask in your latest post: that the human form is made in Gods image or not, that God is an objective truth or not]. Fine questions to ask, but not the ones I've been discussing.

But doesn't your position set the two against one another? If GOD is subjective, then why would either be untrue?

Why would a naturalist not harming another human be less true an action than a theist not harming another human, when the action gives the same result?

I havent been talking about that at all, either. Its about what follows if God exists (and if God doesnt), not any difference between naturalists and theists.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #234]

That still gets us no closer to what you mean by "objective morality".

You state:
"Because rule following trumps all and humans were designed to be moral enforcers."

It could be said that humans are designed to bring morals into the world (and thus enforce them) but this still doesn't give us an objective designer.

Even if we accept that the human form is the human being (as it appears you are saying) there is nothing in the design you have identified as objective morality.

You state:
"God was responsible for that being the case, and therefore, grounds objective morality."

How is that a "therefore", you do not say.

Why is it that you appear to be unable to explain how this works?

Are you simply saying that morality is objectified through the human instrument? If so, then how is that not a subjective process?

Even universally shared moral intuitions are still sourced within subjective human experiences and do not, by themselves, provide a basis for objective morality. They reflect common human tendencies, but these tendencies arise from subjective origins like biology, psychology, and socialization. For moral truths to be genuinely objective, they would need to be grounded in something external to and independent of human perception and experience.

Thus the argument is that GOD fits the bill as to that which is something external to and independent of human perception and experience.

The argument that God provides a foundation for objective morality is compelling for those who believe in a divine being who is external to and independent of human perception and experience. It offers a potential grounding for universal moral truths that transcend human subjectivity. However, it remains contingent on belief in God and the ability to interpret Gods will accurately, and it faces philosophical challenges such as the Euthyphro dilemma.

Since there is no GOD of that kind evident, if we are to assume GOD as the source of morality then we have to at least assume that GOD works through human subjectivity

If we assume that God works through human subjectivity, then moral intuitions, conscience, and collective human experience become the channels through which divine morality is expressed. This view does not require a traditional, external, and transcendent God but rather sees divine influence as intimately connected with human experience and moral development. It provides a framework where subjective moral experiences are respected as possible reflections of a deeper, objective moral order, even if this order is not directly accessible in a traditional sense.

[TRANSPONDER]

Not that I have been following this in detail, but it seems that our Moderating friend is doing the same inherently fallacious logic of assuming an intelligent designer (before we even get to which one) and trying to wangle everything we observe, and morality is still (mistakenly) considered by theists a gap for God, into being evidence of in intelligent designer. It is not and hasn't been several decades. But the theists keep trying to push the Morality= God argument.

[The Tanager]

That still gets us no closer to what you mean by "objective morality".

Here is an example driven attempt:

Absolute morality = the goodness/badness of an act does not depend on the situation (e.g., all stealing is bad or its opposite)

Relative morality = the goodness/badness of an act depends on the situation (e.g., its okay to steal if your family is starving to death)

Subjective morality = the goodness/badness of an act depends on the person (e.g., its okay for you to steal if your family is starving to death, but its not okay for me in that exact same situation)

Objective morality = the goodness/badness of an act does not depend on the person (e.g., anyone in the same situation can steal if their family is starving)

Youll probably notice that an objectivist can be either an absolutist or a relativist.

You state:
"God was responsible for that being the case, and therefore, grounds objective morality."

How is that a "therefore", you do not say.

Its not an A B kind of thing, but saying these are synonyms.

Why is it that you appear to be unable to explain how this works?

Perhaps I havent. Perhaps you havent been able to understand my explanations that others would be able to understand.

Are you simply saying that morality is objectified through the human instrument? If so, then how is that not a subjective process?

Im definitely not saying that.

For moral truths to be genuinely objective, they would need to be grounded in something external to and independent of human perception and experience.

Thus the argument is that GOD fits the bill as to that which is something external to and independent of human perception and experience.

Yes.

The argument that God provides a foundation for objective morality is compelling for those who believe in a divine being who is external to and independent of human perception and experience.

You are still conflating two distinct questions here. (1) If theism is true, would (or could) it lead to morality being objective and (2) should we believe in objective morality. Ive only been making arguments for (1), not (2). The discussion in (1) can be understood and accepted by both theists and naturalists without the naturalist becoming a theist. Thats because they are distinct questions.

If we assume that God works through human subjectivity, then moral intuitions, conscience, and collective human experience become the channels through which divine morality is expressed. This view does not require a traditional, external, and transcendent God but rather sees divine influence as intimately connected with human experience and moral development. It provides a framework where subjective moral experiences are respected as possible reflections of a deeper, objective moral order, even if this order is not directly accessible in a traditional sense.

I think I agree with this basic sentiment, but it is a distinct question than anything Ive been talking about. In this thread, Ive never said my theism is true or the only one that could give us objective morality. Ive never said your version of theism wouldnt lead to objective morality.

[The Tanager]

Not that I have been following this in detail, but it seems that our Moderating friend is doing the same inherently fallacious logic of assuming an intelligent designer (before we even get to which one)

Of course Im assuming an intelligent designer. Ive also assumed naturalism is true. Huh? Thats because Ive analyzed two main views rather than comparing the two against each other:

(1) if theism is true, then morality could be objective

(2) if naturalism is true, then morality would be subjective

Look at the bolded phrases. They both start with if. To analyze that statement, one is automatically assuming it is true. Thats the whole point of the discussion. And the answers to both say nothing about whether theism or naturalism is true.

and trying to wangle everything we observe,

What have I wangled? Get specific.

and morality is still (mistakenly) considered by theists a gap for God, into being evidence of in intelligent designer. It is not and hasn't been several decades. But the theists keep trying to push the Morality= God argument.

I have not made an argument for God from morality at all here. Not once.

[bluegreenearth]

(2) if naturalism is true, then morality would be subjective

What is the argument for the claim that morality would necessarily be subjective under naturalism?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #237]

Ive never said my theism is true or the only one that could give us objective morality. Ive never said your version of theism wouldnt lead to objective morality.

You still haven't explained what "objective morality" is let alone that anything would "lead" to it.

Until you do, I see no reason to accept whatever it is you are arguing and so, continue to accept that all morality is subjectively sourced.