Hacker News Reader

Comment by relyio | Hacker News Reader

I was explaining this point of view to a good old aunt of mine one afternoon and she exclaimed: “But, Joe, it is so selfish for a man to put his work ahead of everything! It’s unchristian.”

“On the contrary, it is Christian in the very finest sense,” I replied. “What was it that Jesus said when his parents rebuked him for his failure to keep his engagement with them on that first journey down from Jerusalem? ‘Wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?’ He demanded. He had work to do — great work and little time in which to do it. Even He was no exception to the eternal rule that achievement comes only through the subordination of every power to a great ideal; and that no man is really obliging who does not first discharge in full his obligations to his work.”

View on HN

These types of arguments on whether something is or isn't Christian or so prevalent on my FB feed, especially in regards to current politics, even being posted by non-Christians trying to convince their Christian relatives and friends to renounce a policy or politician.

My take would be - this is arguing within a nonsensical framework, and we are prolonging the hopefully last stages of the superstitious demon-haunted world era of humanity.

You seem very secure in the belief that, once the "demons" of which you speak are gone, naught but pure cool reason will replace them. One can only assume such optimism stems from a complete ignorance of history.

One can be secure in the belief that a battle is worth fighting, even if nobody has ever one one before. Our future is not determined only by our history.

Whence came you by this remarkable idea that the battle against religion has never been won before? - not permanently, to be sure, but nothing else ever ends, and why should this?

I find little in the results of past such victories to recommend the conflict be reopened. Should you care to take the time, I'd be interested to hear what leads you to view the matter so differently.

I didn't say it hasn't been won before, only that it doesn't matter whether or not it has.

Anyway, what leads me to view the matter differently is that I do not simply look to the past to inform me of what will be effective tomorrow. I also look to the potential that flourishes in microcosms of today. And to the increasing efficacy of our culture's ability to promote and propagate the valuable ideas of individuals and small groups. How we communicate today distinctly different than in the past, and it opens some doors in a big way. And it is far too soon to say whether this is a good or bad thing, so we may as well do what we can to ensure it is a good thing.

You might believe war doesn't ever change, but it can change quite quickly when a new weapon is developed. More importantly, even if the victory is temporary, the results of a temporary enlightenment can guide the development of society for ages after the war has been lost. Greek democracy failed, but still lessons where learned. Enlightenments wane, but the world is a brighter place even so.

Yet the belief persists that there can be such a thing as a single, unitary culture, somehow satisfactory to all. But perhaps you're right that this idea actually is amenable to simple reason and persuasion, and it's a mere accident of history that, in every prior case where it's been at issue, the issue has eventually been decided by means of force.

Well, firstly, the ability to make rationally optimal decisions is not merely a matter of cultural preference. Promoting the ability to make decisions which marginalize errors generally - under arbitrary goals - does not inhibit anyone from having a satisfying culture. Rationalism doesn't choose your goals, it determines the optimal way to achieve them. Now, it does inhibit people from participating in a culture which promotes their death as some 'ideal' state of being, as most religions that promote an idyllic afterlife do.

I mean, if you put me on a raft out in the ocean and ask me whether we should shoot and eat the Christian or the Atheist, I'm going to ask "which one of them asserts their death will result in a state of unending glory and euphoria while preserving the 'existence' of their mental state?" Because that's the one that should be killed. And these kinds of biases pile up over the long term, leaving a distinct mark of fragility and unnecessary risk on the entire culture. You have ability to choose that, but I cannot advocate that you ever should.

Secondly, it is not a historical accident that this issue has been decided by force. It is not even really true; far more violence has been carried out in the name of spreading religion than has been in the name of eliminating it. And again, this is of little relevance anyway, because the past has been more violent in general, and we have better understood and more widely available means of achieving goals through peace today than any time in human history.

> if you put me on a raft out in the ocean and ask me whether we should shoot and eat the Christian or the Atheist, I'm going to ask "which one of them asserts their death will result in a state of unending glory and euphoria while preserving the 'existence' of their mental state?" Because that's the one that should be killed

See what I mean when I talk about progressivism? Heretical it may be, but the truth of God shines through nonetheless. For all the wrong reasons, from all the wrong priors - you misunderstand the nature of death and that which follows after, and the nature of life and what it means to follow Christ - yet we still come up with precisely the same answer: "This is my body, which is given for you."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com