Returning to Church won't save us from nihilism(thereader.mitpress.mit.edu)
thereader.mitpress.mit.edu
Returning to Church won't save us from nihilism
https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/returning-to-church-wont-save-us-from-nihilism/
86 comments
The ancient Greek model assumes a common end but in practice there were many conflicts demonstrating the ends were conflicting. The model itself is like the ideal form. Suggesting that western politics adopt this model when the current state of things opposes it is not necessarily an error.
5th C BC Greece was far from an ideal state, the collapse is visible here in rampant gambling. Take a civilization class, the first thing you learn is the West is overly confident and never expects change so change is imposed. While the Chinese expect change, and can pivot when things get bad. Continuity isn't a Western way.
Very funny this is partly in response to a Brooks piece. He fits nihilism very well. Doesn’t every really write about much and when cornered contends that most of his attempts to make points are really just vibes[0] like famously claiming $60 spent on alcohol and a $17 burger make him relatable to Americans struggling with inflation[1].
But particularly hilarious is that he wrote this exact piece two months ago in the Atlantic[2]. He argued that the Greeks had it right and we all need to be more virtuous again.
As someone who’d describe themselves as a virtue ethicist I’d be inclined to agree. Utilitarianism leads to the bureaucratic tyranny Arendt discusses and deontology is just as hollow as belief in belief. The reality is that we can’t optimize ourselves out of where we are.
[0]: https://www.foodandwine.com/1911-smoke-house-bbq-david-brook...
[1]: https://newrepublic.com/article/142708/david-brooks-tyranny-...
[2]: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/07/trump-admi...
But particularly hilarious is that he wrote this exact piece two months ago in the Atlantic[2]. He argued that the Greeks had it right and we all need to be more virtuous again.
As someone who’d describe themselves as a virtue ethicist I’d be inclined to agree. Utilitarianism leads to the bureaucratic tyranny Arendt discusses and deontology is just as hollow as belief in belief. The reality is that we can’t optimize ourselves out of where we are.
[0]: https://www.foodandwine.com/1911-smoke-house-bbq-david-brook...
[1]: https://newrepublic.com/article/142708/david-brooks-tyranny-...
[2]: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/07/trump-admi...
> Utilitarianism leads to the bureaucratic tyranny Arendt discusses and deontology is just as hollow as belief in belief.
Can you sketch your reasoning behind these claims? And put forth the most common criticisms against virtue ethics, and defend your position against these criticisms? I don't agree with you, but you have not given me a sufficiently tight argument to convince me or take issue with.
Can you sketch your reasoning behind these claims? And put forth the most common criticisms against virtue ethics, and defend your position against these criticisms? I don't agree with you, but you have not given me a sufficiently tight argument to convince me or take issue with.
Utilitarianism has two issues. The first is the utility monster which is a classic criticism that boils down to "what if there was something which gains infinite utility from the suffering of others". I think it's a rather weak criticism however it is currently what the AI/Crypto effective altruists have almost fully given in to. They argue utter destruction of humanity by an AI is a reason you should donate all your time and money to AI safety research. But the more useful criticism is that it's too simple to actually model reality and leads to an economic approach to ethics. This is what leads to a primacy of the bureaucratic state. It becomes a moral imperative to gather as much information as possible to enable the state to maximize utility. The best example of this is that Brave New World is a utilitarian utopia.
Deontology is answered by the parent article. Most deontological frameworks are defined as correct in and of themselves. If you genuinely believe in one you're likely a moral individual by other definitions so that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Virtue Ethics is commonly criticized as not being normative enough, it doesn't really tell you explicitly how to act it instead tells you what a good person looks like, and too complex so at to be actually useful, the definition of virtues aren't simple. I like Hursthouse's defense and formation of it in her paper on Abortion[0][1]. It boils down the the criticisms being the reason that it's a useful theory. I like these two points she makes:
"Second, the theory is not trivially circular;it does not specify right action in terms of the virtuous agent and then immediately specify the virtuous agent in terms of right action. Rather,it specifies her in terms of the virtues, and then specifies these, not merely as dispositions to right action, but as the character traits(which are dispositions to feel and react as well as act in certain ways) required for eudaimonia"
"Third, it does answer the question "What should I do?"as well as the question "What sort of person should I be?" (That is, it is not, as one of the catchphrases has it, concerned only with Being and not with Doing.)"
In short the theory isn't trivial, unlike utilitarianism which can easily fall victim to being over trivialized as shown by today's AI effective altruists and utopias like Brave New World, and it provides answers to both what you should do and who you should be, unlike deontology which just answers what you should do. I like this paper because it makes a genuinely unique case for the ethics of abortion. She argues that you can both grant personhood to a fetus, or more accurately that personhood is irrelevant, and still ethically justify many abortions.
That likely is too nuanced for today's discourse but that's the point. As we've moved to either utilitarianism or deontology as the driving motivation behind our moral actions we've over simplified the world.
Anyways hope that's interesting, helpful and provides some insights into my thought.
[0]: stable jstor source https://www.jstor.org/stable/2265432?origin=JSTOR-pdf [1]: free pdf which may or may not go away https://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/document/file.php/PPP504/Hurst...
Deontology is answered by the parent article. Most deontological frameworks are defined as correct in and of themselves. If you genuinely believe in one you're likely a moral individual by other definitions so that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Virtue Ethics is commonly criticized as not being normative enough, it doesn't really tell you explicitly how to act it instead tells you what a good person looks like, and too complex so at to be actually useful, the definition of virtues aren't simple. I like Hursthouse's defense and formation of it in her paper on Abortion[0][1]. It boils down the the criticisms being the reason that it's a useful theory. I like these two points she makes:
"Second, the theory is not trivially circular;it does not specify right action in terms of the virtuous agent and then immediately specify the virtuous agent in terms of right action. Rather,it specifies her in terms of the virtues, and then specifies these, not merely as dispositions to right action, but as the character traits(which are dispositions to feel and react as well as act in certain ways) required for eudaimonia"
"Third, it does answer the question "What should I do?"as well as the question "What sort of person should I be?" (That is, it is not, as one of the catchphrases has it, concerned only with Being and not with Doing.)"
In short the theory isn't trivial, unlike utilitarianism which can easily fall victim to being over trivialized as shown by today's AI effective altruists and utopias like Brave New World, and it provides answers to both what you should do and who you should be, unlike deontology which just answers what you should do. I like this paper because it makes a genuinely unique case for the ethics of abortion. She argues that you can both grant personhood to a fetus, or more accurately that personhood is irrelevant, and still ethically justify many abortions.
That likely is too nuanced for today's discourse but that's the point. As we've moved to either utilitarianism or deontology as the driving motivation behind our moral actions we've over simplified the world.
Anyways hope that's interesting, helpful and provides some insights into my thought.
[0]: stable jstor source https://www.jstor.org/stable/2265432?origin=JSTOR-pdf [1]: free pdf which may or may not go away https://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/document/file.php/PPP504/Hurst...
Thanks a lot for outlining your thoughts on the matter! I'll have a look at the paper you have linked as well.
Regarding EA, I agree broadly with the basic ideas, but disagree with the focus on AI safety (in fact, I think that runaway AI is impossible due to fundamental limitations of computational complexity and of data ingestion required for accurate models).
I agree that utilitarianism itself is not very useful for any one entity in modeling reality. In practice, I use fallible intermediate principles that are more applicable to the situation at hand, and when they seem inadequate, or when they seem to contradict other principles, I would use as the yardstick to examine these principles some hedonistic consequentialist calculus that is heavily hedged by acknowledging a lack of good information and inability to predict the future well. I understand that there is always a risk that I do not do good by this calculus, but I try to maximize the expectation of it under what I know at hand, understanding that this does not account for what I do not know.
> It becomes a moral imperative to gather as much information as possible to enable the state to maximize utility.
It seems to me that the unsavoriness at this thought arises from the prospect of the state developing a surveillance apparatus that does not serve the citizens as well as it should. I assume that what you call bureaucracy refers to surveillance (via forms, regulations, procedures, amid others.) But I think we agree that we prefer to live in a society that has some surveillance and monopoly on violence, and the question is, to what extent. Then I don't think utilitarianism immediately asks the state to maximize surveillance on its citizens, but this is usually conditional on that the state has sufficiently robust institutions that its well-intentioned surveillance today will not be misappropriated in future, and that the surveillance apparatus is still net-pleasurable to run today, amid other considerations.
Regarding EA, I agree broadly with the basic ideas, but disagree with the focus on AI safety (in fact, I think that runaway AI is impossible due to fundamental limitations of computational complexity and of data ingestion required for accurate models).
I agree that utilitarianism itself is not very useful for any one entity in modeling reality. In practice, I use fallible intermediate principles that are more applicable to the situation at hand, and when they seem inadequate, or when they seem to contradict other principles, I would use as the yardstick to examine these principles some hedonistic consequentialist calculus that is heavily hedged by acknowledging a lack of good information and inability to predict the future well. I understand that there is always a risk that I do not do good by this calculus, but I try to maximize the expectation of it under what I know at hand, understanding that this does not account for what I do not know.
> It becomes a moral imperative to gather as much information as possible to enable the state to maximize utility.
It seems to me that the unsavoriness at this thought arises from the prospect of the state developing a surveillance apparatus that does not serve the citizens as well as it should. I assume that what you call bureaucracy refers to surveillance (via forms, regulations, procedures, amid others.) But I think we agree that we prefer to live in a society that has some surveillance and monopoly on violence, and the question is, to what extent. Then I don't think utilitarianism immediately asks the state to maximize surveillance on its citizens, but this is usually conditional on that the state has sufficiently robust institutions that its well-intentioned surveillance today will not be misappropriated in future, and that the surveillance apparatus is still net-pleasurable to run today, amid other considerations.
This reads more like misdirection than analysis. Suggesting religion is just a collection of empty rituals is just sad.
It's almost as if he's trying to prevent those looking for help from considering religion.
"You don't want those gold bars over there, they're just painted rocks". But are they?
It's almost as if he's trying to prevent those looking for help from considering religion.
"You don't want those gold bars over there, they're just painted rocks". But are they?
Aside from being true, Christianity is basically the only way to inoculate yourself against mimetic violence spirals. Which is missed here.
I'm sympathetic to your take, but I disagree. I personally find a powerful call for non-violence in Christianity, specifically in the Gospels. But there are at least a few other worldviews out there that result in a life dedicated to peace and love.
And I think this is tangential to your point, but it has to be said that there are many different approaches to Christianity, many of which have lead (and are actively leading) to terrible violence.
And I think this is tangential to your point, but it has to be said that there are many different approaches to Christianity, many of which have lead (and are actively leading) to terrible violence.
Why in a particular do you believe that Christianity is the only religion and/or belief fit for this purpose? It seems like a very bold statement given the overlapping and diverse nature of religious beliefs.
The sermon on the mount was a moral quantum leap at the time it was delivered. “Love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you.” You aren’t getting that anywhere else. Additionally, the entire narrative around the crucifixion of a perfectly innocent victim is designed to put the “what if I’m wrong” voice in the back of your head when you’re engaging in mob or retributive violence.
Do you have a lot of experience and knowledge around other non-Abrahamic world religions to make such a bold claim?
Because I can think of at least a few (Jainism, various Chinese schools of thought, etc) that capture the spirit if not the exact message of "love your enemy".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohism
Because I can think of at least a few (Jainism, various Chinese schools of thought, etc) that capture the spirit if not the exact message of "love your enemy".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohism
Yeah, the Buddhist or Jain approach is more about detachment and non-harm. It feels almost clinical in its universality. “Love your enemies” is much more personal and emotionally demanding. It’s not just “don’t hurt people” or “be compassionate to all beings,” it’s specifically telling you to have positive feelings toward people who are actively trying to harm you. Combine with the innocent victim motif and you get something really unique.
> It feels almost clinical in its universality. “Love your enemies” is much more personal and emotionally demanding.
To me, “Love your enemies”, feels abusive -- or being groomed for abuse. Love those who hurt you. I agree that is more emotionally demanding, mostly in a personally harmful way. I'll take Buddha's approach to Devadatta over the Jesus "love your enemy". I can have compassion and understanding for an enemy, I would even say it's vital to preventing further harm -- understanding them, their motives and having compassion with that understanding. But loving them? That feels more like inviting violence while pleading with them to stop while handing them a stick. Of course there is a fine line of overlap and in the end both can be taken the same way. I simply believe compassion and understanding is more meaningful and less likely to be used to keep one in an abusive situation.
To me, “Love your enemies”, feels abusive -- or being groomed for abuse. Love those who hurt you. I agree that is more emotionally demanding, mostly in a personally harmful way. I'll take Buddha's approach to Devadatta over the Jesus "love your enemy". I can have compassion and understanding for an enemy, I would even say it's vital to preventing further harm -- understanding them, their motives and having compassion with that understanding. But loving them? That feels more like inviting violence while pleading with them to stop while handing them a stick. Of course there is a fine line of overlap and in the end both can be taken the same way. I simply believe compassion and understanding is more meaningful and less likely to be used to keep one in an abusive situation.
I agree.
My own experience with it, being forced to go to "bible study" and many Christian events/groups in my youth; is that it is an ideology pushed by very despicable people who will constantly behave in extremely abusive ways and require of you that not only you let them do that but you actually "love" them (by acting in ways that are against you own values and serve them in a very practical way).
The amount of emotional/psychological abuse coming from the women in charge of those bible study groups was absolutely maddening. I have many horror stories. Now, I can understand why they say and do the thing they do; and I can definitely be compassionate about their shortcomings that makes them behave that way. I could almost forgive them. But I definitely cannot "love" them under any circumstance. As far as I'm concerned, they are an illegitimate dominant force and need to be fighten for good.
I think the ideology of "love your enemies" is pushed hard precisely for case like this. They intuitively know they are pushing a lie to enslave others to their bullshit and if people ever figure out what's going on, they need to have a "failsafe" to avoid retaliation.
I dumbfounded when people push Christianity as something worthwhile and even good. They are responsible for a lot of suffering, obscurantism and unjustifiable domination and a whole lot of warmongerings. It still happens today and is still a way to brainwash a lot of people and forbid them from thinking for themselves. It is an utterly destructive ideology and the only reason the world is what it is today, is because some people got wiser in France a few centuries ago and said that they have enough of the bullshit.
I think the modern tentative of presenting Christianism as something good is because they have lost the war and have fully migrated to deceptive "argumentation", wolf in sheep clothing style.
The amount of emotional/psychological abuse coming from the women in charge of those bible study groups was absolutely maddening. I have many horror stories. Now, I can understand why they say and do the thing they do; and I can definitely be compassionate about their shortcomings that makes them behave that way. I could almost forgive them. But I definitely cannot "love" them under any circumstance. As far as I'm concerned, they are an illegitimate dominant force and need to be fighten for good.
I think the ideology of "love your enemies" is pushed hard precisely for case like this. They intuitively know they are pushing a lie to enslave others to their bullshit and if people ever figure out what's going on, they need to have a "failsafe" to avoid retaliation.
I dumbfounded when people push Christianity as something worthwhile and even good. They are responsible for a lot of suffering, obscurantism and unjustifiable domination and a whole lot of warmongerings. It still happens today and is still a way to brainwash a lot of people and forbid them from thinking for themselves. It is an utterly destructive ideology and the only reason the world is what it is today, is because some people got wiser in France a few centuries ago and said that they have enough of the bullshit.
I think the modern tentative of presenting Christianism as something good is because they have lost the war and have fully migrated to deceptive "argumentation", wolf in sheep clothing style.
Jesus was not the first person to preach the concept of loving your enemies. At the very least, everything he preached was based on existing Jewish philosophy, particularly the messianic strain of Judaism he was a part of, but it also existed (and preceded Christ) in Buddhism, Taoism and the Babylonian Councils of Wisdom. Nothing Jesus preached was unique.
I suggest a look at the Esoterica channel on Youtube for a perspective on Jesus as a historical figure in the context of Judaism at the time[0]
[0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82vxOBbYSzk
I suggest a look at the Esoterica channel on Youtube for a perspective on Jesus as a historical figure in the context of Judaism at the time[0]
[0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82vxOBbYSzk
I think you’re (or, whoever you’re referencing) is conflating conceptual similarities with actual equivalence. Even if Jesus was building on Jewish tradition, The Hebrew Bible is full of imprecatory psalms calling down curses on enemies. Even the most expansive interpretations of “love your neighbor” in Jewish law didn’t extend to active enemies.
See my other response on eastern thought. “Babylonian Councils of Wisdom” is vague
See my other response on eastern thought. “Babylonian Councils of Wisdom” is vague
He's referring to: Do not return evil to the man who disputes with you;
Requite with kindness your evil-doer,
Maintain justice to your enemy,
Smile to your adversary. (Akkadian, before 1100 BC)
[deleted]
Many modern supply-side Christians don't believe in any of those parts of the Bible.
Turn the other cheek, love thy neighbour, etc, etc, are not something they are keen on.
Turn the other cheek, love thy neighbour, etc, etc, are not something they are keen on.
Yeah, that’s the problem. In my estimation a large part of it is because Christianity, especially as practiced in the United States, is a cultural phenomenon. Evangelicalism has won the popularity contest, and it’s not moored by anything. There’s an uptick in new Catholics and Orthodox converts though, which are more “moored” if you will by tradition and at least some kind of doctrinal constraint.
So, since Evangelicals don't meet the bar, but Catholics do, it's not Christianity (the belief in Christ/a singular Judean God) that is the relevant demarcation, it's adherence to canon.
This undermines your thesis, because it's not the mystic woo about virgin birth and transubstantiation and resurrection (which they all profess to believe in) that's important - it's the canon - adherence to which is entirely orthogonal to faith.
This undermines your thesis, because it's not the mystic woo about virgin birth and transubstantiation and resurrection (which they all profess to believe in) that's important - it's the canon - adherence to which is entirely orthogonal to faith.
No, it is just Christianity that is the demarcation. I’m saying that when you have American evangelicalism (which functions as a social club, and is not moored by anything other than “get people in the door”) as your delivery mechanism, you’re less likely to get solid catechisis. This is of course not impossible, I know many bad catholic Christian’s and many good Protestant Christians, but your odds of getting the good news delivered correctly are higher in more orthodox settings.
How does Catholicism not function as the village social club in its DNA?
It can't in large parts of the US because it's a fringe minority, but doesn't it behave in the exact same way in an area where it is the dominant social affiliation?
Its rituals are just as odd and esoteric as the practices of the stranger evangelical churches.
It can't in large parts of the US because it's a fringe minority, but doesn't it behave in the exact same way in an area where it is the dominant social affiliation?
Its rituals are just as odd and esoteric as the practices of the stranger evangelical churches.
It does, but the distinction I’m making is that is not its primary function, unlike many evangelical churches in the United States.
Because this is the case, and because of the hierarchy in place for interpreting scripture and handing down sacred tradition, it becomes less likely that there will be problematic theological dilution or drift.
Because this is the case, and because of the hierarchy in place for interpreting scripture and handing down sacred tradition, it becomes less likely that there will be problematic theological dilution or drift.
I worry the new converts will make Catholicism and Orthodoxy more Evangelical, not the other way around. Just look at the current crop of American Catholics like Thiel and Vance and the vile rhetoric they spit out about their fellow human beings.
Biden was closest to a traditional Catholic and they *loathed* him.
Biden was closest to a traditional Catholic and they *loathed* him.
Christianity has been awash in "mimetic violence spirals" for a thousand years, and some of those memes come right out of the Bible. WTF are you even talking about?
People have free will and make poor decisions, but on whole it has pulled society in the right direction over the long arc of history.
I would argue that on the whole post-Enlightenment secularism has pulled Christianity in the right direction over the long arc of history.
The enlightenment wouldn’t have happened without Christianity. universal human dignity, individual rights, the concept that reason can discern moral truth, the university system where Enlightenment thinking developed all grew from Christian soil
But the Church didn't believe in the universality of anything other than their own authority and correctness. Jews, Muslims, and "pagans" (even Protestants and other heretical Christians) were routinely harassed and killed, women were essentially the property of men, slavery was ubiquitous and kings ruled by divine right, all justified by Christian dogma. And they didn't believe in reasoning outside of an explicitly Christian framework or discerning any moral truth not grounded in Biblical doctrine.
Christianity may have inspired the Enlightenment, but the Enlightenment succeeded because it was able to separate philosophy, ethics, law and science (such as it was, "natural philosophy") from Biblical dogma and the Church.
Christianity may have inspired the Enlightenment, but the Enlightenment succeeded because it was able to separate philosophy, ethics, law and science (such as it was, "natural philosophy") from Biblical dogma and the Church.
This is a skewed take.
>pagans" [...] were routinely harassed and killed
Christianity incorporated a lot of paganism in the medieval era and still maintains it today. You can see it in the old architecture, iconography, and the holidays.
>kings ruled by divine right
Paradoxically, "The Church" was against this idea and it only came about after the Protestant Reformation and the ensuing Thirty Years War.
>slavery was ubiquitous
The history of Christian abolitionists is well documented.
>women were essentially the property of men
Are you talking about Catholic/Orthodox church doctrine, state-run churches like the church of England, the streak of puritanism in the United States, or something else? Are you referring to the teachings in Leviticus/Deuteronomy? The gospel contains multiple instances where Jesus refused to condemn women accused of adultery.
>pagans" [...] were routinely harassed and killed
Christianity incorporated a lot of paganism in the medieval era and still maintains it today. You can see it in the old architecture, iconography, and the holidays.
>kings ruled by divine right
Paradoxically, "The Church" was against this idea and it only came about after the Protestant Reformation and the ensuing Thirty Years War.
>slavery was ubiquitous
The history of Christian abolitionists is well documented.
>women were essentially the property of men
Are you talking about Catholic/Orthodox church doctrine, state-run churches like the church of England, the streak of puritanism in the United States, or something else? Are you referring to the teachings in Leviticus/Deuteronomy? The gospel contains multiple instances where Jesus refused to condemn women accused of adultery.
>Christianity incorporated a lot of paganism in the medieval era and still maintains it today. You can see it in the old architecture, iconography, and the holidays.
Yes, Christianity employed syncretism to more easily convert pagans, but then killed or forcibly converted those who refused. Please don't pretend Christianity had some kind of equitable relationship with non-Christian religions, there are entire cultures laid waste by the Church with little remaining but what revisionist versions of their history and culture they chose to write down.
>Paradoxically, "The Church" was against this idea and it only came about after the Protestant Reformation and the ensuing Thirty Years War.
The belief that kings ruled through divine blessing and were given authority over people by God comes directly from the Bible. It certainly existed prior to Protestantism, even if it wasn't explicitly codified as such. And the Church disagreed because they believed the authority claimed by kings belonged to the Pope, not because they believed in separation of church and state.
>The history of Christian abolitionists is well documented.
And yet slavery was ubiquitous and firmly justified by Biblical principles. Both are true, but the principle that freedom and dignity were universal and inherent to all human beings, and should not be explicitly tied to or contingent upon religious belief, is a secular ideal. When Paul wrote that "in Christ, there is no Jew or Greek, slave or free," he was talking about equality among Christians, not a universal principle that applied to all people.
>The gospel contains multiple instances where Jesus refused to condemn women accused of adultery.
I would argue that Christianity is more influenced by Paul than Jesus. I understand that's controversial but the history of womens' rights and law (based on Christian principles) around marriage, property rights, sex and womens' sufferage seems to bear it out. You can argue certain things shouldn't have been Christian values, but I would argue that Christianity is what Christians do more so than what they say.
Yes, Christianity employed syncretism to more easily convert pagans, but then killed or forcibly converted those who refused. Please don't pretend Christianity had some kind of equitable relationship with non-Christian religions, there are entire cultures laid waste by the Church with little remaining but what revisionist versions of their history and culture they chose to write down.
>Paradoxically, "The Church" was against this idea and it only came about after the Protestant Reformation and the ensuing Thirty Years War.
The belief that kings ruled through divine blessing and were given authority over people by God comes directly from the Bible. It certainly existed prior to Protestantism, even if it wasn't explicitly codified as such. And the Church disagreed because they believed the authority claimed by kings belonged to the Pope, not because they believed in separation of church and state.
>The history of Christian abolitionists is well documented.
And yet slavery was ubiquitous and firmly justified by Biblical principles. Both are true, but the principle that freedom and dignity were universal and inherent to all human beings, and should not be explicitly tied to or contingent upon religious belief, is a secular ideal. When Paul wrote that "in Christ, there is no Jew or Greek, slave or free," he was talking about equality among Christians, not a universal principle that applied to all people.
>The gospel contains multiple instances where Jesus refused to condemn women accused of adultery.
I would argue that Christianity is more influenced by Paul than Jesus. I understand that's controversial but the history of womens' rights and law (based on Christian principles) around marriage, property rights, sex and womens' sufferage seems to bear it out. You can argue certain things shouldn't have been Christian values, but I would argue that Christianity is what Christians do more so than what they say.
> Paradoxically, "The Church" was against this idea and it only came about after the Protestant Reformation and the ensuing Thirty Years War.
No. Search for "Alby's crusade", directly from the Romain church, spain crusades, and Bleda's Expulsion of moriscos (it's clearly a catholic priest idea, but it's not the church as an institution here).
No. Search for "Alby's crusade", directly from the Romain church, spain crusades, and Bleda's Expulsion of moriscos (it's clearly a catholic priest idea, but it's not the church as an institution here).
When thinking about Christianity, I personally make the distinction between the Christian faith, and the various Churches i.e. the political institutions that grew around the Christian faith.
In its first few centuries Christianity was community-centered, until about the 4th century when it started getting institutionalized in Rome.
In its first few centuries Christianity was community-centered, until about the 4th century when it started getting institutionalized in Rome.
The enlightenment happened despite Christianity.
I've long thought that Christianity held back human advancement for a good thousand years and now we have evil people pushing Christo-fascism and yet the church leaders seem very quiet.
I've long thought that Christianity held back human advancement for a good thousand years and now we have evil people pushing Christo-fascism and yet the church leaders seem very quiet.
Why would the church leaders say anything? More power to them, they get to profit without taking any risk and without having to say anything that could be condemnable. It's a win-win for them.
If you spend enough time around them, you realize that they are too often awful people and that the scripture is actually their way to moral absolution.
As for your first statement, this is the correct explanation, that is supported by every historian that isn't a bible pusher.
As for your first statement, this is the correct explanation, that is supported by every historian that isn't a bible pusher.
Surely that's more Western philosophy than Christianity. If anything, Christianity impeded social progress. Even now, the most vocal Christians would contend that moral truths owe to scripture than reason.
[deleted]
Exactly. Things started to get much better for the common man when Christianity was repelled by enough people. It happened in France and is precisely why the "Enlightenment" was the most successful there.
Christianity is just the bullshit theory/moral code that took over when the roman empire started to fall under its own weight (and morals became bad enough that some counterbalance was necessary).
Christianity is just the bullshit theory/moral code that took over when the roman empire started to fall under its own weight (and morals became bad enough that some counterbalance was necessary).
Christians have done a good bit of violence, including the crusades and Hitler and Putin calling themselves Christian. I think Jainism might be the least violent of the major religions.
Classic guilt by association. By the same logic you can argue that vegetarianism has murdered millions because Hitler was a vegetarian.
The ideology of vegetarianism is extremely destructive. Particularly for humans.
It is no coincidence that Hitler was a vegetarian. The roots are extremely similar: a deep hatred for humans, to the point that animals are declared not only equals but even better than humans. Hitler loved his dog more than any human; it just reveals a deep truth about his motivations and behavior.
You may not have researched or thought about it a lot but I can assure you this is a very valid observation.
It is no coincidence that Hitler was a vegetarian. The roots are extremely similar: a deep hatred for humans, to the point that animals are declared not only equals but even better than humans. Hitler loved his dog more than any human; it just reveals a deep truth about his motivations and behavior.
You may not have researched or thought about it a lot but I can assure you this is a very valid observation.
Religion is anti-fragile. The more persecution and negative press it gets, the more certainty we feel in our faiths. I would point out that nihilism is the opposite of religious faith, so the author is a little bit confused on that point.
This is only true for some religions. Since the author mentions Nietzsche, it feels fair to pull in On the Genealogy of Morality.
Many religions today have this feature because they out-competed religions that didn't, but it's not a universal feature of religions by a long shot. If anything, religions that have this feature are inextricably connected to social coping mechanisms(evidently due the persecution).
Many religions today have this feature because they out-competed religions that didn't, but it's not a universal feature of religions by a long shot. If anything, religions that have this feature are inextricably connected to social coping mechanisms(evidently due the persecution).
If you define religion to include all possible religions, even those that have few adherents, or those that have disappeared or even those not yet created, that’s not a very useful definition. I use “religion” like most people, to refer to Abrahamic religions and large eastern religions like Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, etc
I just mean religion in the usual sense. I've never seen the word used as a metonym until now.
I don’t think you are using it in the usual sense, as I stated, but maybe I just need an example of what you mean. I gave examples of what I think most people think of when they consider religion. Few people think of say, Athenians, to cite one of my own favorite out competed religions.
Negative press about religion, whether its corruption or its inefficacy, has led to lower participation in religion the world over.
Correlation does not equal causation. I think people don’t participate in religion because it asks of them. Many people are lazy, greedy or hedonistic. It takes effort and “practice” to be virtuous or religious.
Before Christianity took off there was plenty of “bad press,” to put mildly. Yet here we are.
I guess another way I might restate my point is to invoke the Streisand effect, or note the haters “doth protest too much” or similar notions. YMMV but repeated cathedral burnings and church and synagogue massacres had a remarkable effect on my perception of good and evil. Shooting toddlers at their morning mass; if that ain’t evil then nothing else makes any sense to me.
Before Christianity took off there was plenty of “bad press,” to put mildly. Yet here we are.
I guess another way I might restate my point is to invoke the Streisand effect, or note the haters “doth protest too much” or similar notions. YMMV but repeated cathedral burnings and church and synagogue massacres had a remarkable effect on my perception of good and evil. Shooting toddlers at their morning mass; if that ain’t evil then nothing else makes any sense to me.
> I think people don’t participate in religion because it asks of them. Many people are lazy, greedy or hedonistic. It takes effort and “practice” to be virtuous or religious.
Say what you will of "wokeism" but it is an ethic that asks plenty of people. It constantly demands one to evaluate virtuous action or inaction. I don't think people are turning away from religion because it takes work. Because it requires real moral deliberation, it's actually more work than mere obedience to scripture.
My mileage does vary. Countless crimes of abuse and co-option of moral authority enabled by religion has proven to me that evil does exist and the presence of religion or the lack thereof is orthogonal to building a moral society.
Say what you will of "wokeism" but it is an ethic that asks plenty of people. It constantly demands one to evaluate virtuous action or inaction. I don't think people are turning away from religion because it takes work. Because it requires real moral deliberation, it's actually more work than mere obedience to scripture.
My mileage does vary. Countless crimes of abuse and co-option of moral authority enabled by religion has proven to me that evil does exist and the presence of religion or the lack thereof is orthogonal to building a moral society.
Wokism, if there is such a thing, is like a “me religion” —- it has no group consensus so to one person being properly woke means murdering a CEO in cold blood, to another it means feminism, to another it means bringing your own shopping bag to Trader Joe’s.
And yet still a more contemplative and responsible approach to morality.
The absolute best resource I've found for educating myself about this topic is John Vervaeke's free online course "Awakening from the meaning crisis". You can search it in YouTube or Spotify.
He explains in detail exactly why a "nostalgic return to religion" cannot save us from, not just nihilism, but the entire set of crises western society is undergoing.
He explains in detail exactly why a "nostalgic return to religion" cannot save us from, not just nihilism, but the entire set of crises western society is undergoing.
The crises stems not from a loss or lack of meaning, it's from recognizing how limited our forms like narratives and myths/religions provide access to meaning. If we fully recognize the meaning load in any event, it's endlessly connected to past and future events. Any event's local-load is likewise massive. The idea we use metaphors as meaning sinks is bizarre. Metaphors are arbitrary, meaning is not, it is specific. This is the inherent problem.
The scaffolding we use for meaning, language, myth, causality, narratives, these are all Pleistocene tools that have long overstyed their welcome. Access to meaning is a total failure of imagination of the basics.
The scaffolding we use for meaning, language, myth, causality, narratives, these are all Pleistocene tools that have long overstyed their welcome. Access to meaning is a total failure of imagination of the basics.
I'm not disagreeing, but what alternatives are there? And to continue with the tool metaphor: How would we know if it's a better tool? Without a vantage point where we could judge both the tools we have now to the alternative, we might be just trading one flawed tool for another. But I'm not going throw away a flashlight because it doesn't light up the universe either. At least with a flashlight, I can see something.
If what we get to navigate with the flashlight eventually extincts us in folk meaning, then better upgrade the tool.
The problem with meaning is the problem with the words. Get rid of them and their agentic curse that lowballs meaning. There are glyphs, movies, Navajo, Hopi, Zuni, Chorti/Yucatec etc., Chinese, Japanese, Korean.
We use landfill for communication. Western languages are terrible hacks of sense-emotion-syntax. That got hacked in Gutenberg, ASCII, web now AI. It's dead.
The problem with meaning is the problem with the words. Get rid of them and their agentic curse that lowballs meaning. There are glyphs, movies, Navajo, Hopi, Zuni, Chorti/Yucatec etc., Chinese, Japanese, Korean.
We use landfill for communication. Western languages are terrible hacks of sense-emotion-syntax. That got hacked in Gutenberg, ASCII, web now AI. It's dead.
Again, I'm sympathetic... but replacing one symbolic system for another doesn't answer the question of how any symbolic system relates to it's "meaning" or even in a more accurate way. We are always in the soup of language, change the seasoning, but we will always be in the soup.
Ditch them. Movies already demonstrate what Mayan/Chinese accomplishes momentarily. It's post-representation, post-symbolic, post-metaphor. verbs only, references only. Concatenation. Humans are slaves to symbols, look at computers. We have an S&M relationship to the arbitrary and Wall Street and Silicon Valley want it this way: they've made trillions off an illusion. We either shift to external references for action-syntax or enjoy the ride the dinosaurs took down. And they had a meteor. We've got a self-made mirage of the arbitrary.
Well, Church isn’t God.
So I’ll grant them the title. But the stronger claim, that God won’t save us from nihilism, I disagree with entirely.
So I’ll grant them the title. But the stronger claim, that God won’t save us from nihilism, I disagree with entirely.
Sure, but for many, it's a place for community too. Rites of passage. Selecting a godparent. And singing! Hey without gospel music, we might not have had Motown.
Also, in some religions the temples are places for job searching, business networking... nothing wrong with that.
I wish I could have faith, a double major in science and philosophy killed all of that. But mystical moments still happen without all of the religious trappings, in conversation or nature.
I just don't know. Here in the US, Christian ethics still predominate, usually, and without organized religious participation, will that continue? Is it too much work to agonize over decisions without it?
Also, in some religions the temples are places for job searching, business networking... nothing wrong with that.
I wish I could have faith, a double major in science and philosophy killed all of that. But mystical moments still happen without all of the religious trappings, in conversation or nature.
I just don't know. Here in the US, Christian ethics still predominate, usually, and without organized religious participation, will that continue? Is it too much work to agonize over decisions without it?
Obviously it’s a very broad question, but could I ask you to elaborate on why “a double major in science and philosophy killed all of that”?
You didn't ask me, but I can respond as someone with a similar background. I grew up in a religious household. I spent about a decade from ages 18-28 studying philosophy both academically and casually, then entered a technical field and got reaquainted with science.
Many philosophical problems informed my view of religion, but probably the most profound were Carl Sagan's invisible dragon and the problem that there are so many differing and incompatible religions. Many religious people will freely admit their beliefs have no evidence, and yet from my point of view, if that's true, how can anyone claim their particular religion is correct? Why should I believe in Hinduism instead of Catholicism? I never got a satisfactory answer to that in any of my philosophy classes or reading. (The problem of evil is another strong one, but didn't have as big of an impact on me as the first two.)
As far as science goes, the two main contributors to that were biology and physics (although there are some countervailing forces there: the order of the universe truly does seem miraculous). Jay Gould's essay "non-moral nature" where he describes parasites that lay their eggs on paralyzed victims, then the eggs hatch and the larvae eat the victims alive, was probably the first thing I read that had bearing on religion. But if you look at nature generally there is obviously an overwhelming amount of suffering. Kids who die from random genetic mutations, animals that get eaten alive crying. I could never square any of that with God.
As far as physics, what really gets me is the sheer immensity and seeming indifference to human scales. Because of the speed of light, we are basically trapped within our own universe. Space is mostly an enormous empty void, and there is no sign that any other planet would be especially hospitable to our species. On a more mundane level, human beings have been killed in incredibly stupid ways, like the guy who was irradiated to death because of a software bug in the x-ray machine. So you put all of that together and it just doesn't suggest any sort of divine guidance to everything going on around us. (Which isn't to say there aren't counterarguments, but that's the sort of evidence and thought processes I imagine the parent was referring to.)
Many philosophical problems informed my view of religion, but probably the most profound were Carl Sagan's invisible dragon and the problem that there are so many differing and incompatible religions. Many religious people will freely admit their beliefs have no evidence, and yet from my point of view, if that's true, how can anyone claim their particular religion is correct? Why should I believe in Hinduism instead of Catholicism? I never got a satisfactory answer to that in any of my philosophy classes or reading. (The problem of evil is another strong one, but didn't have as big of an impact on me as the first two.)
As far as science goes, the two main contributors to that were biology and physics (although there are some countervailing forces there: the order of the universe truly does seem miraculous). Jay Gould's essay "non-moral nature" where he describes parasites that lay their eggs on paralyzed victims, then the eggs hatch and the larvae eat the victims alive, was probably the first thing I read that had bearing on religion. But if you look at nature generally there is obviously an overwhelming amount of suffering. Kids who die from random genetic mutations, animals that get eaten alive crying. I could never square any of that with God.
As far as physics, what really gets me is the sheer immensity and seeming indifference to human scales. Because of the speed of light, we are basically trapped within our own universe. Space is mostly an enormous empty void, and there is no sign that any other planet would be especially hospitable to our species. On a more mundane level, human beings have been killed in incredibly stupid ways, like the guy who was irradiated to death because of a software bug in the x-ray machine. So you put all of that together and it just doesn't suggest any sort of divine guidance to everything going on around us. (Which isn't to say there aren't counterarguments, but that's the sort of evidence and thought processes I imagine the parent was referring to.)
Not the person who asked either but I appreciate the effort.
My sentiment is very similar.
To the science part I will add that, at least, it has some explanatory power that is useful. It's finding checks out and makes many areas of our life better and more confortable. No religion can come close to the benefits of science, especially when you consider that humanity was actually doing science before it was even called that (in a cruder way but nonetheless).
Religion is systematically about imposing the morals and superiority of one group upon the others while offering very little in return. It has been the justification for plenty of domination and suffering and that alone should tell you that something is wrong.
If God existed, he would have killed the religious zealots creating the suffering or at the very least prevented their actions.
My sentiment is very similar.
To the science part I will add that, at least, it has some explanatory power that is useful. It's finding checks out and makes many areas of our life better and more confortable. No religion can come close to the benefits of science, especially when you consider that humanity was actually doing science before it was even called that (in a cruder way but nonetheless).
Religion is systematically about imposing the morals and superiority of one group upon the others while offering very little in return. It has been the justification for plenty of domination and suffering and that alone should tell you that something is wrong.
If God existed, he would have killed the religious zealots creating the suffering or at the very least prevented their actions.
Thanks for the thoughtful response!
Not necessarily trying to debate or anything—clearly you've put a lot of intellectual effort into this over the years already—but I find one point you made particularly interesting. (Disclaimer: I am a Christian.) Namely, that "religious people will freely admit their beliefs have no evidence." There are some (many?) religions where this is the case, but I honestly don't think Christianity is one of them—the Bible puts a strong emphasis on evidence. For example:
- The gospels themselves are composed of three primary sources as well as a secondary source.
- Jesus made specific prophetic claims (famously, the destruction of the Second Temple in Mark 13:2, or that he would be crucified in Matthew 20:18-19).
- 1 Corinthians 15:6 references more than five hundred eyewitnesses, most of whom were claimed to be still living.
- Acts 17:17 describes Paul as "reasoning" with secular Greek philosophers (instead of merely, say, "moralizing" or "persuading"), although I suppose these discussions may have been more philosophical than empirical given the Greeks' philosophical bent.
- The gospels claim that even the Pharisees did not deny Jesus' miracles, but merely attributed them to malign influence (Mark 3:22) or just decided to kill him (Matthew 12:14).
- Jesus' parable in Luke 16:19–31 implies that for some people, getting more evidence will not actually change their minds, regardless of how persuasive it would be.
Of course one could (and should) argue that an emphasis on historicity is not itself evidence; but I just wanted to point out that Christianity is not one of the religions where you just have to believe blindly. On the contrary, the Bible presents unbelief in the face of evidence as a main obstacle between us and God (cf. Romans 1:18–20).
Not necessarily trying to debate or anything—clearly you've put a lot of intellectual effort into this over the years already—but I find one point you made particularly interesting. (Disclaimer: I am a Christian.) Namely, that "religious people will freely admit their beliefs have no evidence." There are some (many?) religions where this is the case, but I honestly don't think Christianity is one of them—the Bible puts a strong emphasis on evidence. For example:
- The gospels themselves are composed of three primary sources as well as a secondary source.
- Jesus made specific prophetic claims (famously, the destruction of the Second Temple in Mark 13:2, or that he would be crucified in Matthew 20:18-19).
- 1 Corinthians 15:6 references more than five hundred eyewitnesses, most of whom were claimed to be still living.
- Acts 17:17 describes Paul as "reasoning" with secular Greek philosophers (instead of merely, say, "moralizing" or "persuading"), although I suppose these discussions may have been more philosophical than empirical given the Greeks' philosophical bent.
- The gospels claim that even the Pharisees did not deny Jesus' miracles, but merely attributed them to malign influence (Mark 3:22) or just decided to kill him (Matthew 12:14).
- Jesus' parable in Luke 16:19–31 implies that for some people, getting more evidence will not actually change their minds, regardless of how persuasive it would be.
Of course one could (and should) argue that an emphasis on historicity is not itself evidence; but I just wanted to point out that Christianity is not one of the religions where you just have to believe blindly. On the contrary, the Bible presents unbelief in the face of evidence as a main obstacle between us and God (cf. Romans 1:18–20).
Well for one thing, even in freshman philos, we were introduced to the 5 different kinds of truth. That sets up the foundation for more years of study in which faith in anything is hard to recognize as objectively true.
But that university specialized in analytical philosophy, which I learned decades later. You will never stop learning, that's for sure
But that university specialized in analytical philosophy, which I learned decades later. You will never stop learning, that's for sure
The author's understanding of ritual/tradition as the sum total what religion means is at best extremely naive, but I am receiving it as condescending and dismissive. There was a way for the author to redeem the subtitle of the article. He could have gone down the route of "ritual for ritual's sake is not good, but the bigger thing that ritual is attached to is good". But instead, the argument went "religious ritual is empty and has nothing else attached to it, and that's bad; let's be sure to attach Humanism to the ritual to make it good."
The irony of the whole thing is that Humanism is a religion too, though many people won't recognize it as such. This makes the author's argument doubly misguided.
The irony of the whole thing is that Humanism is a religion too, though many people won't recognize it as such. This makes the author's argument doubly misguided.
> In a recent op-ed, [David Brooks] warns that a rigid political climate on the left has led people on the right of the political spectrum to actively embrace nihilism.
That’s a strange dodge. "The Left made me do it" is a child's excuse, not an analysis.
The deeper truth is that nihilism isn’t born of politics. Nihilism what's left when after the exhaustion of meaning under total commodification. It's born of the spectacle, the replacement of reality with its endless representations. Every human relation is mediated through an economic relation, and eventually every gesture, every feeling, every passing thought gets rendered into a commodity.
We are desperate for connection, and the spectacle knows it. So it offers us platforms that promise intimacy but can’t deliver it. They were designed not to connect us to other humans but to make us friends with brands. We log in for friendship and get advertising.
Go outside? Good luck. It's empty because this stupid city was designed around cars, and even if there are people, they're tucked into their phones. It's a social ghost town.
If I propose to decommission the spectacle, I'd expect to receive a bewildering array of responses: "naive," "utopian," "impossible." So here we are, trapped in a world of our making where no one has the choice to enter nor to leave and everyone has been leveraged to maintaining it despite no one wanting it.
Good job. We have only ourselves to blame.
That’s a strange dodge. "The Left made me do it" is a child's excuse, not an analysis.
The deeper truth is that nihilism isn’t born of politics. Nihilism what's left when after the exhaustion of meaning under total commodification. It's born of the spectacle, the replacement of reality with its endless representations. Every human relation is mediated through an economic relation, and eventually every gesture, every feeling, every passing thought gets rendered into a commodity.
We are desperate for connection, and the spectacle knows it. So it offers us platforms that promise intimacy but can’t deliver it. They were designed not to connect us to other humans but to make us friends with brands. We log in for friendship and get advertising.
Go outside? Good luck. It's empty because this stupid city was designed around cars, and even if there are people, they're tucked into their phones. It's a social ghost town.
If I propose to decommission the spectacle, I'd expect to receive a bewildering array of responses: "naive," "utopian," "impossible." So here we are, trapped in a world of our making where no one has the choice to enter nor to leave and everyone has been leveraged to maintaining it despite no one wanting it.
Good job. We have only ourselves to blame.
Nihilism appeals because the root causes are oligarchy and kleptocracy: when you realize you are powerless in the large, the only real alternatives are disengagement and violence in the small. Why violence? In this context, it is the only thing guaranteed to leave a mark.
The third alternative, the difficult way, is social engagement on a path to social democracy, to limiting the reach of autocrats and robber barons, and to defetishizing the first two amendments.
But that path requires lifting one's eyes, abandoning one's out groups, working with all, and foregoing at least some comfort and self advantage.
It is the only way. I doubt I will see it (entered 7th decade recently, feel pretty confident about that).
The third alternative, the difficult way, is social engagement on a path to social democracy, to limiting the reach of autocrats and robber barons, and to defetishizing the first two amendments.
But that path requires lifting one's eyes, abandoning one's out groups, working with all, and foregoing at least some comfort and self advantage.
It is the only way. I doubt I will see it (entered 7th decade recently, feel pretty confident about that).
Why is this very interesting post about the philosophy of nihilism and empty rituals flagged?
The best way to deal with nihilism is by also becoming a narcisist, which as we can see from many of the people in power, is extra creeply effective.
and the best way to deal with narcisism is becoming a nihilist, thus creating the spiral of doom
and the only way to thwart the spiral of doom, is with an anti spiral of absurdity of the intentional kind, rather than the other variety
but wow, I mean WOW, there has never been so much material to whack a mole , I just watched a short vid of what looked and sounded like a bunch of school teachers and fast food kids lead by someone cosplaying captain america taking on the icestapo and they opened up with a barage of "less leathal" weapons, including a sniper, and dozen storm troopers grabbed and shit stomped captain america
all thats missing is circus music
The Ancient Greek model of politics isn't compatible with liberal pluralism. The former assumes a common end and the latter assumes diverse conflicting ends. The Ancient Greek model looks more like modern China than it does like modern America or Europe.