Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by RubenSandwich 2556 days ago
"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?"

- Nietzsche, The Gay Science, Section 125

I too look at the social coercion afforded to religion and envy. The idea of moving almost anywhere and having a weekly community event with like minded people is unparalleled.

2 comments

But Nietzsche probably broke down because of the expectations he imposed on himself. At least that is what I take from how his writing changed over time and the end of his biography.

I like coke and fatty burgers btw... I meant the drink...

From my understanding it's hard to know too much about his latter years because while his health was deteriorating his sister took over his estate and started publishing his fragments in an order that supported her antisemitic worldview[0].

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_Förster-Nietzsche#Ni...

I think you meant “cohesion” not coercion.

But also, while “cultural Christianity,” the idea that everyone is a Christian and follows some pseudo-Christian values has mostly gone away, actual religion (of many varieties) is alive and well.

You can still move almost anywhere and find a Catholic Church that is pretty consistent around the world, and likewise many other denominations.

Speaking of my own experience in non-denominational Christian churches from here down:

The people in them would probably be a lot less like-minded than you would expect. The church (collectively, even if not every congregation) is wildly diverse, and is one of the few places you can still go and build relationships with people from all different income brackets, ethnicities, jobs, etc.

Lastly, you don’t need to believe in God (or Jesus) to attend and be welcomed in. Not everyone there does, and actually in most churches they’d be very interested to talk with you and hear why you’re there etc. Yes, they will teach you about their beliefs, but they’re quite simple, as summarized by Jesus himself in “the great commandment”: love God, and love your neighbor.

While all believers wrestle with what God is and what it would mean to love God, the focus is largely on the second commandment - love your neighbor as yourself. That, choosing a life where you genuinely try to support and take care of the people around you, is a pretty good way to live.

Now, I expect some HN hate for posting this. I don’t mean to claim that everyone who has ever called themselves a Christian lives as described above — I myself have been disgusted by the behavior of people who claimed Christian slogans or shove a few bible verses on poster boards and then twisted them for political purposes, completely failing to follow the actual teachings of Christianity in the process. Bad churches and misguided church-goers exist in every religion, unfortunately (Christ himself often called this out). You have to think critically, never follow anything blindly. And I think that “cultural religion,” where the mainstream state government adopts the trappings of a religion and then uses it as a cudgel to enforce their agenda has been quite harmful. My point in posting this is not to gloss over any of that.

Rather, my point is that spiritual life (of many different traditions) is still alive and well among thoughtful, caring, and intellectual people. If approached with an open mind you might be shocked at how pragmatic they are, and how open they are to deep skeptics who are more interested in how to have a meaningful life here on earth than whether or not anything beyond that exists. In fact, many of them fit that description themselves.

Sorry I did mean cohesion, not coercion. I'm happy that my context mainly made that obvious, but that is quite the typo. (It's too late for me to change it in the original comment.)