This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Some Guy writes a riveting blog which often includes extended anecdotes purportedly from his childhood and youth. Most of these mix horror, humor, pathos, and sentimentality into a compelling brew. One of his stories ends with his Dad telling him "I don’t fucking care if you’re a faggot or anything. You’re still my son and I still love you". Another is titled "My Micronesian Stepfather was a White Supremacist Amateur Elvis Impersonator". It seems unlikely that all the stories could possibly be true; if they are his is truly one of the more unlucky childhoods of anyone in the United States, and his ability to transcend it to become (what seems to be) an upstanding citizen is miraculous. But in another sense, it doesn't really matter if these stories are true: even as fiction they lose none of their power. Each of these stories could happen, and they contain a core of truth about large swaths of our society.
Some Guy seems to (cautiously and mildly) align with Jordan Peterson on the topic of Cultural Christianity: that is, the concept that even if you don't believe in God, or the Incarnation, or the Resurrection, you should still go to church and perform the outward rituals and ceremonies of the Christian religion. Christianity has, as a meme, proved itself to be pro-social, pro-growth, and pro-peace and we don't have a better replacement. Better to treat Christianity as a Chesterton Fence and embrace it even against your reason than to cast it aside and be left in a Nietzschean void.
Some Guy recently published an article in favor of Cultural Christianity. His main goal in the essay seems to be to convince sympathetic atheists to attend religious services. He calls the "obvious" objections distractions, and seems to think that many of these objections will be naturally addressed through interactions with the religious community. If he is holds orthodox Christian views (I believe he is Roman Catholic), then such questions could only be addressed truthfully in the Church; but he asks these atheists to attend synagogues and mosques as well. Perhaps he considers any religious exposure a positive step in an atheist's journey towards Christ.
In his next section of the essay on Dawkins, he reveals another glimpse into the way he thinks of Christianity. Given the question "Do you believe Jesus died for our sins?", he answers "Yes, but you have to begin from the position that Jesus wasn’t just some guy who arbitrarily claimed a particular title. It was as if morality itself became a person. I find the moral innovations of Jesus to be something close to the mechanical equivalent of finding a functioning F-35 jet plane in ancient Egypt. Do you know what people were like before that guy got nailed to a cross? Crack open a history book.". What an astonishing thing to say! "Jesus died for our sins" is "real" because after Jesus died, we literally sinned less! We went from barbaric and cruel to civilized and moral*.
I'm guessing that the following is a fair summary of Some Guy's theology: Some Guy believes in God. He believes God reveals himself in various ways. Humanity, in its own way, tries to comprehend the transcendent Truth, and does so imperfectly. Over time, humanity gains more and more knowledge of God. Judaism may have been the best human effort to understand God until Christianity came along; and still holds much wisdom and truth. But both Judaism and Christianity merely scratch the surface of what we can possibly understand about God and should not be treated as the final or only word on the matter. The Gospel narrative was humanity's closest interaction with the divine (even if there wasn't a literal incarnation) and the resulting Testament gives us an opaque glimpse into that divine, using the only means that imperfect and distinctly sub-divine humanity could use. "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."
I disagree with this argument, but I also find it difficult to counter. It is a much more compelling line (though superficially similar) to the "all religions contain truth" platitude that many Gen Xers felt was the best way to end uncomfortable conversations in the 90s and early 00s. I do hold that humanity can never know everything about God (mathematically, this is a certainty: He is infinite, we are finite). And much like I enjoy Some Guy's writing even if his stories are fiction, I accept that there is much wisdom and truth in parables and fiction. As Jordan Peterson might say, "there is more truth in Dostoyevsky than in a newspaper". People will fight and die for an idea much more readily than they will fight and die for a fact. Someone who "believes" in Christianity in such a way could even say the Nicene Creed with a clear conscience: while the words may not be literally true they come the closest that we can come today in capturing our understanding of God.
And yet, the Bible makes many assertions that do not countenance ambiguity. "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.". "Today you will be with me in paradise". And "For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! .... If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable." These are not the words of apostles that are struggling to describe the transcendent: these are definitive statements made by those who believed they were writing factual accounts. Without the literal Incarnation, the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection, we truly do not have hope and are among all the most to be pitied.
*Empirically, I do not find this argument compelling...humanity even in "Christian" Europe remained quite "cruel" (at least by modern sensibilities). Yes, Christianity elevated the status of children, women, and the downtrodden; but wars and violence continued (and continue) to be the norm.
I think the way that Christianity works — and the only way it can work — is if Jesus is perceived as a person in your community and becomes the sole measure of social status within your community. Everything else is corollary to this, an innocent dramatic exaggeration, or mystical poetry. You can learn every theological argument about God and not have your behavior changed; you can be an atheist yet a Bible scholar; and you can be a literalist Bible-thumper who also thumps his family. There’s no shortage of Bible-expert Church-going villainy in the world. But if Jesus (as moral exemplar) is the sole measure of all social status — all social interest, all self-worth, all peer competition and ranking, all value — then this will necessarily change your behavior. You might have your behavior changed kicking and screaming, feeling like a “prisoner of Christ”, or “a servant doing his duty”, or a chained foreign soldier dragged behind Christ’s imperial victory procession, but your behavior will certainly be changed for the better if all socially-mediated reward is contingent upon the imitation of Christ.
Christianity as a spectacle-sport where you hear someone charismatic and then go about your week (unless your whim or nonexistent “self-discipline” tells you to do something) is not its original form. It is amply shown in the primary text document of the religion that participation is cult-like. The apostles give up everything to follow their teacher across the nation. They exist at times in complete poverty. It is required that the church become your new family (Mt 10:37, 12:49). Disagreements between members are mediated by the community and the unrepentant defector is thrown out. The Church Fathers write about banning Christians from ever going to the theater or attending sports. They share everything in common and wash each other’s feet. The religion is called “the Brotherhood” — women don’t speak in church, and they keep their hair covered.
Imagine you were transported into this world. You try to bring up the local gladiatorial games and an elder gently rebukes you. Someone else talks about being a Rome First voter — they are gently corrected. Someone tries to talk about all he knows about the Bible — he is immediately questioned on why he is claiming to know anything at all when the illiterate shepherd boy shows greater faith through his conduct. Now imagine that, because everyone believes they will be judged by every unproductive and idle word they speak, that the conversations are always centered on (1) encouragement of moral conduct, (2) support for one’s moral conduct, (3) genuine brotherly love, (4) that the only thing of value is whether moral conduct is pursued as shown through their social superior. You will not get any social reinforcement or friendship except if you do this, and the only thing being reinforced is if you do this. What an alien world: no distractions, no (false) status signaling, no “empty knowledge”, just pure… effective altruism? In a Christian sense that is. “Taking captive every thought for Christ”. Poetry and hymns and incense are piled onto this substantive kernel, as morale-boost, but are not the main thing.
I like Jordan Peterson as an “idea factory” — he has produced some great ideas and a lot of bad ones. But JP is more like a pastor than an exemplar: he gives a dramatic performance with little evidence to back up his way of life. He extols cleaning his room and his own room is a mess. He extols reason but he cold turkey’d his psychiatric medication, putting him in a coma in Russia. His daughter is a divorced single mom who once met up with Andrew Tate. He literally only eats steak. He yaps a lot and sells a lot of courses. He is very much not Christ-like, just to draw the comparison.
The world you write about has zero antibodies against a woke style purity spiral takeover where the infiltrators find their niche and then start gently rebuking everyone for everything because they don't adhere to the rituals in the 100% correct way, always ensuring that they are "holier than thou" for the people they are rebuking.
Then they can start the whole ostracizing process where they begin throwing out people permanently for more and more minor stuff, always ensuring that the group currently being thrown out is a relatively small minority to ensure you have the support of the "silent majority" with the implied threat that whoever speaks out against you are acting like the enemy of the day and you wouldn't want to be like them now would you? When they are eliminated you move on to the next slice and so on.
Extra care must be taken to swiftly eliminate anyone who might notice what you are doing but you are well placed here because your instrumental goal is takeover and you can dedicate all your time to it, only mimicking the true values of the group enough to keep up appearances while the people trying to stop you presumably actually believe in the values of the group and so they have to waste more of their time on that, meaning they have less time to fight you.
Eventually you'll end up in complete control of everything until the spiral gets smaller and smaller and the whole movement is effectively dead because most everyone who used to be in it now has a genuine grievance against it and now wants nothing to do with it, much like what's happening to woke right now. Plus because of your salami tactics people in different "layers" of being kicked out of the original movement now likely hate each other more too because you fed propaganda to the later layers about why the earlier layers were extremely bad people and should be shunned, so now they are less likely to come together and re coalesce into a new movement with similar goals as the initial one but without you.
Were I transported into such a world I'd try and do such a thing, not because I particularly dislike Christianity or anything, but for personal amusement (because like you said, no talking about the local gladiatorial games, so what else is there to do to keep myself busy other than try and take over the movement?) and just to prove to myself that I was capable of it. I'd give myself around 20% or so chance of being successful.
Christianity in its original form (well what I strongly believe is its original form), in a “the words of Jesus decide 99% of the focus and the theology” form, has a rigorous immune system against vain purity spiraling.
Jesus specifically condemns those who prioritize ritual over substance. In fact, he saves his greatest condemnation for these people. He is put to death by these people, either directly or indirectly depending on your theology. It’s a surprisingly major part of the gospel. Some examples:
This trains Christians to be aware of anyone who signals virtue explicitly, where the spectacle of the virtue is sought rather than the substance. It trains Christians to be aware of anyone who prides themselves on stringent rule-following and burden-bearing. It then cuts out the possibility of the vain finding satisfaction in a prideful position, because Christians are told not to take any pride in that or even call themselves “teacher” or “instructor”. Then, it sets the actual standard for obtaining status: the more one humbles himself (in substance, understood as imitating Christ with all necessary sacrifices), the more exalted he will be in the community. Yet the one who exalts himself will be swiftly humbled by the community.
A purity spiral oriented around immaterial or vain issues is criticized. There’s a priority of importance.
This trains Christians to be cautious of those who appear outwardly righteous or who seem put on an act for attention.
This is great. It instantly reminds me of some high status academic giving a land acknowledge: do you really think, you status-seeker, that you wouldn’t have been the one taking the land were you alive back then?
This is the only place where Jesus goes absolutely demon mode condemning people. He was comparatively chill with the prostitutes and tax collectors. Even the woman with five husbands isn’t condemned but joined him for dinner, and she was a Samaritan, so not in his closest community. You see, the “scribes” are the journalists, “fact checkers”, and academic writers of Christ’s time. The Pharisees are like the combined “academic instructors” and “moral police” of his time. This is sufficient to understand his ire, really. And this isn’t an exhaustive list of criticism.
The crucial thing about Christianity is that Christ is conceived as a person (topical). As such, his character can be imitated in addition to his philosophy internalized. And his character was not “holier than thou”, which means that to obtain status, one cannot act that way. They have to act as follows:
What you see as a zero-day vulnerability would require all the Christians to be blind to it happening, to ignore the central teachings they are supposed to worship, and also for the Judas-defector to somehow be better at righteous conduct than the Christians. But by the defector’s very nature, they would be unable to defeat a good Christian in exemplifying genuine humility (no acclaim to be gained in the years of this practice, and they are apparently addicted to acclaim). And the reward for all of this would be genuinely miniscule compared to entering any other institution: it’s not like they would get extra gold or girls. If there exists some vicious person who is so addicted to power and status that they wish to subvert Christianity, it would seem that the years of Christlike conduct necessary to ingratiate themselves in the community would either cure them of their vice or make them absolutely mad. They would only be able to get their status fix from habitual conduct which is, if not debasing, equalizing. Now in modern Christianity they would be able to talk well, or claim to have a vision, or claim to know the most; not so in the OC religion.
I think it would be possible for a clever 130 IQ+ sleeper agent with low time preference and a genuine desire to destroy Christianity from the inside to be able to pass off long enough to reach a position of decent authority. If then you have 10+ of these agents once a few of them get high up they can start promoting the other sleeper agents until a critical mass of them are respected enough in the community that together you can form your own little cabal whose members protect each other and can also start throwing your weight around enough to start slicing off portions of the community you've thought about and identified the rest of the group would be least concerned about cutting off (clearly the Christians would be supportive of cutting off a bunch of satanists who tried to join them so it's not like they are infinitely accepting of everyone, you just need to find the dividing line and try and convince everyone that the slice you currently want to excommunicate fall on the wrong side of it).
Once you provide this blueprint to the 130 IQ+ sleeper agent I think they can imitate it well enough that to all external appearances they are a true believer and it's only on the inside that they are secretly trying to take over the community.
As for why someone would want to do this? To misquote the climber George Mallory who replied "because it is there" when asked why he wanted to climb Everest, I say there is a type of person who'd want to infiltrate Christianity just because it is there and available to be infiltrated. All the defenses you mentioned against infiltration just make this kind of person want to do it even more because it makes the challenge more interesting. The way to protect against him is to make the task appear boring so that he gets bored and goes off and does something else, while all the things you mentioned make it seem like an even bigger achievement to successfully infiltrate the sect.
Now yes you may be right that the years of following the rules will either make someone truly convert to the cause or go mad. But that doesn't mean that in this time they can't cause real damage, even as they themselves are changed irrevocably by the religion. In fact I think this is literally what happened with Saul of Tarsus. He was an infiltrator that like a virus managed to insert himself irremovably into the DNA of the Christian religion.
Now in his late life he may well have been changed enough by the religion to really believe in what that changed Christianity was telling him (indeed, we can be pretty sure he was executed and all for his beliefs) but that doesn't mean he didn't fundamentally change the system into something it was nothing like before him (e.g. Christianity minus the Pauline Epistles but replaced with some of the apocrypha is a very different belief system, we know there was a tussle between Saul and James the Just with the Sauline fraction winning out; if instead of the Pauline Epistles you had the Apocryphon of James included in the bible Christianity suddenly becomes a lot more Gnostic of a religion). Saul may well have been "converted" eventually, but the religion he was converted to was nothing like the original Christianity of Jesus but rather a religion that was in large part about him.
Similarly the biological cell which long ago after invasion by a foreign bacteria managed to control and convert it into becoming its mitochondrial slave may in one sense be said to have won, but that presence of the mitochondria would later go on to change the descendants of the cell completely and turn them into something which relied utterly and totally on the mitochondria for survival. In much the same way even if early Christians can manage to quell and assimilate any sleeper agents and prevent them from outright destroying the movement, that doesn't mean the sleeper agents can't completely subvert it and turn it into something it never was in the first place, and that in itself is a type of success for the goals of the original unsubverted agents when they were just starting out, and in fact I think if Saul the persecutor of Christians could see a few decades down the line at what he would turn Christianity into by the time of his death, I think he would be quite pleased with himself.
There are simple ways to protect against this threat if the threat were plausible. You could mandate that everything must be judged exclusively by Christ’s words and deeds as handed down unchanged for many centuries in the Christian gospel (with the apostles in a very far second place, never overruling Christ). This means that the standard of behavior can’t be changed. You can enact a “majority rule” vote decision, if any teachings needed to be changed. You could mandate that they must be married with children and have their children attend the religious schooling — meaning anything that harms the religion now harms their children. And so on.
In real life, people’s behaviors are motivated by rewards. This sleeper agent needs a genuine compelling reason to “take over the community”, such that they bear the discomfort of helping members of the community selflessly for decades for a small chance of taking over the community. Every time he helps someone he hates, he will be demoralized, while his virtuous counterpart is moralized. The virtuous counterpart enjoys pure cognitive efficiency, whereas the vicious one needs to constantly double-think everything he does. At the same time, the sleeper agent will be spending many hours a week being propagandized into loving Christ, which may involve persuasive arguments. At best, all of those hours are spent in discomfort; at worst, he is persuaded into virtuous behavior.
This is kind of like saying that an evil person who hates SpaceX will join SpaceX in an attempt to subvert it. SpaceX easily filters for people who genuinely care about the mission: they are made to work on it with their whole mind and heart and strength, to participate in “all night vigils” where they work on their project. A hater is less likely to be able to do all of this, because every aspect of it lacks the feedback loop of motivating reinforcement. Yet unlike SpaceX, Christianity involves rituals for propagandizing the faith, with music and poetry and spectacle and drama and stories.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link