NRx and Christianity

I know there are some people in the NRx-sphere who are practicing Christians, notably Nick B. Steves, as evidenced by the picture of Sancta Maria on his blog, and Vox Day, by his numerous writings – in particular his book The Irrational Atheist, but Vox in 2014 renounced the NRx label, although he’s still lumped in with the ideology.

It occurred to me awhile ago that Christianity (or any of the Abrahamic religions) may not be compatible with my interpretation of RNx (yours may differ), particularly in regard to economics, the concept of salvation and redemption, and HBD.

From my own experience attending Catholic Church, the message preached, with perhaps the exception of some social issues like reproduction and marriage, is a liberal one – particularity, about the concept of the ‘ownership society’, which the Church seems to reject. For example, these passages that implores Jesus’ disciples to forfeit their possessions, from (Matt. 19:16-26):

…And behold, one came to Him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?” 17 And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” 18 He said to Him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not commit murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; 19 Honor your father and mother; and You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 20 The young man said to Him, “All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?” 21 Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” 22 But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieved; for he was one who owned much property.

23 And Jesus said to His disciples, “Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 “And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” 25 And when the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, “Then who can be saved?” 26 And looking upon them Jesus said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible” (Matt. 19:16-26).

So to be ‘saved’ you must, essentially, live in penury. I know there also an abstract interpretation of this, too.

Second, the existence of the Holy Trinity cannot be falsified. As a rationalist who cares about empirical evidence, the belief in an omnipotent deity or spirit may may not be rational. With the exception of certain theoretical physics concepts, modern science does a good enough job explaining all natural phenomena, whereas in ancient times people used religion and creation myths to explain things (that we now take for granted) that they didn’t otherwise understand. But I also understand that many practicing Christians are well-versed in sciences, so the condescending leftist caricature of the ‘ignorant Christian’ is wrong, and, understandably, deeply insulting.

Third – from my own experience going to Church – there is no mention of anyone being intrinsically ‘better’ than anyone else; no mention of HBD-type concepts. Yet as evidenced by growing income inequality and how IQ, which is a biological trait, is becoming becoming more important than ever in influencing socioeconomic outcomes, this inescapable pull of biological and economic reality perhaps renders a lot of the teachings of the Church obsolete, or at least atavistic. I disagree with the ‘low barrier to entry’ version of salvation of modern Christianity, arguing that salvation, especially in our competitive post-2008 world, is not through belief, which is easy, but by quantifiable accomplishments. Although predestination is mentioned in the Bible in that some will be saved, that’s already happening today – in that the people today who are ‘saved’ are those with good genes, while those with genes unpropitious to success fall between the cracks, often dependent on charity, like the welfare state, paid for by productive people. That’s why I’m a Darwinian Conservative, because social interpretation of Darwinism is more perhaps more applicable to modern society than the Bible, which ties into my ‘reality-based’ approach as mentioned above, with the ‘hierarchy’ and ‘social order’ aspect of Conservatism being a biological and economic one.

Comments are closed.