Annie Dillard: 'Eskimo: 'If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?' Priest: 'No, not if you did not know.' Eskimo: 'Then why did you tell me?''

Eskimo: 'If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?' Priest: 'No, not if you did not know.' Eskimo: 'Then why did you tell me?'

In Annie Dillard's thought-provoking quote, a conversation unfolds between an Eskimo and a priest, delving into the complexities of religion, knowledge, and the consequences of ignorance. As the Eskimo questions the concept of sin and its effect on his afterlife, the priest responds that without knowledge of God and sin, he would not go to hell. However, the Eskimo questions the priest's decision to impart this knowledge upon him, as it now burdens him with the fear of damnation. This exchange raises profound philosophical questions about the nature and purpose of sharing knowledge, prompting us to reflect on the impact of our own beliefs and the effects they may have on others.At first glance, the quote emphasizes the Eskimo's frustration with the priest's revelation. It highlights the ethical responsibility inherent in sharing knowledge, particularly when it comes to religious or moral beliefs. The Eskimo's inquiry challenges the widely accepted notion that ignorance is bliss. According to the priest, the Eskimo would not face damnation if he did not know about God and sin. This suggests that knowledge is not only enlightening but also burdensome, as it brings with it the potential for judgment and punishment.However, upon closer examination, the quote also introduces an unexpected philosophical concept - the inherent conflict between knowledge and innocence. The Eskimo's inquiry, though with a touch of irony, alludes to the forbidden fruit from the biblical story of Adam and Eve. Just as the Eskimo asks why the priest "told" him, we might also question why Adam and Eve were given knowledge of good and evil, resulting in their expulsion from the Garden of Eden. This concept raises the intriguing idea that knowledge, once acquired, forever alters our perception of the world and our place within it.The Eskimo's question expresses a nuanced perspective on the consequences of knowledge. On one hand, his inquiry challenges the priest's actions, as the revelation of sin and potential damnation has burdened him with fear. It speaks to the ethical dilemma faced by those who hold knowledge, especially religious or moral knowledge, as they must weigh the benefits of enlightenment against the potential harm it may cause.On the other hand, the Eskimo's inquiry also taps into a fundamental human desire for understanding. Awareness of concepts like God and sin can provide individuals with a sense of purpose, guidance, and even comfort. Without knowledge of these ideas, one might argue that individuals are more prone to wandering aimlessly, devoid of moral direction and a sense of accountability for their actions. In this light, the priest's disclosure can be seen as an act of compassion and enlightenment, offering the Eskimo an opportunity to engage with his spirituality and find solace in his newfound beliefs.Ultimately, Annie Dillard's quote invites us to reflect upon the profound implications of sharing knowledge and its impact on individuals. It challenges us to consider the fine balance between blissful ignorance and the burden of knowledge. By questioning the priest's decision to share this knowledge with the Eskimo, the quote highlights the moral complexities inherent in enlightening others, while also acknowledging the inherent desire within us to seek understanding and meaning.