@Dan: Ah! I’m quite envious of your position as one of Hauerwas’ students! It must have been a seriously rich experience and study, I’m sure. I love his work. Your advice re: Caputo’s work as start point is received, and happily so! Thanks bro.

As one of Hauerwas’ students and someone who enjoys both Derrida and Caputo (though I generally tell people to read Caputo if they’re just getting into either’s work), I’m glad you’re reading it. Slightly more challenging and already mentioned, but worth reading is Caputo’s The Prayers and Tears of Jacques Derrida.

Dan

As for the Native American thing, I am serious. I’m pretty sure I buy into the arguments presented in 1491. I don’t think this is “blaming the victim” though. I think this is historical fact. The Indians were in fact victims of oppression. The Europeans did push their advantage to the point of villainy. But this would not have been possible had the Indians not first been victims of something the Europeans took advantage of, but could not help but cause.

A bad analogy: blaming the victim would be saying to a rape victim: “well, you are female.” It’s something else again to say to a tortured POW, “it sure didn’t help that, before the enemy got to you, you had already broken both arms.” Of course, even that analogy doesn’t go all the way: It was the Europeans who brought the diseases. They just didn’t know they were doing it.

Paragraph One: Yes, I’ve read many critical texts. My undergraduate college was vocally anti-postmodern. Too, I think (emphasize ‘think,’ because I’m still investigating the subject) history has a way of continuing its move forward in spite of changes and alterations naturally brought on by things like ‘deconstruction.’ I do not think the sudden act of giving it a name will cripple progress. Also, I’m not so sure implosion is as dangerous a possibility as people think, given the strong need for qualifying adjectives (communally) created by something like postmodernism. So, in the end, I can be a Christian in a pluralistic world, and live happily with others who are different. Too, Christianity as a way of life may just be the best way of life. It may be just be “The Way.” In fact, I am one who thinks it so. It obviously could and/or would not be The Way, if there were no other ways to be, would it?

Paragraph Two: So, it was the Native American lack of diversity, and a subsequent inability to resist European induced disease … Interesting spin. Are you serious? This smacks of blaming the victim, don’t you think?

Paragraph Three: Ah! So, you do partake in deconstruction! Perhaps you are a “situational deconstructionist” (when it suits and sustains your own prejudices and presuppositions?). In your defense, I’d simply say that not everything tagged “deconstruction” is good deconstruction. Your above questions re: Jesus and portions of the narrative just seem seriously uninformed, for example. Note: 1. Zacchaeus gave the money back to the poor folk from whom he took it. 2. Jesus knocked the temple AND its entire priestly system over … on more than one occasion.

So, if what you are doing in the above comment is the opposite of deconstruction, then you can find me in the deconstruction isle, thinking.

Thanks, Kyle. Again, you and your comments are appreciated, even if I tend to disagree. It’s ok to disagree.

For instance, the assertion about the “genocide of native Americans” is something of a misnomer. Genocide was accomplished simply by showing up. Native American civilization was completely competent to deal with the European “invaders” until their population was repeatedly decimated by disease. Consistently, the first successful European settlement in an area was immediately preceded by a plague nearly wiping out the indigenous population. Europeans were as evil as the next men, but they couldn’t have accomplished anything if they hadn’t unknowingly brought disease along with them, and hadn’t the Americans been particularly susceptible because of their lack of diversity.

I think the argument that Jesus consistently “stood with” the most destitute parts of society also needs to be deconstructed. Did he really? Or did he also “ingratiate” himself by accepting donations from tax collectors and other charlatans? When Zacchaeus repented and gave all that money away, who did he give it to? Jesus brought the kingdom of God, and that certainly meant protecting the poor and downtrodden. And it meant demoting money from its godlike status. But Jesus never, for instance, rebuffed the temple itself for it’s opulent display of wealth. He simply said “one greater than the temple is here.”

You wrote, “Ask me again when I’m through my PhD …”

That’s probably the best answer there is …

That’s a mouthful, though, so I usually just say I’m in process and am an agnostic humanist. (I have a seven part series nearing its conclusion on my blog that tries to lay some of this out).

I enjoy Dawkins on science, but his reflections on religion are boring to me. I much prefer Daniel Dennett, Pascal Boyer, and folks who are bringing together cog-sci/philosophy of mind and religion.

Ask me again when I’m through my PhD….

So, if I may ask, are you a Dawkins rationalist?