Customer Reviews

On Religion

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Brilliant. Well written, informative, passionate. It is refreshing to see a philosopher who writes with the fervour of Kierkegaard, someone who is in the academic world not because they wish to further their own name but because they are driven by the questions that ought to keep us all up at night. This book is brilliantly paced and achieves the almost impossible task of making Derrida understandable. In the spirit of C.S. Lewis, John Caputo offers us a first-rate body of thought in a way that is well written and understandable to those outside the academic ivory tower. In the introduction to this book, Caputo makes the convincing claim that when it comes to religion there is no absolute beginning, however if you are looking for an introduction to religion from a continental philosophical viewpoint then this is a close to an absolute beginning as you are likely to get.

I've just finished reading On Religion and thought I'd make use of cyberspace to say how much I enjoyed it. I continue to be part of a formal religion (Christian/Anglican) but constantly wonder why; frustrated and angered by blinkered thinking and knowing that I do not believe-as-fact most (any?) of the 'doctrine'. And yet, and yet.....I know it gives shape to
something which is somehow fundamental to existence. My normal reaction to this chronic uncertainty is anxiety, so I found Caputo's idea that the very impossibility of knowing is something to be passionate about a really inspiring one. Worrying about the love of God makes it impossible to do the love of God.

And it was very good to read a book on religion which flew along, was full of passion and made me laugh.

I wish Amazon had a search engine that would automatically redirect the general reader interested in religion to this book. Not the graduate student who nods intelligently to the puns made by French philosophers in their original language, not the tenured professor who ponders whether she should include this reference in her class reading list, but the plain, average reader who doesn't know much about philosophy but who likes inspirational lectures dedicated to lifting his or her spirit out of the ordinary.

Such a reader may be puzzled at first with the author's peculiar sense of humor. For John Caputo, people of the impossible, as he defines religious people, are also impossible people: "A good part of the problem with religion is religious people (without them, religion's record would be unblemished)". His religion borders on the atheistic, and he finds as much inspiration in a Star Wars episode as in Luke or Matthew. But his love of God is sincere when he echoes the prayers and tears of St. Augustine or records the story of the annunciation to the Blessed Virgin--who actually spoke French, we learn incidentally.

Actually, readers will find many sentences that would fit in a Sunday predication or an Evangelist's bestseller. "We are not supposed to earn a comfortable living off the Crucifixion, we are supposed to be crucified to the world." "God cannot simply spend six days creating the world and then throw the tools on the truck and drive off for a long week-end. We require God to be on the job around the clock." "When the love of God calls, we had better answer". "Religion is for lovers, for men and women of passion, for real people with a passion for something other than making profit." Even the parts that deal with deep philosophical issues are presented in a humorous and accessible manner ("There is no way to know The Way, no way that I know, anyway").

Readers may or may not agree with the precepts of a "religion without religion" that the author spells out at the end. Nor is his attack on established churches bound to earn him much support among the parish folks. But it is not so common to find a book that is at the same time inspirational and challenging, full of enthusiasm and slightly agnostic, easy to read without being an insult to the reader's intelligence.

We've just read this book for a theology class and it was a joy to read. The author writes beautifully in a conversational style that is very easy to understand. It is refreshing to read theology that ignites a passion for life and a passion for God. The content of the book might not be completely new but the delivery presents the material in a very palatable form. There are points in the book that I actually laughed out loud and I think that its the first time I've ever done that with a book on religion. Nonetheless, you will find enough content to make you think without spoon-feeding you any answers. There is definitely lots of salt in the book and I would highly recommend it for anyone searching for meaning in their lives.

Caputo has written with style and humor an excellent introduction to a contemporary view of religion. And because he is well aware of the pitfalls of modern religion, he has been able to present a revitalized view of it for the 21st century, based on the theme of love. Caputo's book is a great read.

Thanks to Karen Armstrong ("The Case for God") for referring to John Caputo's notion that God is rather more like an event or experience than a being, e.g., Creator, Judge, Savior, etc. My husband, who also read this book, found that the Star Wars metaphor was illuminating. Caputo's writing is surprisingly clear and accessible considering the Mystery which is - ultimately - his subject. This short book offers constructive dimension to people of faith; it was stimulating, too.

From Miriam McCue

There are two interesting statements in Dr. Caputo's book On Religion which I particularly like.

1. In regards to abortion, Dr. Caputo states, "... even millions of unborn fetuses - the number should make any sensible person tremble - have their prospect for life cut off in the bloodiest form of birth control the world has ever known." (P. 102)

2. In regards to St. Anslem's argument for the existence of God, he says: "Many commentators who have been drawn down the labyrinthine corridors of this argument have never been heard from again."(p. 41)

I was quite amused at that quote, for it reminds me of exactly what I have concluded about modern, postmodern, post postmodern (whatever), philosophy with its epistomological swirling in the dark corners of the mind.

Maybe many Moderns are trying to get out of their minds, but keep on swirling they do..

When I read a book like this the first thing I do is look at the index (p. 143) and see how many references there are to certain schools of thought or philosophers. This seems to be a good indication about from where the author is coming.

The index has only one reference to St. Thomas Aquinas stating that Dr. Caputo agrees with him that St. Anselm's argument is not valid. I immediately opine that the good Dr. is NOT a Thomist.

There are 8 references to Kant, many to Augustine, 4 to Freud, 13 to the "death of God", and numerous mentions of Nietzsche.

I believe that the omitting of St. Thomas thought is quite an error, especially when one writes a book on God and religion. Few students seem to be exposed to a proper understanding of Thomas at this time, which is quite an intellectual tragedy.

Our author says that "God is a how not a what."(P. 134 & 135) This is quite puzzling, since beings in existence are all "whats" A "how" is a method or way of doing or acting. A method is not an existent; the term method is does not refer to a being which actually exists. Our author seems to like to redefine the meaning of commonly understood terms . This is quite bothersome and unnecessary for the reader, and could be confusing to the untrained..

I know that each philosophical system has its jargon, but this type of language manipulation goes quite beyond that. It seems more like a mind game than philosophy.

Dr. Caputo speaks of "truth"(p. 135), then he says truth is action.

By action, I think he is referring to works of mercy, since he uses Mother Therese and her kind of person to illustrate the actions of which he approves.

In any case, Mother Therese did her acts for a "What"(and Who), Christ. She did not worship her actions. Action was her method to worship the "What".

NO! Truth is not an "action". It is "the conformity of the mind to reality." If Dr. Caputo says truth is action, what is he telling us in all the propositions he presents to us? Why should we read his book, if not to learn some truthful propositions??

If I interpret him correctly, he tells us that Truth is not found in propositions but in action. He tells us this in propositions meant for us to accept as truth.

He speaks against dogma, formulas, then he gives us his formulas.

Our author mentions "love" in 46 pages of his work.. In my opinion, C.S. Lewis' "The Four Loves" should have been read first before reading "On Religion". and should have been used as a reference by the author of this book.

"Religion is the love of God." It is fine that the good Dr. said this, however, Dr. Caputo said that God is not a what, so we are loving a how, and a how is a method.. Seriously why should I love a how?

To add to the confusion, it seems Caputo would have us throw Aristotle's principle of non-contradiction out of the window. This is shown by the following:

When speaking about which religion is true: "who is getting it right" Dr. Caputo says "that question is not only wrong-headed and non-sensical - like seeking the one true language."(p. 131) He is speaking of Catholic & Protestant Christianity, Buddhism, & Islam.

Analysis: Buddhism is an atheist religion. Catholicism is a Theistic one. Either the traditional monotheistic God exists or He does not. If He does NOT exist, then Islam, Christianity are in ERROR, and Buddhism may be true. This does not mean Buddhism is true either, for Buddhism is only one species of atheism, and let us not forget the polytheists, animists et al. All these can't be true at the same time. What I am speaking about here is searching for truth, not a how or praxis.

I judge On Religion will be especially confusing to college students who may conclude that one religion is as good as another, or as bad as another. They may come to the conclusion that the search for religious truth is impossible.

Well, probably many of them won't search for what actually exists, for to them truth will be an action, if they take this book seriously.

More dangerous, is that the type of "action" Dr. Caputo recommends, which is goodness, may not be to the taste of many of our youth. This is a fact I know from dealing with many modern youth. To many, goodness and badness are equal in the metaphysical scheme of things. Dr. Caputo gives us no objective way to distinguish WHY good is preferable to evil.

To back up my contention, I wish to go back years to what Dr. Caputo said in his work " Against Ethics" :

"But we who have had the impiousness to take our stand against Ethics, between Evil and the Innocence of Becoming, we must confess to having no cosmic backups for our condemnation of Auschwitz. That is our embarrassment and our scandal." (Maybe around p. 85)

Here we see a basically descent man bewailing the fact that he can't give an objective reason for choosing goodness from evil. I hope he is still working on this problem that St. Thomas Aquinas solved centuries ago.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Footnote 1. It seems to me that sometimes when one wishes to reinterpret some text, HE (King's English) most likely uses St. Paul or St. Augustine, as did Luther. ( I have noticed this in our day and age in televangelism which constantly misuses St. Paul's writings.)

The above notions, coupled with the references to Freud, the "death of God", and Nietzsche, made me suspicious about One Religion from the outset of my reading. (I also must admit I read one of our author's books before.)

[...]

Caputo is simply one in a long line of typical post-modern thinkers. It must be said that his writing style is both engaging and entertaining, some lovely wordsmithing. His thoughts on and critiques of religion can be useful if viewed from a "soft post-modernism" standpoint, but as soon as he delves into post-modernism as a foundational worldview ("hard post-modernism," as it were) he falls into the same traps that ensnare virtually all post-modernists: self-centeredness and self-contradiction.

Caputo pejoratively lumps religions together as "creedal faiths" (despite beginning the book by saying that "religion" is too diverse to exist in the singular), then goes on to expound upon his own set state of beliefs and religious methods -- i.e., Caputo's CREED. He critisizes those who claim to have "The Answer" by saying that "The Answer is no Answer" -- thereby giving Caputo's version of "The Answer"! The entire book is all about YOU, what YOU should do, how YOU should live, how religion can make YOUR life better, how YOU can do justice and live love. It's never about the neighbor, never about God -- never actually about religion.

Post-modernism is an interesting facet of, and useful critique upon, Modernism. But (as its very name implies) it is an anemic worldview which cannot stand on its own. Caputo speaks of a world entering "post-secularism" -- which many "secular" reviewers have lambasted here on this site -- but what Caputo should really look into is the academic world's backlash-entry into POST-post-modernism.

This is a great read --it is smooth, conversational, and accessible. Three cheers for that (most philosophy of religion books are impenetrable). I like that the author puts his heart into this book. Its pages are passionate. I felt like it was more of an expression of agnosticism ("There is no Secret! There are no answers! No one knows!") than a work of religious faith/Christian theology. The author clearly fashions himself a religious person though, and he adores Christianity, and he never uses the word "agnostic" at all. I thought that was odd.
Some criticisms:
1. The author suggests that we are in a "post secular" age -- that secularization is over and done, and religion is triumphantly "back." Of course, as a typical philosopher, he provides no actual DATA for this otherwise sociological claim. I guess such things are easy to say -- but harder to prove or substantiate. But in such a fun diatribe, who cares for things like evidence, right?
2. Oh wait -- the author does offer one tid-bit of data (!). He says that religios is clearly here to stay because 95% of Americans claim to believe in God, and since Americans are "the most prosperous people the world has ever known" well, then so much for secualrization. Hm. Clearly he has not read the latest stats on poverty in the USA. The current level is over 12% -- the higest rate of poverty in teh western industrialized world. he clearly does not realize that over 40 million Americans have no health insurance. He clearly is unaware that among African Americans, nearly half of children live in poverty. Oh, and that the gap between rich and poor is the largest in the USA than in any western industrialized country. In sum, the USA is so religious for all the reasons we woudl expect - life is still precarious for the bulk of Americans, who have little job security and live from paycheck to paycheck. The turth is, where life is truly propserous for the majority of the people (North westren Europe), religion is dying. Seee Steve Bruce GOD IS DEAD and Norris and Inglehart's SACRED AND SECULRAR.
3. On page 136, the author refers to certain forms of spirituality as "poppycock." This was a true shock to me. Why is belief in a virgin birth grand, and a belief in God simply wonderful -- and yet The Celestine Prophecy poppycock? The author reveals a deep double-standard here. A real flaw.
4. I thought the entire chapter on Star Wars was silly.
5. The author quotes I John 4:2 that those who say "I love God" and yet hate their brothers or sisters are liars. I guess the author hasn't ever read Luke 14, where Jesus says that if you DON'T hate your brothers or sisters, you aren't worthy of him and the Kingdom of the Lord (d'hoh!)

In sum, a fun read and a thoughtful, funny diatribe.

Caputo has written much on Derrida's approach to religion and if your familiar with this attitude also associated with Levinas, usually dubbed as post-secularism, then you know what to expect. I enjoyed some of the insights within this book, but Zizek's On Belief from the same series surpasses this work on many accounts. Pass this one up in favor his. It's much more relevant and intellectually challenging.