Tweet

Neil Shenvi

9 Feb, 8 tweets, 3 min read

In the last few months, many prominent evangelical leaders have warned about #CriticalTheory in its various forms. Here's a short thread collecting the statements of Carl Ellis Jr., Tim Keller, Carl Trueman, John Piper, JD Greear, and Anthony Bradley: 1/

Carl Ellis Jr. writes: "my worldview is solely derived from the Scriptures. I therefore reject Critical Theory, Critical Race Theory (CRT), today’s Intersectionality..as well as Marxism and all its applications, as antithetical to..the Gospel of Christ" 2/
drcarlellisjr.blogspot.com/2020/02/seven-…

Tim Keller writes that "postmodern critical theory" is: “deeply incoherent,” “far too simplistic,” “undermining [of] our common humanity,” “[denying] our common sinfulness,” and “mak[ing] forgiveness, peace, and reconciliation between groups impossible” 3/
quarterly.gospelinlife.com/a-biblical-cri…

Carl Trueman writes: "All-embracing and transformative views often have a religious quality. Critical race theory is no exception. It has a creedal language and liturgy.. To fail to participate in the liturgy is... something only a racist would do." 4/
firstthings.com/article/2021/0…

JD Greear states: "While we lament the painful legacy that racism and discrimination have left.. and remain committed to fighting it in every form, we also declare that ideological frameworks like Critical Race Theory are incompatible with the BFM." 5/
baptistpress.com/resource-libra…

John Piper says: "critical race theory in its more essential definition.. is a manifestation of the age-old enslavement of the fallen human heart to self-deification...and self-definition...and self-determination" 6/
desiringgod.org/interviews/cri…

Anthony Bradley writes: "CRT is attempting to give an account of evil and salvation. It is merely a form of Gnosticism. CRT’s version of Satan is 'white supremacy' and [it] wants to dismantle racism in an attempt to achieve cosmic salvation" 7/
mereorthodoxy.com/critical-race-…

In conclusion, if you've assumed warnings about #CriticalTheory are just the alarmist, divisive screechings of abrasive fundamentalists, it's not too late to reevaluate your assessment. 8/8

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

More from @NeilShenvi

Neil Shenvi

@NeilShenvi

30 Dec 20

Christians, "free will" cannot be your only or ultimate response to the problem of evil because of what I call the "informational problem of evil" (short thread):

1/

Many evil events can be averted by simply offering a person more information: that bridge is unsafe, your brakes don't work, your door is unlocked, etc. This information is often utterly banal and is often possessed by other human beings (i.e. it doesn't require omniscience). 2/

Giving a person this information obviously doesn't impinge on their free will: they are free to ignore it. And when a fellow human being tells us this information, we never accuse them of taking away our agency. So the atheist can ask: why doesn't God give us this information? 3/

Read 5 tweets

Neil Shenvi

@NeilShenvi

13 Oct 20

If anyone is looking for a ton of quotes from primary sources outlining the central tenets of #CriticalRaceTheory, I know a guy who has collected quite a bit of that material... 1/

shenviapologetics.com/what-is-critic…

2/

shenviapologetics.com/a-long-review-…

3/

shenviapologetics.com/a-long-review-…

Read 9 tweets

Neil Shenvi

@NeilShenvi

14 Jun 20

Sincere question: Is it easier to acquire interdisciplinary knowledge in the sciences or the humanities? (thread)

I'd say it's easier in the sciences, but I'm open to counterargument. The main reason is the universality of math. Math is the language of science and if you 1/

have a good grounding in math, it's amazing how quickly you can pick up other disciplines. For example, problems in engineering or economics or biology look indecipherable at first, but then I'll say "Oh, that's just a Fourier transform" or "I get it: a boundary-value problem" 2/

You can derive a lot from first principles in the sciences, provided you understand the math. The humanities are different because they're so contingent. Knowing 13th-century Spanish history provides me with virtually no knowledge of 2nd-century Chinese history, let alone 3/

Read 5 tweets

Neil Shenvi

@NeilShenvi

18 May 20

I mean this non-pejoratively, but #CriticalTheory is a conspiracy theory without conspirators.

Short thread:
Conspiracy theories argue that the overall trajectory of history and the majority of people's actions are shaped by a powerful, nefarious cabal of conspirators, whose 1/

existence can only be inferred by recognizing subtle, insidious connections between public facts which can be discerned only by people who have gotten "woke".

This is precisely the same argument that critical theorists make, except that the nefarious cabal of conspirators 2/

is replaced by nefarious social forces and hegemonic narratives. No one is intentionally pulling the strings, but we're all nonetheless being controlled. And most people remain in denial and are unable to see the truth until they're enlightened, not by internet forums and 3/

Read 8 tweets

Neil Shenvi

@NeilShenvi

30 Apr 20

@CT_Bergstrom

Quick thread on #COVID19 mortality rates inspired by a comment from Dr. @CT_Bergstrom.

Official COVID deaths in NYC are 12,774 out of a population of 8.4M. That means that 0.15% ***of all New Yorkers*** have died of coronavirus in the last two months. 1/

That places a lower bound on the COVID fatality rate in NYC. Even if 100% of New Yorkers have been infected, the fatality rate must be at least 0.15% (but is probably higher).

But can we trust the number of reported deaths? What if they're over-reported? 2/

Here's some data on excess deaths from New York City. There are around 20,000 more deaths than normal since March. Either
1) #COVID19 *and* something else is causing these deaths
or
2) #COVID19 deaths are undercounted

3/

Read 5 tweets

Neil Shenvi

@NeilShenvi

29 Apr 20

People who are sharing Dr. Erickson's video about #COVID19, please read:

Starting at 4:30, he notes that 19% of #COVID19 tests in CA are positive and then "extrapolates" to 5M COVID cases in CA and then uses this number to argue against a lockdown. This is horrifically wrong. 1/

A parallel argument would be "50% of cancer biopsies in CA are positive; therefore, 50% of people in CA have cancer." That's nonsense.

It doesn't follow that everything Dr. Erickson is false. It doesn't follow that lockdowns are still needed. But two things do follow. 2/

First, the fact that Dr. Erickson could make such a basic, basic mistake removes any warrant for us thinking he speaks from a position of authority on this issue. In the same way, if I say "I am a PhD chemist. I also believe in the four elements of fire, air, wind, and water" 3/

Read 6 tweets

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!