Time for a @wokal_distance-style thread on two subjects: 1) the claim that #CriticalRaceTheory teaches that "all white people are complicit in racism" and 2) whether CRT scholars are always honest brokers.
First, does CRT claim that "all white people are complicit in racism"? 1/
I often hear it claimed that CRT doesn't teach anything like "all white people are complicit in racism." However, Delgado and Stefancic's CRT: An Introduction is *the* classic introductory text on CRT and it includes the following statement: 2/
"many critical race theorists and social scientists hold that racism is pervasive, systemic, and deeply ingrained. If we take this perspective, then no white member of society seems quite so innocent.” - Delgado and Stefancic, CRT: An Introduction, p. 91 3/
I'd like to ask @brianfraga to reconsider his article criticizing @BishopBarron for saying that #CriticalRaceTheory has "philosophical underpinnings in Nietzsche, Marx, Foucault, and Derrida."
Short, instructive thread. 1/
To determine whether Bishop Barron was correct, @brianfraga turned to @SamRochadotcom, a "Catholic philosopher and academic who has written about critical race theory." Rocha made numerous claims, including the claim that 'critical' in "CRT" simply means the difference 2/
between the biological theory of race and a sociological one" and that "nowhere whatsoever does a critical theory of race or CRT emerge from German or French theoretical foundations" and that "it is fiction to claim that they emerge from the secret roots of Nietzche, Marx, 3/
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…
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/
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/
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/