One of the books I’ve been reading on the kindle has been On Religion by John D. Caputo. This has been a fun book to read because of the writing style of Caputo verges on pompous sarcasm, but still manages to remain its humour. I’m only to the third chapter of this short book, but Caputo seems to be someone that would be great to have a conversation with over dinner. His pronouncements are crisp and are sometimes too clear. But this has been fun to read nonetheless.

One quote that intrigued me was where he talks about “the unnerving, angry, and resentful” group also known as “Radical Orthodoxy”. Caputo gives his take on them: “Radical Orthodoxy is a good deal more orthodox than radical, has managed to convince itself that God came into the world in order to side with Christian Neoplatonism against post-structrualism, and appears utterly dumbfounded by the fact that medieval metaphysics has lost its grip on contemporary thinkers” (61).

So far, in this short book, Caputo hasn’t really talked about the hard to define category of religion. Instead he’s gone on about ‘the impossible’ and clever quips about how the Enlightenment needs to become more enlightened. While I’m not thoroughly impressed by Caputo, his journalistic style does make him fun to read.

Caputo shines the brightest when he discusses the Augustinian question, “What do I love when I love my God?”:

“What does it mean to “love” something? If a man asks a woman…”do you love me?” and if, after a long and awkward pause and considerable deliberation, she replies with wrinkled brow, “well, up to a certain point, under certain conditions, and to a certain extent,” then we can be sure that whatever it is she feels for this poor fellow it is not love and this relationship is not going to work out. For if love is the measure, the only measure of love is love without measure (Augustine again). One of the ideas behind “love” is that it represents a giving without holding back, an “unconditional”commitment, which marks love with a certain excess…If a woman divorces a man because he turned out to be a failure in his profession and just did not measure up to the salary expectations she had for him when they married, if she complains that he did not live up to his end of the “bargain,” well, that is not the sort of till-death-us-do-part, unconditional commitment that is built into marital love and the marital vow. Love is not a bargain, but unconditional giving; it is not an investment, but a commitment come what may. Lovers are people who exceed their duty, who look around for ways to do more than is required of them. If you love your job, you don’t just do the minimum that is required of you; you do more. If you love your children, what would you not do for them? If a wife asks a husband to do her a favor, and he declines on the grounds that he is really not duty bound by the strict terms of the marriage contract to do it, that marriage is all over except for the paper work. Rather than rigorously defending their rights, lovers readily put themselves in the wrong and take the blame for the sake of preserving their love…A world without love is a world governed by rigid contracts and inexorable duties, a world in which – God forbid! – the lawyers run everything. The mark of really loving someone or something is unconditionality and excess, engagement and commitment, fire and passion. Its opposite is a mediocre fellow, neither hot nor cold, moderate to the point of mediocrity. Not worth saving. No salt” (pp. 4-5).