Freethought & Rationalism Archive

richard2 · 09-07-2005, 06:11 AM

Peter Kreeft, Ph.D., is a professor of philosophy at Boston College and a famous Catholic apologist. His web site is here: http://www.peterkreeft.com/

He is also co-author of the immensly popular (amongst Christians) Handbook of Christian Apologetics, which can be found at Amazon.com.

I'm surprised that anyone can believe his mainly C. S. Lewis inspired bullshit. It is truly horrendous. But what's worse is that he has a huge Catholic following that adores him.

Is this truly the best he can do, this man with an advanced degree from Fordham U and position of professor of philosophy at Boston College? Read through the articles on his web site and let me know what you think. Warning: You might throw up.

By the way, if you read through the Handbook of Christian Apologetics, it's mostly the same crap.

Thanks,

Richard

Ojuice5001 · 09-07-2005, 06:41 AM

Hey now, I'm a fan of this guy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by richard2

I'm surprised that anyone can believe his mainly C. S. Lewis inspired bullshit.

Well, I believe only a little of it, but I consider it to make good points.

Quote:

It is truly horrendous. But what's worse is that he has a huge Catholic following that adores him.

And me. I'm not a Christian at all, but a pagan.

Quote:

Read through the articles on his web site and let me know what you think.

How about you tell me something you think is stupid, and we'll go from there.

richard2 · 09-07-2005, 08:24 AM

"Hey now, I'm a fan of this guy."

I'm sorry if I offended you. I sometimes forget that people other than atheists surf the forums also.

"Well, I believe only a little of it, but I consider it to make good points."

Which points would that be?

"And me. I'm not a Christian at all, but a pagan."

Cool. I see from your profile that you are a polytheist? Would you mind expanding upon your belief system? I'm interested.

"How about you tell me something you think is stupid, and we'll go from there."

Sure. I think a lot of it is self-evident, though, which is why I only posted a link to his web site. I apologize.

I will give my thoughts on a few excerpts from his article on why he thinks that Pascal's Wager is a good argument. I'm not going to go through every article, as I don't have the time, but here are the excerpts:

"If God does not exist, it does not matter how you wager, for there is nothing to win after death and nothing to lose after death. But if God does exist, your only chance of winning eternal happiness is to believe, and your only chance of losing it is to refuse to believe. As Pascal says, "I should be much more afraid of being mistaken and then finding out that Christianity is true than of being mistaken in believing it to be true." If you believe too much, you neither win nor lose eternal happiness. But if you believe too little, you risk losing everything."

I think it does matter how you wager. In Kreeft's Catholicity, "waging" that God exists implies that one not only believes but also follows all the rules of Catholicism faithfully. Belief alone will not save your soul in Catholicism. This means sacrificing lots of time and money for a religion which you probably don't sincerely believe in. I think that giving up all this time and energy for what could be your one and only life is just as equal a wager.

He also makes the assumption that if a God exists and if you do not wager correctly, one will go immediately to eternal punishment after death. But he does not make available the option that a God could exist, yet there is no eternal hell, no chance of eternal loss, or that God could possibly not care whether we believe in Him. He is limiting you with the options of Christian theology, between Heaven and Hell, ultimate pleasure and ultimate pain. It is a scare tactic, and not a very good one.

He goes on:

"But is it worth the price? What must be given up to wager that God exists? Whatever it is, it is only finite, and it is most reasonable to wager something finite on the chance of winning an infinite prize. Perhaps you must give up autonomy or illicit pleasures, but you will gain infinite happiness in eternity, and 'I tell you that you will gain even in this life "—purpose, peace, hope, joy, the things that put smiles on the lips of martyrs.'"

He is assuming, as in the above excerpt, that the evidence for the existence of God is great, which I don't think is true. But even if it were, which creed do I choose? How do we know that non-belief equals eternal punishment? How do we know that there is an eternal punishment? What 'illicit' pleasures? Drugs? I wouldn't do them anyway. Pre-marital sex? How do we know that God is against pre-marital sex?

At the beginning of the article, Kreeft seems to state that Pascal's Wager is a very good argument because Pascal thought so, and, because Pascal was very skeptical and keen, he would probably not make mistakes.

I'm sure others could rip this whole article to shreds, but I'll stop here with those two excerpts. This is just one of the articles I think is silly. The whole article is here for your viewing pleasure: http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/pascals-wager.htm.

I think that a lot of his fallacies are self-evident. I invite everyone to read through his articles, especially his 'design' argument article and 'history' article, where he puts forth the Trilemma, an argument he likes.

Richard

richard2 · 09-07-2005, 08:27 AM

Also, from the SW Library: http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...cs.html#kreeft

Ojuice5001 · 09-07-2005, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by richard2

"Well, I believe only a little of it, but I consider it to make good points."

Which points would that be?

For one thing, I find him to be quite effective in speaking as if the world is in an inherent state of conflict between different forces. In his view, those are forces of good and evil, but I do not interpret the world in terms of good and evil. I see his writings as both good cultural criticism and good theology (for a monotheist). I also like his traditionalism; his ideas draw very heavily from "the canon," the traditionally valued books of Western culture. And as you note, he thinks about C.S. Lewis the same way.

Quote:

"And me. I'm not a Christian at all, but a pagan."

Cool. I see from your profile that you are a polytheist? Would you mind expanding upon your belief system? I'm interested.

I believe that there are many gods for the different things on this world. They have ties to the cultures of the world, although these ties become blurred as the cultures themselves do. They compete among themselves for power.

Yahweh is a real being, but not the Supreme God. He's just one of the finite gods of the world who has been ambitious, skillful, and smart enough to make a religion that worships him very popular. I worship a Roman goddess rather than Yahweh, but this idea that Yahweh is one of the main rulers of the world is, I suppose, a reason why I'm drawn to guys like Kreeft.

Quote:

[snip a mostly good refutation of the Wager]

He is assuming, as in the above excerpt, that the evidence for the existence of God is great, which I don't think is true.

Well, actually he isn't. He's fairly candid in admitting that the Wager is a rather unelevated reason for believing, inferior to both reason and to virtuous faith. Therefore, it's for the people who find the evidence unconvincing but still take God/Christianity seriously:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kreeft

Suppose such a typical mind lacked both the gift of faith and the confidence in reason to prove God's existence; could there be a third ladder out of the pit of unbelief into the light of belief?...The Wager appeals not to a high ideal, like faith, hope, love, or proof, but to a low one...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard

But even if it were, which creed do I choose? How do we know that non-belief equals eternal punishment? How do we know that there is an eternal punishment? What 'illicit' pleasures? Drugs? I wouldn't do them anyway. Pre-marital sex? How do we know that God is against pre-marital sex?

It's worth noting that he's pretty much just paraphrasing what Pascal originally wrote. Not trying to deal with modern objections.

I suppose there are disadvantages to that approach. On the other hand, modern discussions of Pascal tend to ignore some of the points are there in Kreeft's article, because they're there in the original. For instance, Pascal did have an answer to the "belief is not a choice" objection that his modern defenders never bring up: the idea that you can gradually act your way into believing in a religion.

Quote:

At the beginning of the article, Kreeft seems to state that Pascal's Wager is a very good argument because Pascal thought so, and, because Pascal was very skeptical and keen, he would probably not make mistakes.

His point is more the old theme that certain people think through the skeptical view of the world for so long that they find it inadequate, and turn to religion instead.

Also, by "strongest" he means the most convincing, not the strongest logically.

Quote:

I think that a lot of his fallacies are self-evident. I invite everyone to read through his articles, especially his 'design' argument article and 'history' article, where he puts forth the Trilemma, an argument he likes.

Richard

I suppose the best you can say is that he does a good job with the weak arguments he's got. It's been pointed out to me that since I'm not myself a Christian, I must not think all that highly of the arguments of Christian apologists. They can nevertheless give us insights into something or other, IMO.

richard2 · 09-07-2005, 10:13 AM

Hi, again,

First, I wanted to thank you for your calm and well-reasoned post. I appreciated and enjoyed it. I think I was too strong in my opening post now that I look back. Apologies. I think part of the reason why I was strong was because I used to admire the guy as a Catholic. He was my favorite apologist. He convinced me of the existence of hell, but that convincing lead me to a very bad experience with the Church (I have OCD, and I ended up in the hospital). You made me realize that my gut reaction to apologists should be one of understanding and not hate. Thanks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ojuice5001

For one thing, I find him to be quite effective in speaking as if the world is in an inherent state of conflict between different forces. In his view, those are forces of good and evil, but I do not interpret the world in terms of good and evil. I see his writings as both good cultural criticism and good theology (for a monotheist). I also like his traditionalism; his ideas draw very heavily from "the canon," the traditionally valued books of Western culture. And as you note, he thinks about C.S. Lewis the same way.

Thanks.

Quote:

I believe that there are many gods for the different things on this world. They have ties to the cultures of the world, although these ties become blurred as the cultures themselves do. They compete among themselves for power.

Yahweh is a real being, but not the Supreme God. He's just one of the finite gods of the world who has been ambitious, skillful, and smart enough to make a religion that worships him very popular. I worship a Roman goddess rather than Yahweh, but this idea that Yahweh is one of the main rulers of the world is, I suppose, a reason why I'm drawn to guys like Kreeft.

I see now. Thanks for the explanation. Very interesting.

Quote:

Well, actually he isn't. He's fairly candid in admitting that the Wager is a rather unelevated reason for believing, inferior to both reason and to virtuous faith. Therefore, it's for the people who find the evidence unconvincing but still take God/Christianity seriously

Yes, I missed that part. I will reread for it.

Quote:

It's worth noting that he's pretty much just paraphrasing what Pascal originally wrote. Not trying to deal with modern objections.

I realize this now. I think that I read this one too quickly and just assumed it was like his book Handbook of Christian Apologetics. In the book, he does not talk like he does on his web site, as if he is speaking from afar and objectively analyzing the argument's worth. Instead, in the book, he actually supports the arguments.

Anyway, I think that Kreeft deserves more attention from atheists, as He is extremely popular and influential. Perhaps someone scholarly could undertake reviewing the book he co-authored with Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics and its worth. I know there are a few articles in the library here, but not enough, methinks. He's a nice guy, but I believe he's incorrect on most things.

I'm curious: what did you think of the Handbook, if you read it, which I'm sure you have?

best,

Richard

Ojuice5001 · 09-07-2005, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by richard2

I'm curious: what did you think of the Handbook, if you read it, which I'm sure you have?

best,

Richard

It does a good job of clarifying the issues involved in apologetic debate. This is progress in itself.

I suppose the actual arguments are a mixed bag. He's arguing for and against all kinds of different positions, so how could there not be some good points and some bad ones?

richard2 · 09-07-2005, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ojuice5001

It does a good job of clarifying the issues involved in apologetic debate. This is progress in itself.

I suppose the actual arguments are a mixed bag. He's arguing for and against all kinds of different positions, so how could there not be some good points and some bad ones?

Yes, indeed.

I am now eager to reread the book, but I can't find it at the moment.

Anyway, thanks a lot for the response. I enjoyed it.

best,

Richard

lpetrich · 09-07-2005, 04:56 PM

I wonder if Peter Kreeft handles any of the common criticisms of Pascal's Wager, like:

* The ability to construct variations of it that support belief systems other than his.

* The implication that believing in Xianity is nothing more than fire insurance.

* The implicit denial of knowability, which is contrary to his church's teachings; the Catholic Church has a dogma that states that the existence of God can be proved by unaided reason.

Also, he makes claims about the Gospels are are rather off-the wall. In his article on Jesus Christ's resurrection, he states:

Quote:

The style of the Gospels is radically and clearly different from the style of all the myths. Any literary scholar who knows and appreciates myths can verify this. There are no overblown, spectacular, childishly exaggerated events. Nothing is arbitrary. Everything fits in. Everything is meaningful. The hand of a master is at work here.

Psychological depth is at a maximum. In myth it is at a minimum. In myth, such spectacular external events happen that it would be distracting to add much internal depth of character. That is why it is ordinary people like Alice who are the protagonists of extra-ordinary adventures like Wonderland. That character depth and development of everyone in the Gospels—especially, of course, Jesus himself—is remarkable. It is also done with an incredible economy of words. Myths are verbose; the Gospels are laconic (concise).

There are also telltale marks of eyewitness description, like the little detail of Jesus writing in the sand when asked whether to stone the adulteress or not (Jn 8:6). No one knows why this is put in; nothing comes of it. The only explanation is that the writer saw it. If this detail and others like it throughout all four Gospels were invented, then a first-century tax collector (Matthew), a "young man" (Mark), a doctor (Luke), and a fisherman (John) all independently invented the new genre of realistic fantasy nineteen centuries before it was reinvented in the twentieth.

The stylistic point is argued so well by C.S. Lewis in "Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism" (in Christian Reflections and also in Fern-Seed and Elephants) that we strongly refer the reader to it as the best comprehensive anti-demythologizing essay we have seen.

This is such hooey that I don't know where to begin.

richard2 · 09-08-2005, 10:21 AM

Thanks for your post, lpetrich.

Someone should begin somewhere with this guy, as he is so influential in Catholicism but really incorrect. If you search "Apologetics" on Amazon.com, his Handbook is the third book listed.

I recommend going to the library and checking out his Handbook of Christian Apologetics. It is most of the time laughable and depressing, but what's more is that many believe his words, thinking him a kind of modern day C. S. Lewis. He needs to be dealt with by someone smarter than I and with more time. I know there are many, even perhaps ex-Catholics, who would enjoy attempting to debunk him.

09-07-2005, 06:11 AM	#1
richard2 Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: The Nox Planet Posts: 438	Sad Apologetics from Famous Catholic Apologist Peter Kreeft Peter Kreeft, Ph.D., is a professor of philosophy at Boston College and a famous Catholic apologist. His web site is here: http://www.peterkreeft.com/ He is also co-author of the immensly popular (amongst Christians) Handbook of Christian Apologetics, which can be found at Amazon.com. I'm surprised that anyone can believe his mainly C. S. Lewis inspired bullshit. It is truly horrendous. But what's worse is that he has a huge Catholic following that adores him. Is this truly the best he can do, this man with an advanced degree from Fordham U and position of professor of philosophy at Boston College? Read through the articles on his web site and let me know what you think. Warning: You might throw up. By the way, if you read through the Handbook of Christian Apologetics, it's mostly the same crap. Thanks, Richard

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-07-2005, 08:24 AM	#3
richard2 Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: The Nox Planet Posts: 438	"Hey now, I'm a fan of this guy." I'm sorry if I offended you. I sometimes forget that people other than atheists surf the forums also. "Well, I believe only a little of it, but I consider it to make good points." Which points would that be? "And me. I'm not a Christian at all, but a pagan." Cool. I see from your profile that you are a polytheist? Would you mind expanding upon your belief system? I'm interested. "How about you tell me something you think is stupid, and we'll go from there." Sure. I think a lot of it is self-evident, though, which is why I only posted a link to his web site. I apologize. I will give my thoughts on a few excerpts from his article on why he thinks that Pascal's Wager is a good argument. I'm not going to go through every article, as I don't have the time, but here are the excerpts: "If God does not exist, it does not matter how you wager, for there is nothing to win after death and nothing to lose after death. But if God does exist, your only chance of winning eternal happiness is to believe, and your only chance of losing it is to refuse to believe. As Pascal says, "I should be much more afraid of being mistaken and then finding out that Christianity is true than of being mistaken in believing it to be true." If you believe too much, you neither win nor lose eternal happiness. But if you believe too little, you risk losing everything." I think it does matter how you wager. In Kreeft's Catholicity, "waging" that God exists implies that one not only believes but also follows all the rules of Catholicism faithfully. Belief alone will not save your soul in Catholicism. This means sacrificing lots of time and money for a religion which you probably don't sincerely believe in. I think that giving up all this time and energy for what could be your one and only life is just as equal a wager. He also makes the assumption that if a God exists and if you do not wager correctly, one will go immediately to eternal punishment after death. But he does not make available the option that a God could exist, yet there is no eternal hell, no chance of eternal loss, or that God could possibly not care whether we believe in Him. He is limiting you with the options of Christian theology, between Heaven and Hell, ultimate pleasure and ultimate pain. It is a scare tactic, and not a very good one. He goes on: "But is it worth the price? What must be given up to wager that God exists? Whatever it is, it is only finite, and it is most reasonable to wager something finite on the chance of winning an infinite prize. Perhaps you must give up autonomy or illicit pleasures, but you will gain infinite happiness in eternity, and 'I tell you that you will gain even in this life "—purpose, peace, hope, joy, the things that put smiles on the lips of martyrs.'" He is assuming, as in the above excerpt, that the evidence for the existence of God is great, which I don't think is true. But even if it were, which creed do I choose? How do we know that non-belief equals eternal punishment? How do we know that there is an eternal punishment? What 'illicit' pleasures? Drugs? I wouldn't do them anyway. Pre-marital sex? How do we know that God is against pre-marital sex? At the beginning of the article, Kreeft seems to state that Pascal's Wager is a very good argument because Pascal thought so, and, because Pascal was very skeptical and keen, he would probably not make mistakes. I'm sure others could rip this whole article to shreds, but I'll stop here with those two excerpts. This is just one of the articles I think is silly. The whole article is here for your viewing pleasure: http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/pascals-wager.htm. I think that a lot of his fallacies are self-evident. I invite everyone to read through his articles, especially his 'design' argument article and 'history' article, where he puts forth the Trilemma, an argument he likes. Richard

09-07-2005, 08:27 AM	#4
richard2 Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: The Nox Planet Posts: 438	Also, from the SW Library: http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...cs.html#kreeft

09-08-2005, 10:21 AM	#10
richard2 Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: The Nox Planet Posts: 438	Thanks for your post, lpetrich. Someone should begin somewhere with this guy, as he is so influential in Catholicism but really incorrect. If you search "Apologetics" on Amazon.com, his Handbook is the third book listed. I recommend going to the library and checking out his Handbook of Christian Apologetics. It is most of the time laughable and depressing, but what's more is that many believe his words, thinking him a kind of modern day C. S. Lewis. He needs to be dealt with by someone smarter than I and with more time. I know there are many, even perhaps ex-Catholics, who would enjoy attempting to debunk him.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.