Kreeft is right about god not being scientifically verifiable, but that's not news to most atheists. Also, if most philosophers are atheists (which they are), shouldn't that indicate to Kreeft that the case against God is stronger than he cares to admit? I'm not making an appeal to authority or to popularity here - I'm simply saying that philosophy as a field calls god strongly into question, and the fact that most of its minds doubt god's existence should signal something larger.
@misterzonker2584 your statement has a fallacy in it, you're saying , I'm not making an peal to authority here, but you really are. In your statement "the fact that most of its minds doubt god's existence." you're appealing to authority here. The thing is (1) its a fact devoid of subjectivity. (2) you're associating an objective fact to something subjective which is (if more people say God doesn't exist then God doesn't. Its like saying there are 5 blue m$m's in a bowl, but only one red m&m.
@misterzonker2584 with regard to the m& m analogy does that mean that mean to be blue is really reality? you're statemnt is valid that most philosophers are erring to the side of athiesm. Well it might be just the context we're in. Most people back in the day thought the earth was flat, does that meant the earth is flat? It clearly isn't becuase it was before they discovered that the earth was round.
@misterzonker2584 and to say that most philoshoper's truly doubt the existence of God, then finding out that one philoshoper stood out to say he believes in God from philoshopy itself seems to say alot more than a mass number of philosophers who says that God doesn't exist. Chirstopher columbus wanted to challenge the idea that the world was flat even if most people thought the earth wasn't. It was an act of faith for him to go out there and discover it really wasn't.
@misterzonker2584 in conclusion you're appealing to mere ignorance and implying that people who are non philoshopers shouldn't listen to themselves to learn if he's really out there or not when they could just listen to the words of others who supposedly have the truth (ie athiest philoshopers). Oh surprise reminds you of anything?... ahem... the catholic church.
@misterzonker2584 To claim that something doesn’t exist is belief in of itself. It is a rebellion of one belief to another. athiest’s do claim that their belief is justified true belief. But really it lacks the element of being “true.” B/c it is subjected to doubt by thiests. thus it still a justified belief, not a justified TRUE belief. And you’re implying that you’re right b/c your saying “he is wrong.” Always remember your claims are just still claims subjected to doubt.
Kreeft is an unusually cogent guy, but he is wrong about atheism being about rebellion against God. How could an atheist be rebelling against a being s/he doesn't believe in? That is not the root of atheism, as it countermands what atheism is all about. Also, he seems not to be able to grasp the theological implications of evolution. Its creative as well as its destructive and harmful power, creating a constant slaughterhosue for life to make it through, calls the idea of God into question.
@misterzonker2584 You're not grasping the whole concept of rebellion. Mankind can rebel from a concept as much as an actual person, since rebellion is an interior disposition to ideas, not intrinsically tied to actual existence. Whether God exists or not, you showed a powerful reason why many people rebel against the concept of His existence in your paragraph: that of the destructive and harmful power of nature, ie, perceived evil.
@pj100003 By conflating the concept of rebellion with the concept of asking questions about god's existence and coming up with answers that are contrary to what people like Kreeft think, the argument is automatically prejudiced. You are trying to take the upper hand with your own favored definition of rebellion (it is questioning god), versus questioning the existence of god (a perennial source of philosophical inquiry for very good reason, because there is no real proof one way or the other).
@misterzonker2584 Catholic philosophy has the same answer for implications of evolution as it does for any other aspect of suffering, since really that's all those implications of evolution are: the problem of suffering over a long period of time. The answer is the philosophy of the Cross of Christ; ie, ultimate meaning and happiness is present, through God made man, in the midst of suffering, and that ultimately the Nature of God will supersede suffering in man, and through man, in the world.
@pj100003 Here is the problem with what you are saying: by making appeals to The Cross, you can write off anything that's bad in life by saying that god has already done the legwork for you to move past it, and all you have to do is believe in an atoning sacrifice and use this faith as a ballast in life to overcome suffering. However, there is no proof for this aside from the gospels, so ultimately this is not an adequate answer except for someone who is already a committed Christian.
@misterzonker2584 You don't understand what I'm saying. I'm not trying to prove anything, all I'm doing is adequately explaining the concepts Kreeft adheres to.
@pj100003 Okay, fair enough. But do you agree with Kreeft? Or to put it in a way that's more germane to my objections, is Kreeft playing fair by trying to take the upper hand in the question of god's existence by speaking through an exclusively Christian framework? I don't think he is, because anyone that doesn't adhere to this framework is automatically the enemy, particularly the in the cases of atheists, agnostics, and skeptics, whom he regularly demonizes in interviews.
@pj100003 BTW - Thank you for your replies. Your explanations helped me to better understand the premises by which Kreeft and his cohorts operate, and also that I can misread people. I didn't mean to come off as snarky in my exchanges with you, if I did. Thanks again.
@misterzonker2584 The reason he doesn't seem to "grasp" those implications you see is because he holds to this philosophy of "True Life in death" and "the Passion, which is our Resurrection," to quote St. Ignatius of Antioch. The alternative philosophy is that there is no ultimate destination for life and no meaning in it whatsoever, which makes a mockery of all civilization, and invalidates everything that humanity is, ensuring both our ultimate annihilation as men and that of life itself.
@pj100003 You are right, though I don't think our lives have to be meaningless or self-parodies without god. I'm asking if Kreeft's philosophy makes sense when you really consider the implications of the problem of evil. For example, I think theistic evolution makes god complicit in suffering because god would have been the one to design the process. I don't see where there is meaning in sentient-but-mentally unsophisticated beings undergoing the necessary pain of the evolutionary process.
@Sirchud68 I already do, i read the old Fathers, both greek and latin. It is pleasing to read all those commentaries of Saint John Chrysostom concerning the head of Peter in the Church and its primacy over all the bishops in the world. It would be nice to see Dr. Kreeft thinking about the Great Schism.
Peter Kreeft has a naive view on Islam, i was surprised by his statements on the last question. I wonder what he would say if he were in Egypt right now, inside a coptic church trying to live the christian faith...he sounds like a hippie pacifist.
Kreeft is right about god not being scientifically verifiable, but that's not news to most atheists. Also, if most philosophers are atheists (which they are), shouldn't that indicate to Kreeft that the case against God is stronger than he cares to admit? I'm not making an appeal to authority or to popularity here - I'm simply saying that philosophy as a field calls god strongly into question, and the fact that most of its minds doubt god's existence should signal something larger.
misterzonker2584 5 months ago
@misterzonker2584 your statement has a fallacy in it, you're saying , I'm not making an peal to authority here, but you really are. In your statement "the fact that most of its minds doubt god's existence." you're appealing to authority here. The thing is (1) its a fact devoid of subjectivity. (2) you're associating an objective fact to something subjective which is (if more people say God doesn't exist then God doesn't. Its like saying there are 5 blue m$m's in a bowl, but only one red m&m.
MrViobattie 2 months ago
@misterzonker2584 with regard to the m& m analogy does that mean that mean to be blue is really reality? you're statemnt is valid that most philosophers are erring to the side of athiesm. Well it might be just the context we're in. Most people back in the day thought the earth was flat, does that meant the earth is flat? It clearly isn't becuase it was before they discovered that the earth was round.
MrViobattie 2 months ago
@misterzonker2584 and to say that most philoshoper's truly doubt the existence of God, then finding out that one philoshoper stood out to say he believes in God from philoshopy itself seems to say alot more than a mass number of philosophers who says that God doesn't exist. Chirstopher columbus wanted to challenge the idea that the world was flat even if most people thought the earth wasn't. It was an act of faith for him to go out there and discover it really wasn't.
MrViobattie 2 months ago
@misterzonker2584 in conclusion you're appealing to mere ignorance and implying that people who are non philoshopers shouldn't listen to themselves to learn if he's really out there or not when they could just listen to the words of others who supposedly have the truth (ie athiest philoshopers). Oh surprise reminds you of anything?... ahem... the catholic church.
MrViobattie 2 months ago
@misterzonker2584 To claim that something doesn’t exist is belief in of itself. It is a rebellion of one belief to another. athiest’s do claim that their belief is justified true belief. But really it lacks the element of being “true.” B/c it is subjected to doubt by thiests. thus it still a justified belief, not a justified TRUE belief. And you’re implying that you’re right b/c your saying “he is wrong.” Always remember your claims are just still claims subjected to doubt.
MrViobattie 2 months ago
Kreeft is an unusually cogent guy, but he is wrong about atheism being about rebellion against God. How could an atheist be rebelling against a being s/he doesn't believe in? That is not the root of atheism, as it countermands what atheism is all about. Also, he seems not to be able to grasp the theological implications of evolution. Its creative as well as its destructive and harmful power, creating a constant slaughterhosue for life to make it through, calls the idea of God into question.
misterzonker2584 5 months ago
@misterzonker2584 You're not grasping the whole concept of rebellion. Mankind can rebel from a concept as much as an actual person, since rebellion is an interior disposition to ideas, not intrinsically tied to actual existence. Whether God exists or not, you showed a powerful reason why many people rebel against the concept of His existence in your paragraph: that of the destructive and harmful power of nature, ie, perceived evil.
pj100003 1 month ago
@pj100003 By conflating the concept of rebellion with the concept of asking questions about god's existence and coming up with answers that are contrary to what people like Kreeft think, the argument is automatically prejudiced. You are trying to take the upper hand with your own favored definition of rebellion (it is questioning god), versus questioning the existence of god (a perennial source of philosophical inquiry for very good reason, because there is no real proof one way or the other).
misterzonker2584 1 month ago
@misterzonker2584 Catholic philosophy has the same answer for implications of evolution as it does for any other aspect of suffering, since really that's all those implications of evolution are: the problem of suffering over a long period of time. The answer is the philosophy of the Cross of Christ; ie, ultimate meaning and happiness is present, through God made man, in the midst of suffering, and that ultimately the Nature of God will supersede suffering in man, and through man, in the world.
pj100003 1 month ago
@pj100003 Here is the problem with what you are saying: by making appeals to The Cross, you can write off anything that's bad in life by saying that god has already done the legwork for you to move past it, and all you have to do is believe in an atoning sacrifice and use this faith as a ballast in life to overcome suffering. However, there is no proof for this aside from the gospels, so ultimately this is not an adequate answer except for someone who is already a committed Christian.
misterzonker2584 1 month ago
@misterzonker2584 You don't understand what I'm saying. I'm not trying to prove anything, all I'm doing is adequately explaining the concepts Kreeft adheres to.
pj100003 1 month ago
@pj100003 Okay, fair enough. But do you agree with Kreeft? Or to put it in a way that's more germane to my objections, is Kreeft playing fair by trying to take the upper hand in the question of god's existence by speaking through an exclusively Christian framework? I don't think he is, because anyone that doesn't adhere to this framework is automatically the enemy, particularly the in the cases of atheists, agnostics, and skeptics, whom he regularly demonizes in interviews.
misterzonker2584 1 month ago
@pj100003 BTW - Thank you for your replies. Your explanations helped me to better understand the premises by which Kreeft and his cohorts operate, and also that I can misread people. I didn't mean to come off as snarky in my exchanges with you, if I did. Thanks again.
misterzonker2584 1 month ago
@misterzonker2584 The reason he doesn't seem to "grasp" those implications you see is because he holds to this philosophy of "True Life in death" and "the Passion, which is our Resurrection," to quote St. Ignatius of Antioch. The alternative philosophy is that there is no ultimate destination for life and no meaning in it whatsoever, which makes a mockery of all civilization, and invalidates everything that humanity is, ensuring both our ultimate annihilation as men and that of life itself.
pj100003 1 month ago
@pj100003 You are right, though I don't think our lives have to be meaningless or self-parodies without god. I'm asking if Kreeft's philosophy makes sense when you really consider the implications of the problem of evil. For example, I think theistic evolution makes god complicit in suffering because god would have been the one to design the process. I don't see where there is meaning in sentient-but-mentally unsophisticated beings undergoing the necessary pain of the evolutionary process.
misterzonker2584 1 month ago
Dr. Kreeft should be Orthodox
Sirchud68 7 months ago
@Sirchud68 He is a intelligent man, he would not join the schismatic church...
cruzader1444 7 months ago
@cruzader1444 Please Brother, read the Church Fathers western AND eastern. God be with you...
Sirchud68 7 months ago
@Sirchud68 I already do, i read the old Fathers, both greek and latin. It is pleasing to read all those commentaries of Saint John Chrysostom concerning the head of Peter in the Church and its primacy over all the bishops in the world. It would be nice to see Dr. Kreeft thinking about the Great Schism.
God bless.
cruzader1444 7 months ago
Peter Kreeft has a naive view on Islam, i was surprised by his statements on the last question. I wonder what he would say if he were in Egypt right now, inside a coptic church trying to live the christian faith...he sounds like a hippie pacifist.
cruzader1444 9 months ago
he sounds like Alan Alda :D heard him talk at Iowa state. Smart guy, don't agree with most of his logic though.
finalxcx 1 year ago
What was wrong with his logic?
romgtr 11 months ago
@romgtr Nothing is wrong with it. I just don't agree with it, which is fine. Thats Philosophy :)
finalxcx 11 months ago
Kreeft is a very smart man but it's funny how he seems to have "The Abolition of Man" memorized and quotes it almost verbatim in this interview!
MrBenMcLean 1 year ago
waiting for December, then! ... (I hope this man is around by the time my kids are of university age)
60stadia 1 year ago 3