Peter Kreeft Interview March 2010

Peter Kreeft interview while at a GodSquad.ca conference in Calgary Alberta Canada.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Peter Kreeft
• Philosophy
• Atheism religion

[60stadia]

waiting for December, then! ... (I hope this man is around by the time my kids are of university age)

[misterzonker2584]

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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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).

[pj100003]

@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]

@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.

[misterzonker2584]

@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.

[pj100003]

@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]

@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.

[MrViobattie]

@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.