(NOTE: I'm stingy with stars. For me 2 stars means a good book or a B. 3 stars means a very good book or a B+. 4 stars means an outstanding book or an A {only about 5% of the books I read merit 4 stars}. 5 stars means an all time favorite or an A+ {Only one of 400 or 500 books rates this!).
To me Peter Kreeft is like a Catholic Norman Geisler. They both emphasize reason and logic and often clearly and accurately narrow things down to their most basic arguments. However sometimes I think they both come to wrong conclusions. For example, Kreeft is Roman Catholic and Geisler is almost Arminian. But 90% of the time they are very helpful in their analysis.
Here are a few quotes from this work:
“Socrates, Descartes, and Kant are the three thinkers who most importantly changed the meaning of the concept of reason, all narrowing it, in different ways, so we can distinguish four meanings of reason.
Before Socrates, reason meant everything that distinguished man from animals, including intuition, mystical experiences, and dreams. Socrates narrowed it to mean giving clear definitions and logical proofs.
Descartes narrowed it further to mean something more like the scientific method, even in philosophy: the act of calculating, reasoning, proving, rather than wisdom or understanding.
Finally, Kant psychologized reason. He said that our reason constructs or shapes the world rather than discovering it, so it can’t know things as they are in themselves; we can’t know objective reality by reason.
I will use reason in the way most people still use it: in the Socratic way. Mystical experience or dreams or intuition or myths will not count as reason, but only what is definable and provable. But we won’t narrow the term any more than that.” (9)
“Can reason define or prove everything, most things, only a few things, or no things that are believed by religious faith? And do faith and reason, religion and logic, contradict each other?
There is no one standard answer among Jewish, Christian, or Muslim philosophers to the question of how much of religious faith can be proved by reason. The most popular and traditional answer is this: not all of it, for then faith would not be necessary, and not none of it, for then philosophy of reli- gion would be impossible, but some of it.
What about the more important question: Are there any contradictions between faith and reason? No orthodox Jew, Christian, or Muslim can admit that there are any. Because if God created us in his image, and reason is part of that image, then when we use that instrument rightly we are being taught by God, and God never contradicts himself; therefore, there can never be any real contradictions between religious faith and reason. If there were, then reason would have disproved that part of religious faith, so an honest person would no longer believe it.” (10)
“Persons should be judged innocent till proved guilty, but ideas should be judged guilty till proved innocent, as long as you don’t limit proof to absolutely clear and certain proof.” (12)
Kreeft next discusses 20 arguments for atheism. (12-15)
'He then examines the problem of evil. His analysis is helpful but he concludes: “I began with a lot of clear logic, but have wandered into some extremely mysterious ideas. Evil began as a problem and ended as a mystery. Is that a problem? Does that make it less likely to be real? The more you look at any reality, the more mysterious it becomes. Throughout the twentieth century, we’ve been discovering that matter is much more mysterious than we used to think, ever since Einstein and quantum physics; why should man be less mysterious than matter? And why should God be less mysterious than man?
I will end with the best one-sentence answer I have seen to the problem of evil, which will probably strike you as either utterly incomprehensible or stunningly profound. A man once wrote: “Why do the righteous suffer? The answer to that question is not in the same world as the question, and there- fore if I could answer it, you would shrink from me in terror.” (21)
Kreeft next discusses 20 arguments for God’s existence. (23-33)
In chapter 6 he discusses religion and science.
In chapter 7 he considers the arguments against life after death.
In chapter 8 he examines 12 arguments for life after death.
In lecture 9 he considers different concepts of heaven.
In lecture 10 hell.
Lectures 11-12 test the different truth-claims of different religions.
In lecture 13 he asks “what would Socrates think”?
And in lecture 14 he discusses religions experience.
There are some things I’d argue with but most of this work is very helpful.