Letters to an Atheist: Wrestling with Faith

by Peter Kreeft

In Letters to an Atheist, esteemed philosopher and author Peter Kreeft corresponds with a young atheist who is wrestling with the question of God. Together they work through some of the primary reasons people don t believe in God, including violence committed in the name of religion, the problem of evil, and more. They also discuss many of the reasons for belief, including love, miracles, and the relationship between religion and science. The debate between atheists and theists today is often strident and angry, and understandably so the debate encompasses fundamental questions about how we live our lives. As Kreeft writes, if God does not exist, then religion is the biggest hoax, the biggest myth, the biggest lie in the history of the world. However, Letters to an Atheist showcases a respectful exploration of some of life s biggest questions, trying to understand the opposing point of view. With characteristic warmth and clarity, Kreeft s letters offer believers and non-believers alike much to consider."

Genres: Philosophy, Religion, Christianity, Catholic, Theology, Nonfiction

178 pages, Kindle Edition

First published September 30, 2014

About the author

Peter Kreeft is an American philosopher and prolific author of over eighty books on Christian theology, philosophy, and apologetics. A convert from Protestantism to Catholicism, his journey was shaped by his study of Church history, Gothic architecture, and Thomistic thought. He earned his BA from Calvin College, an MA and PhD from Fordham University, and pursued further studies at Yale. Since 1965, he has taught philosophy at Boston College and also at The King’s College. Kreeft is known for formulating “Twenty Arguments for the Existence of God” with Ronald K. Tacelli, featured in their Handbook of Christian Apologetics. A strong advocate for unity among Christians, he emphasizes shared belief in Christ over denominational differences.

Reviews

[Cassius Rovenstine · Rating 4 out of 5]

Peter Kreeft, master of the modern Socratic dialogue, writes this collection of letters between himself and the fictional atheist “Michael” in monologue form – choosing to present only the Christian side of the pen-pal discussion and omit the atheist responses.

This format has its inherent weaknesses, not the least of which is the necessity of constantly summarizing the unseen atheist argument , which makes each letter seem clunky and unnatural. (Example: “In your last letter your wrote [Block Quote]…”) It also leaves the reader with the nagging sense, fair or not, that Kreeft is deliberately hiding his debate opponent’s strongest points.

But the format may also serve to demonstrate an important point. Kreeft invites us to “make Michael real” by becoming the character ourselves. It may surprise some Christians how easily this task is accomplished. The gulf between atheists and theists – or at least truth seeking atheists and theists – is rather easily bridged. As Kreeft eloquently notes, an atheist who has subordinated himself to the truth (or the Truth, as the case may be) has already made an important step in journey toward accepting the existence of God – much more so than an atheist who wills away the existence of God out of mere contempt for the concept, or even a Christian who believes in God out of simple fear of the alternative. Kreeft and Michael are able to have a productive discussion, and each side is able to comprehend the other, because they agree that the boundaries of the discussion are the boundaries of truth, even if they do not fully reach it together within the span of forty-some letters.

Kreeft writes his atheist counterpart with charity and genuine affection that should be a model for all Christians when dealing with unbelievers. The substance of the book is important for Christians, but the style even more so.

[Nathan Albright · Rating 5 out of 5]

As someone who has written many letters over the course of my life [1] and someone who has a strong interest in apologetics [2], this book is the sort of effort that I have imagined doing in different contexts, and one whose approach I appreciate. Now, having read a few books by the author already [3], this book bears at least some cautions. The author follows at least some of his familiar tricks--creating at least one side of a fictionalized dialogue that takes place in letters. In many ways this book, or at least the half of the material that we are able to read, the rest which has to be inferred from what is included, is the sort of ideal conversation that a thoughtful person of faith would have to an honest and intelligent skeptic. Here, as is fairly typical in Kreeft's work, we see the dialogue between some types of skeptics and some types of believers as a conversation. To be sure, this is a somewhat awkward and tense conversation, but many of us are no strangers to the danger of misunderstanding or the presence of intense awkwardness, and this book does a good job at presenting a solid case for faith.

The form this book takes is exceptionally simple and even something approaching organic. I wonder, honestly, how far Kreeft wrote out the other side of the dialogue that we do not see as a way of framing his response, or the extent that he actually did engage in apologetic conversations with people like the fictional "Michael" of this book. The book consists of forty-five letters that move gradually from a hesitant beginning where the author supposedly gets to know the recipient of the letters through his believing sister "Martha." The letters themselves dance around questions of definitions, as the author and his fictional correspondent seek to define their terms like any good philosopher would, and wrestle with various arguments for and against faith, and come to a fairly friendly banter that ends with an invitation by the author to leave aside the letters and talk face to face like a friend. This book carries with it a sense of the real, a sense that this is the sort of interaction that could actually happen in some realistic universe.

This book is one that brings to mind two somewhat paradoxical truths about engaging in dialogue. One of them is that the dialogue between believers and skeptics, at least certain types of each, can be conducted in a warm and friendly and polite and respectful and productive manner as occurs here. Both the author and his correspondent appear to be full of politeness and a fair degree of intellect and, perhaps more importantly, a willingness to communicate and engage what the other is thinking and feeling. This undertone of respect and civility makes this excellent discourse possible. That said, the discourse in the book is far from salvation, since neither of the people involved is a believer in the biblical God. Both engage in a philosophical discussion, but it amounts to cerebral word games, conducted with warmth and generosity of spirit, to be sure, but still word games. One can, through a look at logical consistency, come to a believe that is deist or theist in nature, but to become a believer on the road to salvation requires a divine invitation. This book does not quite do the trick, but it provides a worthwhile model for increasing civility in discussion among people with different religious and philosophical worldviews, and that is something at least.

[1] See, for example:

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2014...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2013...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2013...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2013...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2013...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2012...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2011...

[2] See, for example:

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...

[3] See, for example:

http://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017/...

http://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017/...

http://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017/...

[Madeline DeShazer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sat on my shelf for a long time, but I finally picked it up last weekend and devoured it.

Would probably give 3.5 stars if I could. One of the first philosophy heavy books I’ve really ever read. I don’t claim to agree with (or frankly even understand) ALL of it, but I will say it made me think critically more than any book I have read recently.

Also, I loved all of the citations to other Christian writers he made (lots of C.S Lewis but other authors I haven’t heard of before). My “want to read” list on GoodReads has lengthened quite a bit over the past few days, and I look forward to reading more faith-related works this year!

[Chris · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you have listened in to any debate between an atheist with a christian, often times the debates centred around the ‘notia' aspect (knowledge), while that is not the only way to try to convert others to Christianity, that might be the most publicised way to do so. So what other ways can a faithful christian try to do? Scores of books on apologetics have tried to fill in this gap but too many a times, they too are leaning too much into the ‘notia’ aspect too.

Which is why I think, this book ought to the read by those who wants to do just that. If you have heard about the author (if you don’t, google/wiki it), Peter Kreeft, you would have know that he is a professor of philosophy which might terrify some, and perhaps makes the rest of us wonder whether or not we should even attempt to read this book. But have no fear, it’s not as difficult as you expect.

In a series of letters, Kreeft corresponds with Michael, an atheist, trying to have a ‘debate’ about each others’ faith. Though Michael is a fictional character, it is by no means an ‘artificial' debate. Within this book, Kreeft approaches the topic with rigour (what I term as hard [or technical] philosophical approach) but that is not the focus of the book, far more often, Kreeft approaches the topics using what I call the soft (or laymen) philosophical approach, for example, Kreeft uses the beauty and desire as argument/pointers for the existence of God. Sure, some will find this a little difficult to digest, but Kreeft has consciously (and deliberately) left out the most technical and difficult bits so as to make this book more accessible for the masses.

What is more, included in the last section of the book Kreeft answers against some of the questions often raised against christianity such as hell, the problem of evil, the harm religion has done in history and others. I found this section exceptionally helpful and had it not been included it would have made the book a lot less helpful. Although these questions are not tackled in length by Kreeft, he answers them succinctly and to the point. Some might want to see this portion expanded more, but this was not the purpose of the book and should be sufficient for most.

So if you're thinking of reaching out to the atheists around you with some meaningful conversations, do give this book a read, it’ll help you to be able to have good time conversing with them, checking each others’ presuppositions and its effect on our day-to-day living.

Rating: 4.25/5

Disclaimer: I was given this book free from the publisher in exchange for an honest review.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A RESPONSE TO DAWKINS’ “THE GOD DELUSION” FROM A PROMINENT CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHER

Peter Kreeft is a professor of philosophy at Boston College. He wrote in the Introduction to this 2014 book, “These letters are real, and I invite real atheists to read and reply to them… The occasion for writing them that is mentioned in the first letter really happened… Above all, the issue is real… It makes a difference to everything. If God does not exist, then religion is the biggest hoax, the biggest myth, the biggest lie in the history of the world. If God does exist, then religion… is the biggest truth, and biggest relationship in life: the relationship with the creator and designer of our existence, our identity, and our end. Every honest person must demand to know which is the truth, atheism or theism.” (Pg. 1)

He suggests, “If the God I believe in really exists… then he will honor that search for truth… I think the only thing that can keep a seeker from finding it in the end if pride… So if you reject God and embrace atheism because you sincerely believe God is not true and atheism is, then you do NOT reject God, for God is truth.” (Pg. 14)

He argues, “Consciousness, after all, (1) cannot be denied to exist without self-contradiction… but (2) it has none of the properties that characterize everything that is material (size, shape, mass, etc.), and (3) it has properties that are not material (e.g., ‘truth’). The existence of consciousness seems to immediately refute materialism.” (Pg. 36)

He states, “You see the difference between these two worldviews as the difference between science.. and religion… I don’t. I see the difference as the difference between a man looking through a telescope and a man looking through binoculars. I use two lenses; you use only one. We both believe in science, but you do not believe in religion or even in philosophy, or in metaphysics, at least.” (Pg. 70)

He observes, “it’s like the argument from the human brain as a computer: either it’s programmed by chance, by a good mind, or by a bad mind. So here: our desires and their one-to-one relationship to reality were caused either by unintelligent chance, or by a good creator, or by a bad one. If chance is an irrational explanation, your only choice is between God and the devil.” (Pg. 85)

He acknowledges, “If there was a real Jesus but he never claimed to be God, never performed miracles, and never rose from the dead, then everything interesting in the story is only a fictional invention; then even though the main CHARACTER was not a fiction, the STORY was, especially the miracles, the claim to be God, and the resurrection, which are the most interesting dimensions of the story; the ones that set him apart from everyone else who ever lived. SOMEBODY invented the story; stories don’t just happen.” (Pg. 117)

He explains, “Yes, I do believe that ‘you can’t be good without God,’ and I also believe that there are good atheists, even very good atheists, as well as bad theists, even very bad theists. These two admissions logically entail that even atheists have God in some real way whenever they are good, just as it entails that God is working in them every time they discover the truth by reason. The God of theism … is the course of all truth and goodness---otherwise he would no be God… So ontologically there can be no other first cause of any truth, including true goodness, or of any goodness, including the goodness of truth, for a theist.” (Pg. 132)

He admits, “If I had the authority to eliminate any one Christian doctrine, [Hell] is certainly the one I would eliminate. But, then, I’d also eliminate cancer, neo-Nazis, suicide bombers, and bureaucratic red tap throughout the world if I could, but I can’t, and the fact that I hate them doesn’t mean they don’t exist.” (Pg. 138-139) Later, he adds, “(1) hell’s tortures are spiritual, not physical, and (2) that what is in hell is not Uncle Harry but ex-Harry; not a person like us in our present condition, inner as well as outer, with torture added. It is an ex-person, one who has lost the ability to say ‘I.’… This thing is to a human being what ashes are to a house. It is an ex-human being. It has lost its soul, its identity, its personhood, its unity, its nature, its logos, its reason for being.” (Pg. 143)

He says, “you ask the question, ‘Why can’t God, if he infallibly foresees everything, create only those people he foresees will choose to go to heaven and just not create the people he foresees will choose to go to hell?---assuming that infallible foreknowledge and free will are not logically incompatible, which is another problem.’ My first answer… is that I just don’t know for sure. My second answer is that people influenced each other in all sorts of indirect, interdependent ways, so that what you are asking God to do is logically impossible, I think. You’re thinking of people as autonomous, separate entities; they’re not. They’re conditioned, even in their good and evil choices, by each other and each other’s choices, by their life stories, their families, their interactions. Those choices are CONDITIONED (influenced) even though not DETERMINED (necessitated.” (Pg. 148)

He states, “I think the most radical difference between the religious and the secular view of sex comes from the religious doctrines of sin and the Fall. Secularists tell us to ‘accept ourselves as we are,’ but religion tells us that we’re stupid, self-destructive sinners and that our present nature is fallen, unnatural, and abnormal … the Fall story is highly symbolic, but it’s historical, it’s about us. Its POINT is not symbolic: that we are now abnormal, not normal, especially in our consciousness, which is stupid and self-deceptive, and above all in our heart, our desires, our loves, which are now selfish… If you once accept this change of perspective, everything else in religious morality makes a lot more sense, especially when it comes to sexual morality… If religion is unnatural and oppressive to human nature and human happiness, we should expect to find the opposite.” (Pg. 160-161)

This book will be of keen interest to those seriously studying Christian Apologetics.

[Anne · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is not an easy read, in part because the subject matter is difficult and requires some degree of familiarity with the scientific, theological, and philosophical topics referenced but also because Kreeft does not take the time to flesh out each argument and counterargument for every topic. As a result, I could see this being really inaccessible for some readers.

That being said, the letter format is a plus because it breaks each chapter/topic into more manageable chunks. I didn't love the tone at times, but I did think that overall it offers a good example of honest, challenging dialogue. And Dr. Kreeft has such a gift for distilling complex ideas and presenting them in a simple yet powerful way. I would consider recommending this to atheist friends because I am curious what their response would be.

[Peter · Rating 1 out of 5]

Woeful lightweight apologetic fluff. Not quite as bad as William Lane Craig but close.
" no serious scholar doubts there was a Jesus " Really ?
"The trials at the inquisition usually done with great care and fairness " really ?
" contraception is wrong because ... Saying to god we don't want ... Image of yourself" really ?

Shallow, unimaginative , all that is bad when religion ( in this case catholic superstition ) infects the mind if an otherwise good thinker.
As Behe is to science ( on "ID") , Kreeft is to philosophy ( on apologetics ).

The fawning praise one Fr Robert Barron vomits up - great book for "anyone struggling to believe in God " sets the tone. Pascal's wager error badly mishandled by Kreeft btw

[Suzanne · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is a series of letters exchanged between Peter Kreeft, the author, and an atheist friend. It addresses many issues involved in the debate about the existence of God. This doesn't focus on the five traditional arguments by Aquinas, but instead focuses on atheist objections and answering them: the argument from evil, the existence of objective truth, etc. The friend is not converted at the end, but has a much better understanding of why Catholics believe.

It was an okay read. Some people might like the conversational tone, but it didn't turn me on. I thought the idea of an exchange of letters in this day and age just struck me as a little quaint. Still, if you're looking for a book to help you understand how Catholics answer atheists, it's a good one to consult.

[Tom Talamantez]

To be published September 2014

[Karen Benedetto · Rating 1 out of 5]

Serious b.s.. The guy didn't want to hear the atheists point of view. He just wanted to convert him. Ridiculous.

[Steve Croft · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm on a mission to learn philosophy and have been reading about the earliest philosophers such as Socrates and Aristotle, Plato etc. When I picked up this book, I didnt actually realise it would be a philosophy book. Its written in the style of 'The Screwtape letters' (where you read one side of letter debates). Unfortunately, Im not smart enough to absorb and follow most of this book, however, I have a hope that by reading it in full, I've planted it somewhere in my subconcience and it will sprout wisdom as I water it with more study of philosophy and theology.

[Lauren · Rating 1 out of 5]

I thought this would be a true exchange but it is just the religious man going back and forth with a fictional Atheist that he is writing for. MASSIVE eye roll. It was like listening to my 7 year old tell me his play by play about how he would defeat a bad guy AND acting out both sides.

[Hank · Rating 4 out of 5]

Didn’t love it up front but it grew on me.

Thought I’d read somewhere that this was actual letters between a father and son so found text a bit contrived, however, I think it covers bases of the big questions of faith in God and basic tenets of Christianity pretty well.

[Alicia · Rating 1 out of 5]

Straw men all over the place

At letter 11, and so far, the writer had started with assumptions that many atheists would have issue with, and called atheists snobs, as if that is relevant to the issue of whether or not god exists.

So I gave up on this book. The tone was just so condescending - of course a "good" person would believe in God, why else would they be a good person?? Ew. It was probably written more with the believer in mind, to reinforce the righteousness of their belief, so I probably shouldn't take it personally that the argumentation was geared to proving himself correct.