“I hope I’ve confused you a little bit.” Peter Kreeft intrigued the approximately 100-member audience with this concluding statement of his lecture titled “The Philosophy of Jesus.”

A philosopher and author of over 55 books, Kreeft was invited to speak the night of Nov. 6 by the Newman Catholic Association. The event was sponsored by Newman, but funded in part by the University Park Allocation Committee. The lecture was prompted by a list of 177 thought and study questions that were given to the audience.

Attendees ranged from believers to non-believers, skeptics to lovers of faith. David Hanson, a senior in aerospace engineering and an atheist who attended the lecture, said he could not agree with Kreeft on much of what he said, though he added the speaker is a good guy with good intentions.

“Most Christians are nasty about it, but he wasn’t,” Hanson said, adding he does not like the in-your-face strategy of many Christians when it comes to their faith. “Ghandi said that he likes this Christ guy, but not the Christians. I think Peter Kreeft is the kinda Christian Ghandi would like.”

Kreeft dined with members of Newman the night of his lecture and played board games like chess throughout the day. He preferred a laid back atmosphere and “did not want to be entertained,” he said.

Kreeft’s philosophical career began and will continue due to a mentality few would expect.

“I write books about stuff that I want to read about,” Kreeft said. “I write the books other people should write but don’t, so I have to write them.”

To hear lectures by Peter Kreeft, visit http://peterkreeft.com/audio.htm.

Peter Kreeft, one of the most widely respected Christian apologists of our day, is coming to Penn State to speak on Friday, November 6.

 

Dr Kreeft is Professor of Philosophy at Boston College.  He also serves on the faculty at Kings College in New York City. He has published more than 50 books, including the classic text Handbook of Christian Apologetics (1994, InterVarsity Press) which he coauthored with Ronald K. Tacelli.  Kreeft is Roman Catholic, but his work is widely read and valued by Christians of all traditions.  He became a primary source for Lee Strobel’s The Case for Faith (2000, Zondervan), in which he helps Strobel to wrestle with the age-old question, “How can an  all-powerful and loving God allow the existence of evil?”

Dr. Kreeft will speak at 7 pm in  121 Sparks. His visit is sponsored by the Newman Catholic Student Association. Come out and listen to him, and tell us what you think.

Skepticism is the philosophy that casts doubt on everything.  Skeptics may say that all religions are the same.  But they do not think that all of them are true.  They probably think that none are true.  To them, religions are metaphors for some grand, overall truth, but what that truth is, they cannot say.  They might say that they believe in God.  But to them, God is vague and unknowable.  Many skeptics claim to have faith.  But their faith has no defined object.  They place their faith in faith itself.

Modern skeptics view history, religion and politics in terms of power struggles between groups.  They say that objectivity is impossible, because each group has its own point of view.  History books were written by the winners, not the losers, so history is subjective and unreliable.  They say one can never know what really happened in the past, because alternative viewpoints have been suppressed.  North American and European traditions are automatically suspect.  Eastern religions are way cooler, not because they are any closer to the truth, but because they are exotic and less familiar.

About three-fourths of Americans today call themselves Christian.  But skepticism is found on every street corner, in every church, synagogue and mosque.  It’s as ubiquitous as Walmart.  This is McFaith, the generic belief system of America.

Skeptics can be outstanding people.  Many whom I know are compassionate, thoughtful and honest. In their kindness and affinity for others, they put many committed Christians to shame.

Although there are skeptics whom I admire, I am dissatisfied with skepticism. Why would someone become a skeptic?  Not because it’s logically consistent.  “Everything is subjective” contains a glaring contradiction.  Each of us perceives the world through lenses of culture and experience.  But this does not imply that reality is unreal.  It does not make every observation an illusion.  If someone says that everything is subjective, he is claiming to see these things rather objectively.  He is claiming to stand on solid ground apart from those personal points of view.  How does one achieve the objectivity to make such a profoundly sweeping statement?

Skepticism is marketed as open-minded and tolerant, but I personally find it condescending. Consider the claim that all religions are the same.  Jews, Christians and Muslims worship an all-powerful creator.  Beyond that, however, the differences are stark.  Christianity asserts the divinity of Christ, which Muslims and non-messianic Jews flatly reject.  If the overlap among religions is so huge and obvious, then why haven’t their adherents realized it yet?  Why aren’t religious leaders working to merge all faiths into one?  Who is the better judge of the true character of a religion: one who truly believes and practices it, or one who observes it superficially from a distance?

To claim that those immersed in their religions cannot see with the clarity of someone on the outside — especially when that outsider happens to be you — isn’t a convincing argument in my book.

Skepticism is the religion of rich white men.   Yes, in the recent past, Christians from Europe and North America exported their culture to other parts of the world.  And the Christianity now practiced in the United States is mixed with contemporary American values (e.g., individualism and consumerism). But this was not always the case.  During its first 1,000 years, Christianity was based in Africa, Asia and the Middle East.  And today, while Christianity is waning in the west, churches are exploding in Latin America, China, and sub-Saharan Africa.  The “average Christian” today is dark-skinned and poor.

While developing nations send pastors to the United States, the moguls of Madison Avenue and Hollywood export sexually explicit images and western-style consumerism to the rest of the world.  Who are the real imperialists now? 

Skeptics deny the possibility of miracles.  “Miracles can’t happen,” they say. “Why not?” I ask.  “They just can’t,” is the reply; “Miracles are not reproducible in a scientific experiment.”  Well, that’s why we call them miracles, no?

Many who claim that miracles are impossible seem unaware of how aberrant that belief is relative to what people have thought in other places and times.   This mindset is rooted in the period known as the Enlightenment, in the empiricist philosophies of Hume and Kant. Thomas Jefferson took scissors to his New Testament and cut out every miraculous element. I’ll bet his slaves at Monticello wouldn’t have done that. Again, it’s the religion of the rich white man.   

Of course, people in other places and times also believed that the world is flat.  That idea was overcome by a steady accumulation of evidence, much of it gathered by rich white men.  But the impossibility of miracles is a different matter entirely.  That is a faith-claim that can never be proven. A computer scientist living in the 21^st century is in no better position to judge that matter than an illiterate peasant in medieval times or an Australian aborigine in 6,000 BC.

When I call skepticism the religion of the rich white man, I do not intend it as a slur.  Using race, ethnicity or economic status to discredit someone’s views is morally offensive and intellectually lame. My purpose is to challenge the idea that all faith is the byproduct of culture.  Christianity is expressed by individuals within cultures.  But the gospel of Jesus — his message of the kingdom of God — is not a cultural construct at all. The teachings of the New Testament, when properly understood, affirm every culture and challenge every culture.

If you feel that I have mischaracterized your views, then you are probably correct.  The skeptic I have described is partly a straw man.  People are complicated. Their belief systems do not fit neatly into predefined categories. Yet I do have some understanding of American skepticism, because I was once a young American skeptic.

I distinctly remember, back in my freshman year in college, how intoxicating it was to voice skeptical opinions and be welcomed by new friends into the ranks of the enlightened.  I remember the heady feeling when it first dawned on me that now, as a skeptic, my belief system was the greatest because it encompassed all others.  I could now respect all religions of the world without actually having to learn about them, because I had figured out on my own that none of them were true.  And I had accomplished all that by the age of eighteen!

After a brief flirtation with skepticism, I decided instead to believe in Jesus. How and why this happened, I cannot say.  It was not an entirely rational process, but neither was it irrational. Within a year of this uneventful conversion, my friends began to notice that I was different.  Instead of pontificating that all religions were the same, I began to show disdain for anything secular and non-Christian.  I demonstrated that religious people and skeptics are equally prone to arrogance and hypocrisy. I hope I have made progress in that regard. While my beliefs and convictions have become stronger, I hope that I have also grown in the capacity to question myself, to personally admit that I could be wrong, and to consider that my own culturally-bound expressions of Christianity may be inadequate.

There is still one question I cannot resolve: How can people of different faiths, who hold different world views and core values, live together in peace, love and mutual respect? Christianity as a religious movement has failed to provide an answer.  Skepticism hasn’t answered it, either. The idea that you can eliminate conflict by negating all claims of absolute truth is ludicrous.  People who hold different views may interact peacefully in their communities and workplaces.  But often they do so by avoiding politics and religion.  When a polarizing issue comes up, they just “agree to disagree.”  Setting up boundaries and keeping your distance is not the same as acceptance, communication and friendship.

No system of belief can unite people of different beliefs.  But there is a person who, more than any other, broke through these barriers when he interacted with people.  Jesus made claims that are stunningly absolute:  “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).  I have heard young people describe these words as “presumptuous,” “arrogant” and “ignorant.”  But Jesus himself was anything but.  He showed respect, understanding, compassion and love toward everyone he encountered. If claims of objective truth are dangerous and repugnant, how could they coexist with this beautiful mind and exemplary life?

Of course, some will claim that the New Testament was fabricated by clerics in the second century. But I would say that skepticism was invented in the 18^th century by those rich white men.