Catholic-ometer: 3 of 5
Enjoyability: 2.5 of 5
Let me get something out of the way first, here. I do not hate Peter Kreeft. I apologize if it's come across that way in some of my past reviews. However, I am at odds with him in a couple of things. Before I outline those things, however, let me give you my general impression of this book. After that, you can read on if you'd like, or just stop there.
This book is not faithfully-Catholic. At least not entirely. The thought processes that go into it are humanistic, inclusive, accomidating and arrive at a generally-Christian outcome, but they are not Catholic. As such, I believe that many of his conclusions are erroneous, and the processes that he uses to arrive at those conclusions are, unfortunately, flawed. I do not hate him because of this. Not by any means. I appreciate his efforts to produce something which might win certain kinds of people over to a belief in Christ, which is the real point of all these writings anyway. Supposing that all he really cares about is serving God, and not man, then I applaud his efforts, and support them. I reccomend this book to atheists, non-Christians, protestants and anyone else who doesn't like to think too heavily about philosophy and the mysteries of life's truth.
However, if you are Catholic, or if you are firmly-entrenched in logical theology, you might want to give this book a pass, because a well-formed conscience will make several problems within this book quite obvious. Furthermore, on page 17, Kreeft explains that the book is not targeted strictly at Catholics, but at everyone, and isn't meant to be a book of facts, but a personal diary of sorts. That's all well and good, so long as no one takes the contents of this book as anything more than that; a personal diary, that someone decided to sell. We should not, under any circumstances, take these scribblings as some sort of dogma or doctrine. They really have more to do with subjectivity and emotions than Christian truth, and this alone accounts for the poor score I gave it on the Catholic-ometer.
However, it doesn't account for the even harder time I had enjoying it. That stems from my differences with Mister Kreeft in writing ethics. I don't believe in putting pen to paper on a nonfiction work unless everything I have to say is well-researched and true. I also don't believe in being disingenuous with my readers, or pretending to know more than I really do.
Virtually every time he speaks on a subject; philosophical, theological, biblical or cultural, one finds slip-ups and lack of research scattered across the pages. This is a poor reflection on his effort as a writer, but ultimately harmless.
The only time when it's not ultimately harmless is when he specifically says things about Jesus, the faith, and the church which are not true, and while pointing out every occurrence of this would take much too long, I wish to draw your attention to a few of the more glaring ones before moving on to the next problem.
On page 14, he claims that "the church" has committed big crimes, like the crusades, the spanish inquisition, witch hunts, etc... Nonsense. The crusades consisted of six separate campaigns, resulting from a muslim invasion of the Bizantine Empire, and a kidnapping on the part of a mercenary, which provoked revenge on the part of the muslim commander Saladin. They were not a "big crime." The inquisition was an ecclesial court, and ecclesial courts didn't have the power to bring in non-Catholics, or to execute anyone. Only the state could do that. Those few who were executed as a result of inquisitional trials were killed by the government of Spain. This is a crime of the Spanish government; not the church. Finally, witch hunts were NEVER endorsed by the church. They were bands of superstitious folks, all getting together without the permission or knowledge of Rome, and doing whatever the heck they felt like, against church teaching. Calling them "crimes of the church," is, to put it very lightly, untrue.
On page 15, he claims that Job's three friends, who criticized him for his suffering, had correct theology. This is also a falsehood. Theology is the application of science, philosophy and logic to understand God and the way he works. It is never correctly used for finding fault in particular cases of suffering.
On page 62, he claims that the soul is his real identity, independant of the body. Another falsehood, and a very old heresy called Manichaeism (an early Gnostic heresy.) Man is defined by the church as both body AND soul, not one or the other.
On page 90, he claims that joy in Eden was all about self-sacrifice, and that Adam had to learn. Both of these are false. Adam possessed full knowledge of the consequences of his actions, which is why his sin carried such a grave punishment, and the whole point of Eden was that it was a gift from God. It was not a place of eternal, blissful self-sacrifice. He's read that wrong.
On page 150, he makes the ridiculous claim that we're already in Heaven. This one is so obviously false, that I don't even need to say another word about it.
On page 178, he claims that the inhabitants of Heaven are what make it Heaven. No. God is what makes it Heaven.
As I said, these are only a few of the obvious doctrinal mistakes, but then, he doesn't seem bothered by any kind of pressure to conform to the church's doctrine, because on page 59, he basically says that you don't want to listen to "religious people," because they're not "humble" enough to recognize that they can't understand God's answer. This is in defiance of church teaching that the Holy Spirit leads his church to "all truth." He also basically says, on page 48, almost straight-out, that anyone who claims to have a definitive answer to the problem of evil and suffering is not being humble, and therefore, must be wrong. Then he spends the rest of the book flitting from one non-explanation to another, frequently saying (I'm paraphrasing here,) "well, we won't get these answers until we're in Heaven, and you should really be more humble anyway."
Hello! You won't get the answers because you just rejected everyone who claims to have the answers! Aah! This kind of anti-logic gives me a headache.
However, it's not the only major logical problem in this book. For one thing, in his study of philosophical truths, Mister Kreeft gives equal space to both philosophers and poets. If you don't see a problem with this already, I'll break it down.
Suppose your best friend fell into the pool and can't swim. Now, you can't swim either, but you know your next door neighbors are a lifeguard and a locksmith. Using Mister Kreeft's approach, he would go for the lifeguard first, then run and get the locksmith as well, and give him an equal chance to save his friend.
I don't mean to use such an insulting comparison, but you don't go to a poet to teach you philosophy, any more than you go to a locksmith to save your drowning friend. Poets are experts in the arranging of words and the telling of fantastic stories, but that does not make them philosophers. Why shouldn't we check to see what the world's carpenters had to say on the subject? What about the politicians? Surely, all the blacksmiths and computer programmers throughout history have some insight to give us on this matter!
No. We don't go to them for advice on this, because it's not their field of expertise. Likewise, philosophy is not the field of expertise of poets, so I feel quite jusified in treating chapter 5 (Clues from the Arts) as simple filler. For the moment, let's turn aside from the philosophical views of architects and dental hygenists, and get back to the business of figuring out the truth about suffering, shall we?
The other logical problem in this book is a failure to treat any of these discoveries as "true," or to build on them with logic. For example, on page 91, he says that God is so good, that he can even bring good out of evil. On page 180, he says that God cannot contradict his nature. Both of these statements are absolutely correct, but he seems to reject the simple logic that follows from combining them; namely, that because God cannot contradict his nature, his absolute power is over our nature; not his, and that therefore, there are rules which even he must follow; rules established by his nature. This is why even God cannot eradicate pain and suffering until the proper time; when the infinite justice contained in his nature will allow for it. This is the real reason why suffering exists, and he has all the facts that lead up to it, but just doesn't draw his conclusions properly, nor does he take those who HAVE drawn such conclusions (Saint Thomas Aquinas) on their word; either demonstrating or pretending to demonstrate a lack of both faith and reason.
This lack of making proper connections, and overall failure to head off the obvious objections to his claims riddles the book with smaller holes. On page 66, he claims that bad fortune is better than good, because good fortune deceives us, but fails to define "bad" and "good" fortune, or explain why this change takes place. On page 71, he claims that suffering is good because it makes us good (which is something like saying that premarital sex is good because it makes us parents.) On page 84, he claims that suffering is good because it gives us good stories to tell. I can tell good stories, even without suffering, so this logic is balogne. On page 143, he claims that we should stop looking for an out to suffering, which is neither true, nor is it what you want to tell a person who's in pain, and on page 146, he makes the claim that joy comes from following God's will, even when he wants us to suffer. Problem 1 is that God doesn't want us to suffer; he wants us to improve through suffering. Problem 2 is that when we suffer, we are in pain, regardless of how much we may want to follow God's will.
On page 148, he claims that we're unhappy because we think we deserve better. No. We're unhappy because we WANT something better, whether we deserve it or not. Then he turns around on the very next page, and says that infinite joy is our ultimate goal. Well, if joy really comes from suffering, the way he seems to think it does, then what do we want with that? The logic just doesn't hold up on its own.
However, I think that this book's failings are most dangerous when it gets into personal approaches to the world. For example, on page 163, he basically claims that you don't need to hate anyone; that you can cry instead of being furious (since Our Blessed Lord did both, I tend to doubt that,) but then on page 87, he says something truly hazardous; claiming that because the reader hasn't committed suicide yet, he must love his life.
I'm sorry, but this is just a very stupid thing to say; especially in a book about suffering and pain. People pick this book up because they're in pain, and depressed, and don't know where to turn, but they don't want to kill themselves, mostly, because they're afraid of what will happen to them after death, or are more afraid of death than they are of life, but certainly NOT because they love their lives and are having a jolly old time. If that were the case, they wouldn't have picked up this book to begin with. This comment (and indeed; most careless comments about suicide) run the risk of either sounding like a challenge to a near-suicidal person, (a challenge that some of them might just try to respond to,) or else a message of "Well, if you don't love your life, just kill yourself already." I know this isn't the intent. I know, but we need to be more careful than this when we speak, and especially when we write and publish our writings. It's our duty to be responsible for the advice we give to others, whether intentionally or by accident.
He doesn't make any ridiculous claims about liberals being more loving than conservatives in this book, fortunately, though he does remark that conservatives seem to be afraid of questions and liberals of answers. However, I wasn't as upset by this, not because it's more even-handed, but because, in my experience, it seems to be more true, and gives all of us something to work on.
This book is not terrible; it's not, but it feels careless at many points, and even dangerous. At the end of it all, my advice is this; know the truth first, then proceed with caution.
No comments:
Post a Comment