Profesor Kreeft does a brilliant job in this philosophical book. You have to be narrowminded to not like this book. And if you are narrow minded, you shouldn't but this book. If you have an open mind, you can gain alot even if you are Christians or atheist or agnostics.
Some reviews have said that the author and narrator's voice is monotone and that this is off putting. Well it is monotone except when he cracks a joke about the Boston Redsox and then there is a slight raise in excitement. I actually did not find the voice off putting. It is clear and precise, just what is needed for reading this type of book. If he was reading a novel or a dramatic story like The Lord of the Rings, then this would be a disaster. So, voice good.
I have listened to many of Dr Kreeft's lectures that are free on his website - very interesting, all of them. But I just could not get into this book. I stopped it after 2.5 hours. I might return. Now, I listen to my books in the car travelling to and from work. Perhaps an indepth book on philosophy is not suited to that. I kept wanting to rewind and relisten to understand. Not the easest thing in a car. So, I would have to say that for me, this was a book either to be read or to be listened to in the armchair at home with headphones, a note pad and my finger on the rewind button. Hence I gave it 2 stars based on a very subjective opinion.
Peter Kreeft has a clear theistic bias.
No, I would not.
Clear theistic bias.
The author lacks objectivity, and implicitly (and explicitly) promotes theism.
This is not an objective delivery of the materials. The author/narrator clearly holds a theistic bias. How this author gained credibility under "The Modern Scholar" brand is beyond me. Those who hold non-theistic views will be disappointed with materials developed and delivered by this "scholar," more accurately described as a religious apologist.
I may have expected more from this one, but what I found was a lengthy pro et contra for believing or not believing in God. The author admits to being a Christian believer, and I feel that this colours the lectures a bit.
I would say that this is something you should listen to if you are unsure about why you believe, or why you don't believe. Alternately, if you are looking to rehearse arguments for those long debates on the existence of a creator.
I am a Catholic who sincerely believes that there is no salvation outside the, "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church". I endeavor to save souls by converting as many people as possible to the one true faith. I have found through experience that philosophical/historical argument is the most effective way to do this.
In this work the study of the different religions including atheism has been invaluable to the success of my missionary work. Obviously, the only people I have ever converted were sincere in their quest to find know, and love the truth. These people are lovers of wisdom not of political correctness. I want to understand Atheism, and different world religions so that I will understand what is good and bad about them, so that I will be more effective in my missionary work.
Peter Kreeft, however; is not primarily concerned with the truth in his analysis of different religions such as Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism as well as the several others he analyzes, as he is very superficial and politically correct.
Some of my best friends are atheists and by questioning them for their reason for being atheists I have found three primary reasons: one belief in God would require a change in life style that they do not want to make, two they note that many believers are hypocrites and seem to be impervious to the grace of God, three for many, their understanding of religion is that of a child whilst they are grown-ups. I have been astounded by several educated atheists who have tried to disprove a notion of God or religion that is suitable for a seven year old. These people will attempt to attack the Catholic religion by discrediting an infantile understanding of God and the Church.
By the way Kreeft's final conclusion is that all religions are the same, he seems to suggest, however; that atheism is an inferior position even though he rightly points out that many forms of Buddhism are atheistic and that Confucianism is agnostic.
I felt like I was listening to a long series of syllogisms read by someone trying to sound relevant and important; when really they didn't have much to say. From my point of view, this audio book was just plain boring.
This was so boring, I could not even finish. narration was very monotone and I wanted to fall asleep when I was listening to it. To bad it seemed to be an interesting topic.