Rating: 
Summary: A Good Summary of Apologetical Arguments
Review: Considering its stated goals (i.e., to be a handbook, not a high-level encyclopedic treatise of each topic discussed), this volume accomplishes its purpose. Those critics who condemn it for not doing more are missing the point.
Rating:
Summary: Smart , Sophisticated Book.
Review: In arguing for the existence of God (before moving onto the subject of Christianity), Boston College professors Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli answer the question, "is empirical knowledge the only kind possible? Or is there another kind?" They answer, "there must be another kind; for there can't be an empirical demonstration that the only kind of demonstration is
empirical."This is exactly correct. Here is why: If it is the case that the only type of knowledge is empirical (demonstrable), then, under that constraint, this itself would be demonstrable. Yet, it is not. Therefore, according to its own criteria, the statement "the only kind of knowledge is empirical knowledge" (knowledge gleaned from direct observation) is false. And, if it is false, then, as the authors assert, it is not the case that the only kind of knowledge is empirical. That is, there must be another kind. Alternatively, if one has to go outside of empiricism to validate empiricism, then, again, empiricism is not the only kind of knowledge, and again, the authors - Kreeft and Tacelli - are shown to be correct. I applaud professors Kreeft and Tacelli for an excellent book. The arguments they put forth - both for God and Christianity - are quite sound. I highly recommend this book to anyone who has ever seriously pondered "the big question."
Rating:
Summary: The best practical education for the price!!
Review: This book is DA BOMB!!! This is most useful book on Christian Apologetics, IMHO. The greatest strength of this book is its accessibility. Whether you are a new born babe in Christ or someone who has spent lifetime in the Bible, you have a lot to gain from the authors' clear, concise, and sensible defence of the Christian worldview. Spend some time studying this book and you will be intellectually equipped to understand the world we live in and to help other people.
Rating: 
Summary: Views of Christianity
Review: I thought about becoming a Christian Psychologist when I first began my college years. My Father informed me that, who am I to charge money for something that is free? I gave up my career goals and have been skeptical ever since of anyone that charges money for biblical advice. It's free!!!!!!!!!
Rating:
Summary: The Strategically Placed Apothegm
Review: The following is a critique of Handbook of Christian Apologetics, by Peter Kreeft and Ronald K.Tacelli. Apologetics - the position that logic and reason can lead one to the truth of Christian claims. These two philosophers of religion at Boston College, open their toolbox of logic in chapter one to lay the foundation to "hundreds of answers to crucial questions" about
Christianity. In order to use logic as their mechanism to establish validity to their compendium of religious claims, they select an amenable, philosophical modem that respects reason and mystery at the same time (Medieval, philosophical approach). They reify reason on page 17. The dichotomy of"faith"and "reason not blending well, needs finessing here, it seems, for their task
of promoting mythology as reality. They befriend reason to allow logic to enter, i.e. "Reason is the friend of divine authority," and four other statements using this affectation. Then a
minilesson in logic to affirm their intentions of going full bore with skills honed from the more formal studies of their philosophical educations - to unite reason with religion. They run into problems on the next page (19). Shrapnel from flying fallacies under point 3, puts holes in their minilesson of logic on the previous page. They ask, "Is empirical knowledge the only kind possible? Or is there another kind?" Their answer: "There must be another kind; for there can't be an empirical demonstration that the only kind of demonstration is
empirical." Now to pause for a moment to ponder this very important answer/claim. If this claim is accepted by the credulous, unsuspecting searcher for "hundreds of answers to crucial questions", the searcher may be snared into 373 more pages. Kleeft and Tacelli incorporate an "apothegm" here in the above quotes - a startling or paradoxical aphorism, to make a case for lubricating the reader into their unsupported claim. This fallacy is referred to as "argumentum ad ignorantiam". Simply stated: if you can't prove that empirical knowledge is the only possible knowledge, then there must be another (i.e. there must be another way of obtaining reliable knowledge other than empiricism). Again the apothegm by itself is a paradoxical contrivance not lending suitable notion to any claim - including the one that their whole thesis rests upon: "for there can't be (this is a conclusion "there can't be" without previously discussed premises to support validity - for i.e. maybe there can be - a falsifyable claim) an empirical demonstration
that the only kind of demonstration is empirical." Again the contention of this ruse is to conclude that the inability to prove something does not exist - substantiates its existence. The inability of an empirical demonstration to falsify other paths to knowledge certainly can not lead one to the conclusion that indeed, there must be other paths. I'm perplexed at their pledge to use logic in support of their arguments. The next page they abandon that pledge long enough, it seems, to slide some presumptions by the unsuspecting
searcher who relies on their credentials as guides to the truth. Are their tools just rusty or are they disingenuous for the sake of "hundreds of answers to crucial questions"? Their statement, top of page 20 - "We believe that the wise old saying, 'if a thing is worth doing,
it's worth doing well' is true of reasoning too", seems to be something that they don't do so well.
Rating: 
Summary: The best treatment of heaven and hell since C.S. Lewis
Review: As far as I know, this is one of the rare books of Christian apologetics published since C.S. Lewis's "The Problem of Pain" that includes chapters dealing with heaven and hell. The inclusion of these chapters is significant not only because they're an integral part of Christian doctrine, but because without their mega-rare appearance in this book, all co-authors Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli would have been left with is a useful, amusing, though somewhat superfluous work of apologetics. (The subjects unrelated to heaven and hell had been dealt with earlier when this book was published in 1994 with greater clarity and forcefulness by William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland.) Most of the standard boilerplate objections to theism are addressed individually: the historicity of the Bible, objective truth, the problem of evil and religious pluralism, but with the welcome addition of these two illuminating chapters. Kreeft and Tacelli begin the chapter on hell by noting that several presuppositions necessarily follow if Christians deny the existence of hell. The most notable presupposition is that Jesus was a liar, for it was Christ who perpetually affirmed the reality of hell. And if Christ was a liar, his authority, upon which the Christian faith rests, is denied. Moreover, it presupposes that scripture can be altered at man's capricious whim. That is to say, scripture isn't the product of divine revelation, but man. The difference between a world in which there is neither hell nor heaven and a world in which there is is astronomical, but the difference between a world in which there is a heaven but no hell is nearly as large. Christians who cannot bring themselves to believe in such a place as hell, yet continue to believe in heaven, are indirectly saying man has no free will. This corollary would follow in such a world, since salavation would be automatic and not require any acts of self-sacrifice, restraint or contrition on the part of individuals. In such a world, people like Ted Bundy and the Pope would be free to chose markedly different paths, but the destination their respective paths would take them would ultimately remain out of their control, being fixed from the get-go. Obviously, the question burning in the minds of non-believers (and some Christians) is how an all-loving God of mercy and forgiveness could permit such a horrible place as hell. The answer is that God loved His creations, and the testament to that love was instilling in man the ability to freely chose to embrace or reject that love. Those who chose to reject God's love do so freely, without any coercion to do otherwise from God, since that would qualify as forced love, and forced love is rape. Thus, there is no logical inconsistency between and all-loving God and the existence of hell. Although there are better books on apologetics available, I recommend this one for the chapters on heaven and hell. I also recommend Peter Kreeft's other books.
Rating:
Summary: Great intro to apologetics
Review: This book accomplishes what it set out to do. As he says in the introduction this book is a "summa" in three aspects. First, it is somewhat of a "mini-encyclopedia" of apologetics. In this sense this book is similar to Norman Geislers's Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Great for a quick reference when reading other books that present an argument against Christian doctrines. Secondly, it is a "summa" in the sense of being a summary for beginners. He accomplishes this very well as a cursory review of of the index will show. For example, "twenty arguments for the existence of God" was handled in 40 pages. But it is a great intro to some great arguments that you can research in other sources. Lastly, it is a "summa" in the sense of delivering information in small, bite-sized chunks. This book is a handbook and so is valuable for quick reference, but I read the book straight through and it easily kept my attention. This is great book that accomplishes what it set out to do!
Rating:
Summary: Great Book!
Review: One of the most concise, well written explantions of the Christian Faith. Answers all the big questions.
Rating:
Summary: a life changer
Review: I cannot say enough good things about this masterpiece by Kreeft and Tacelli. The work is very broad, covering objections from all angles such Hell, the problem of pain and suffering, Jesus' resurrection from the dead, arguments for the existence of God, moral relativism, the marriage of faith and reason, skepticism and much more. I went in to this book as an agnostic, a religious skeptic thinking no one had any compelling answers. I came out of this book a Christian, and it has changed my life.
Rating:
Summary: Foundation is built upon Faith
Review: The book begins by defining reason, and it takes several pages. The goal is to show how faith and reason are friends. If they were truely friends why doesn't the definition from Websters suffice ? reason: 1 a : a statement offered in explanation or justification <gave reasons that were quite satisfactory> b : a rational ground or motive <a good reason to act soon> c : a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially : something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact <the reasons behind her client's action> d : the thing that makes some fact intelligible 2a (1) : the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways : INTELLIGENCE (2) : proper exercise of the mind (3) : SANITY b : the sum of the intellectual powers faith: 2a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof. I prefer the more parsimonious definitions provided above, they are clear and concise. In defining reason the words explanation, justification, rational, logical, intelligible, comphrending, and thinking are used. In defining faith the words belief, trust, loyaly, doctrines, and no proof are used. None of the words employed to define faith require rational inquiry, support of a conclusion, or thought. The foundation begins to crumble. If one person can use faith to justify a belief, another person can use faith to justify a diametrically opposed belief. For example, faith provides no way of discerning who is correct when someone says that they have faith that God created the universe and someone else says that they have faith that the Invisible Pink Unicorn created the universe. Since it is clear that faith cannot be used to reliably justify any belief, we have to conclude that faith is irrational. In fact, in the entire history of human civilization, the only methods that we have been able to come up with for determining whether or not some claim is true are reason and objective experimentation that is repeatable, i.e., the scientific method. http://freethought.freeservers.com/reason/faith.html The twenty arguments for the existence of god. Those arguments not supported by the contents of the bible are equally applicable to what ever you personally require as a divine supernatural entity worthy of worship. The ontological arguments is effective argument for Invisible Pink Unicorn. Placing a limit on the greatness of a god is like placing a limit on the largest possible number. It becomes greater when you add 1. Having read the bible, in particular the old testament, god is described as having attributes that are less than perfection. The words kill/murder appear more often than the word love. Often in the name of god. Pascal's Wager is logically flawed it limits the possible gods to only one. Man has worshipped and feared hundreds of gods, B. Pascal shouldn't have limited his matrix to just the one he worshipped. The argument is also based on fear and intimidation. If this were a compeling argument I would be inclined to pick the religion with the worst hell. The greatest enemy of religion is reason. -- Martin Luther
Reason should be destroyed in all Christians. -- Martin Luther
To open the eye of faith, is to close the eye to reason. -- Benjamin Franklin The atheist/non-theist does not claim that god is disproved, they claim that god is unproven. The burden of proof is on the one making the affirmative claim, the claim for the existence of god.
Evil is not an explanation for atheism/non-theism. Atheism exist because the existence of a supernatural god is an extraordinary claim that is not supported by extraordinary evidence. Additionally, once you step into the supernatural all bets are off because the only thing required for something to be true is that it be believed. Faith does not require evidence. Its foundation is a belief in an assertion without evidence, and in many cases in spite of the existing evidence to the contrary. In this regard Christianity is like other religions, it's based on superstition and wishful thinking. Reason is limited to the facts. Faith is without limits.
| 
