In response to Peter Kreeft’s (a Boston College professor and Roman Catholic) series of "Socrates Meets . . . ", wherein the bearded and ugly philosopher subtly argues from a Christian perspective, I propose we resolve the following:
Socrates would not be a Christian because his character was inherently skeptical, and would therefore be hostile to religion, especially Christianity, especially the Catholic veneration of saints, and perhaps even more so concerning fundamentalism,and biblical literalism. Christianity is based on faith and supernatural claims; while Socrates might tolerate the pagan concept of the Gods, it is no more than Deism, and in fact Socrates would truly be an Agnostic.
Socrates key idea was that he knew nothing; however, at least he knew that he knew nothing, and therefore knew more than others, who only thought they knew something, but in fact knew falsely. This philosophy of Socrates fundamentally conflicts with supernatural-based religion.
Some may claim that Socrates makes statements (through the hand of Plato no doubt) of the ‘Gods’, not directly questioning them. Yet in response, we should know that speaking of Gods, or even acknowledging their existence, is one thing, and a thing quite different than believing in active Gods who should be prayed to. That is, Deism is not Christianity. Also, Socrates’ mentioning of the Gods referred to the Greek Pantheon, and Zeus is no Jehovah.
Therefore, let us not allow Socrates to go the way of Saturnalia and be transformed into what it never was, nor intended to be. He was no Christian, no Protestant, and no Catholic. Kreeft’s work, while excellent Catholic propaganda, and valuable philosophical work in its own right, nonetheless is founded on a nonsensical premise.