The Case for Faith: A Journalist Investigates the Toughest Objections to Christianity

Rating:
Summary: Good Objections addressed but not enough real evidence
Review: The Case for Faith is about a journalists that attempts to get some explanations to some of the toughest objections of Christianity to date. Now, keeping in mind that the only people Strobel asks are so called "scholars" of Christianity. Since it's not possible that we interview God himself, this book must be taken that the interviewees are giving their intepretation of Christianity or the Bible... not necessarily God. There were some really good chapters in this book, including the chapters "If there is suffering, can a loving God Exist" "If miracles occur that contradict science, how can a rational person believe in God", "If I still have doubts, can I still be a Christian" and "If God really created the universe, why does the evidence of science compel so many to conclude that the unguided process of evolution accounts for life?" These chapters, I believe, provided some very valuable information on the aforementioned issues. The chapters provide alternative ways of explaining the issues, but I don't feel like the interviewees are attempting to talk for God. In the other three chapters, I feel like we are getting somebody's opinion of the chapters and it's almost an arrogant feeling as these scholars attempt to speak for God's feelings, reasoning and so on. Also, I was quite disappointed when I read the chapter in which Strobel brings up the ideas of afterlife other people have such as near-death experiences and reincarnation. The scholar just writes them off as not true and offers no evidence whatsoever for his statements. In fact, the scholar is completely off when he attempts to explain reincarnation. He says well reincarnation can't be possibly, because people that embrace reincarnation believe that in your past and future lives, you could have or will not always be in human form.. meaning you could be a plant, animal or bacteria... whatever. That is the furthest from the truth, because anyone that has done any real studying of reincarnation would realize that no one believes you are coming back in any other form BUT human. So it's obvious the scholar doesn't even really know what he is talking about and attempts to give explanations on something he isn't accurately speaking about.

Rating:
Summary: Good for beginners, but not meaty enough for skeptics
Review: Lee Strobel, a former atheist journalist turned Christian pastor, has endeavored to pick up where he left off after 'The Case for Christ," this time investigating not evidence for Jesus himself, but seeking answers to the broader philosophical objections to Christianity.
These objections comprise the main eight chapters of the book, and include the issue of evil and suffering vs. a loving God, miracles and science, the origin of life conundrum, the death of innocent children, Jesus' claim of exclusivity, the eternality of hell, the Christian church's brutal history, and the presence of doubts in the minds of believers.
The description on the front cover that "A journalist investigates the toughest objections to Christianity," is unquestionably misleading. Perhaps that owes to the fact that authors have little or no control over what appears on the cover of their books, including, sometimes, even the title. Nonetheless, this is not a record of a decade-long exhaustive journalistic investigation through scores of books and articles, scraps of scattered evidence and interviews and debates. The heart of the book is simply eight friendly interviews with Christian apologists, in which Strobel asks them to defend Christianity in light of these philosophical problems - one interviewee per problem.
The book's misleading subtitle aside, some have criticized Strobel for being somehow nonobjective in taking this approach. He has stacked the deck in advance, they claim, because all his interviewees were in fact Christians. But this misses his point: "I resolved to track down the most knowledgeable and ardent defenders of Christianity. ... I was sincerely interested in determining whether they had rational answers to 'The Big Eight.'"
If we are to criticize Strobel on this point, it should be because he was not pressing enough in his questions, not simply because he interviewed Christians. Obviously no sensible person would go searching out atheist scholars to find out whether Christianity had defensible answers to its toughest accusations, any more than one would go to a Hindu scholar to find out if Buddhism had defensible answers.
The first irritation is Strobel's contrived attempts at appearing skeptical. He repeatedly congratulates himself on his journalistic prowess and supposed dogged unwillingness to take evidence at face value; he peppers his accounts of his own probing questions with annoying descriptors like, "my voice leaking sarcasm," etc. Other reviewers have commented on this, and this reviewer is aware of a few 'seekers' who got halfway through the book but put it down without finishing it because they couldn't stomach Strobel's chapter-upon-chapter insistence on acting this way.
But is this a convincing read for the skeptic? Most more serious skeptics will not find this book to be the last word on the issue at all - not even close. Verbal interviews that last an hour or two never succeed in settling these issues. Interviews are simply conversations, and in Strobel's case very friendly ones. The most serious skeptics will want to dig much further by reading whole books and articles devoted to single issues. If such people find Strobel's interviews with William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias, Walter Bradley and others compelling, then they will go out and buy these men's books, and Strobel has, if only in part, succeeded.
The interview with Peter Kreeft had a notable philosophical pitfall. After several pages of discussion of free will (a term the Bible conspicuously avoids, and certainly a thorny, much-debated issue even among Christians), Kreeft talked about the importance of suffering in making the world what it is. He concluded that "a world without suffering appears more like hell than heaven" (p. 42). This was, in fact, his major conclusion to the question of suffering up to that point: that any existence that did not include suffering and pain would be a hellish one. But then he proceeds to talk of the beauty of heaven for Christians - a place where there is no suffering or tears or pain. Owing to his lengthy assertions about the fundamental need for suffering in any world, claiming that heaven would be the ultimate solution is insensible coming from him.
The interview with Walter L. Bradley, though perhaps wrongly titled (naturalists do not claim that evolution "accounts for life"), appeared very compelling, though not being a scientist it would be foolish for this reader to assume that his quoted facts and statistics are incontrovertible and final. What was most intriguing was Bradley's personal observation that, "The optimism of the 1950s is gone. The mood at the 1999 international conference on origin of life was described as grim - full of frustration, pessimism, and desperation" (p. 107).
Whether this is in fact the case, or is only creationist opinion, might be answered by asking the leading scientists in this field this series of questions: In 1950, had we asked the top research scientists how many years we were from finally solving the origin-of-life riddle, what would they have said? Had we asked the leading scientists the same question in 1975, what would they have said? And how would the leading researchers in the field answer that question today? The combined answers to these questions could tell us volumes about science's own honest perception of its progress on this issue.
In the last main chapter, Dr. Lynn Anderson appears to paint doubting the Bible and God and faith as a secretly blissful, happy state, as though doubt for doubt's sake ought to be a joy in itself. But this does not account for what the most serious doubting is really like.
Many Christians will this encouraging and affirming, particularly his personal anecdotes about his own spiritual journey and encounters he has had with other atheists-turned-Christian. But more serious Christians fighting through the tough questions will consider this only a beginning primer on the issues. And the tougher skeptics will find much of the book to contain little more than simplistic introductory arguments with the presented evidence and concessions designed to favor Christianity.
But to Strobel's credit, at least he asks the questions.

Rating:
Summary: logical, concise, and astute
Review: I want those who read reviews to pay very close attention to the vast majority of criticisms of this book. Notice that they almost without fail grasp at something - anything - to write it off as rubbish with more than a little malice and venome in their words. They're claim of bias is absurd, especially in light of their own biased vindictiveness. One major criticism concerns all those Strobel interviews being only Christian scholars. Hmmm, let me see, if I want to build a case for FAITH, I'm sure not going to seek out the most vehement objectors to the very thing I'm trying to build a case for!! What do you think folks who hold to atheistic viewpoints are going to say, "Yeah, right on Lee!"? Of course not. This isn't "the case for atheism" so Strobel was perfectly justified in seeking out those who could best answer the objections he set out with. He doesn't have to provide the "other side" (even though he does in many cases, contrary to what some critics have said) because he's not arguing the "other side", just as a lawyer doesn't make his summation to the jury based on evidence contrary to his case. The objections he sets out with themselves form the premise by which Strobel makes the case. Besides, he provides a more than ample bibliography if one chooses to seek out in detail what atheists say concerning these objections. Remember, the point of the book was to address a given set of "objections" to faith - on the side of faith (which is one side of coin, the atheistic view being the other) - which it does indeed. Then there was the asinine objection that all those Strobel interviews were middle-aged white men. Come on, if you were building a case for something, would you say, "No, I can't interview this person because their a certain color or gender and they're geographically in the wrong place"? No. If you're smart, you will seek out those who can build your case the best, whether they be male, female, black, white, or purple with pink spots living on the north pole. To top it off, even when the critics dared to actually criticize the arguments themselves they tended to dissolve into emotional appeals with no logical basis for their claims even though thats exactly what they are supposed to be criticizing in the first place. My personal favorite was one critic who claims Dr. Woodridge "tap-dances" around Christian history while "overlooking" homosexual suppression. Biased indeed. However, more often the critics just outright misrepresent the book entirely.

Now that I've alerted those who read the reviews to some (but by no means all) of the faults of the "objective criticisms", I will highly recommend this book to anyone, regardless if you're a Christian or not (actually, even more if you are NOT). Some of the biggest advantages of this book vs. others in the same vein lies in the fact that: 1. It is obvious that Strobel has an atheistic background by the way he structures the discussions which gives even more credibility to his efforts and the reader a better grasp of how and why an atheist would come to embrace faith. 2. The sheer breadth of knowledge from various experts of many different backgrounds and situations that Strobel probes, not to mention the trouble, effort, and expense it takes to fly all around the country building a case for something he didn't even believe in yet. This alone should be enough reason for someone to read this book. 3. Its concise and very well put together. You won't be bogged down in technical and semantical arguments. One objective is tackled, the points made, and then on to the next. Conciseness is in itself an art. Bravo.

Strobel delivers on his promise to probe these difficult objections and obtain reasonable and astute answers. I won't cover the book blow-by-blow here (thats why you read the book), but suffice it to say that the aforementioned advantages coupled with the obvious cord it struck with both supporters and critics makes the book a worthy read. But the most important reason to read this book should be obvious: to believe or not? There is no greater question to anyone, whether they admit it or not. This book has my highest recommendation.

Rating:
Summary: Another Winner!
Review: As a Pastor, I am always looking for materials to recommend to those who have questions concerning faith. This is one that has gained a place of prominence in my list!! Lee asks the questions that so many have asked and in his legal journalistic background builds a defense that leaves even the most skeptical agreeing.

Great job Lee!

Rating:
Summary: More Preaching to the Choir
Review: While in the process of leaving almost twenty years of evangelical Christianity, I happened upon Lee Strobel's little tome and thought it sounded intriguing. Could he answer some of the gnawing questions that had been eating away at my beliefs for the last few years and allow me to give traditional Christianity one last chance? Curious, I bought the book and gave old Lee a try.

It turned out not only to be something of a disappointment, but actually served to reinforce my doubts rather than ease them. The premise is simple: Lee Strobel, hard-nosed journalist and former atheist turned Christian, "pretends" to ask a distinguished panel of like-minded evangelicals some of the "tough" questions about the faith and they, in turn, "pretend" to be objective, unbiased scholars giving their objective, unbiased opinions as to why Christianity is the only true path to God. In this, the book is a complete farce. It is designed not to explore some of the more difficult elements of Christianity in a thoughtful and balanced manner that permits the reader to decide for themselves the merit of each opinion, but is, in fact, a device designed solely to reinforce the wavering faith of the already convinced. It is thoroughly and unabashedly fundamentalist through and through and allows Strobel, who to my utter shock manages to almost immediately agree with everything his all male, middle-aged white panelists have to say, a means of shoring up the breaches in the fundamentalist lines. To those outside the fundamentalist camp, however, it seems just another attempt to prove the unprovable. It would have been a much more interesting book if Strobel had still been a atheist (or at least a confirmed agnostic) when he entered into his dialogues. That would have at least made for a lively, less predictable, and more illuminating debate.

That's not to say there aren't useful elements in the book. Peter Kreeft had some interesting-if untenable-points to make about the reality of evil and suffering and how that conflicts with the notions that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and loving and Ravi Zacharias (the only non-westerner in the bunch) made a spirited if ill-fated defense for the exclusivity of Christianity. Even William Craig's discussion of miracles and Walter Bradley's tired old campaign against Darwinism weren't without their moments, though both men failed to convince this heretic that they were on to anything new. They used the same prepackaged arguments that have been around for decades and probably will be for another hundred years. I especially found Bradley's willingness to accept a supernatural explanation for the creation of life on this planet while refusing to give any serious consideration to an extraterrestial explanation to be extremely short-sighted. (In this, at least, the creationist and the evolutionist share their certainty that our current understanding of science is sufficient to provide all the answers they need.) I also wondered why the subject of theistic evolution wasn't broached. It would have been a dandy opportunity to take the conversation somewhere useful.

Finally, John Woodbridge also does a nice tap-dance around the issue of Church history and little problems like the Crusades, the Inquisitions, 2,000 years of anti-Semitism, and missionary abuses (while also overlooking any fresh insights into the issues of slavery and the still ongoing suppression of women and homosexuals.) In the end, it turns out the troublemakers were never "real" Christians all along, the good doctor tells us. "Real" Christians only do good things; bad things are always done by Christian wannabes. So how easy that was?

Perhaps the highlight of the book was Norman Geisler's chilling defense of divinely mandated genocide in the Old Testament (those Amalekites were so evil, by gosh, that God was doing them a favor by having the Jews slaughter them. Didn't the Nazis express similar sentiments in regards to their euthanasia policies of the 1930s?) along with J.P. Moreland's defense of Hell as a monument to God's respect for human dignity (God takes us so seriously, he informs us, that He even respects our right to live in eternal torment. And you thought God was just being mean...) Additionally, Moreland's reasons for dismissing annihilation as a counter to Hell falls well short of anything approaching logic, while his understanding of reincarnation, like that of most fundamentalists, is practically nil. Not surprisingly then, his willingness to even consider it a viable option to eternal torment is also nonexistent.

Strobel did manage to convince me of one thing, however. He convinced me that when intelligent, well-educated and determined men become Christians, their capacity to rationalize that decision knows no bounds. Embracing Christianity-or any religion for that matter-is at its heart an emotional decision designed to fill a need for something larger in one's life. The rationalization process follows later, in marked contrast to Strobel's insistence that these men came to faith only after a long process of careful reflection and study that convinced them logically that Christ was the only way to God and the Bible was His inerrant word. Right.

If you are a convinced fundamentalist with a wavering faith, this book will give you fresh ammunition to renew the battle afresh. However, if you are looking for something deeper and more objective, you might want to look elsewhere. It's just more preaching to the choir.

Rating:
Summary: The Case for Faith
Review: This is a spetacular book. You may think that the topic of faith is boring and heavy and don't know where to go to deepen your understanding of it. This is the book you want to start your journey of seeking the truth with. It's so easy to read yet it's so logically and reasoningly woven with facts and intelligent thinking. The author is a fantistic thinker and writer!

This is the most phenomenal book I have read about faith. It has certainly guilded me through my skeptics and doubts about Christinality and got my questions answered.

Rating:
Summary: Where does the evidence point?
Review: I think that there is an overwhelming bias in the skeptical christian community for the greatness of athiestic response. I believe that we assume the objections to christianity are unnaturally powerful, while the answers to these objections are naturally weak. I believe that many of us are just a little deceived, that we have overestmiated our opponents. I have read several revewiers make mention of Strobel's appearant weakness in arguing the case for athiesm. It has been stated that he accepted the conclusions of the scholars to readily. But I must say as somone who has studied these subjects for over three years(obessesively) I have found the objections just do not get much tougher, especially at the level of the laymen. Now I do not mean to say that all objections are answered, or even mentioned, but I do mean to say that the ones that were neglected are of no unusual power. It is not like Strobel tried to pick out the easiest objections and the weakest arguements, and neglect arguements that he knew were stronger and unanswerable.
Second if it seems that the arguements in this book are more philosophical than the the Case for Christ. It is because the issues it deals with are primarily philosophical. You can not show numbers or historical facts to prove that a loving God can allow people to go to hell, or that a loving God can allow suffering. You can not you must use the God given gift of reason, and there is no weakness in that.
Thirdly if Strobel seems to accept the theories of the scholars he interviews to quickly it is because he is not looking for conclusive answers, but for reasonable answers. The nature of many of the objections adressed in this book do not require conclusive answers, because they are designed to cast doubt by stating that there is no reasonable answer. For instance one arguement would be "It is logically irreconcilable that God can both loving and condeming. It is a contradiction in terms for God to love and send people to hell." A response to this arguement need not prove conclusively otherwise, only that it is indeed possible and reasonable that God could be both loving and condeming. To prove that it is not a contradiction in terms. Why must the defense of the Christian case be all together conclusive when the case against it is not.
The purpose of this book is not to provide the reader with concrete proof of God's existence. But to point out the fact that the "Case for Faith" is every bit as reasonable as the case against it. Though it may be false, it is likely, and though it may be flawed, it is logical. In fact I would say it does more than hold its own, it is the most reasonable hypothesis we have at the current time. And though it is possible that this hypothesis is false a man is no fool for placing his faith in it based on the evidence he has.
Overall the book does fairly well. I thought some of the arguements were a little weak though not unreasonable. I also thought many of the arguements were powerful. It is definitley worth the read, even as it may not answer or erase all doubts and questions. It will, if your heart is truly seeking, expand your mind and open up your intellect to the possiblity of there being reasonable answers to your questions. It will give you hope that even if the answers you were looking for are not available in this book, they may be available. For the christian faith is not a blind faith but a reasonable one. We must look at the evidence collectively and then decide where the evidence points.

Rating:
Summary: Book isn't what it claims to be
Review: I bought this book hoping to see someone approach questions of faith objectively. Our minister had mentioned this book in a sermon, and since I have always had many questions and doubts about organized religion and the way religion interprets the Bible, I bought it.

I should mention I am a former newspaper journalist and an extremely logical person. I smell bias miles before I see it. And this book, while claiming to be a journalist's "investigations" of religious issues, is clearly written by someone who is a Christian and already believes certain interpretions on these topics.

It doesn't take long to figure this out. First of all, the author chooses to approach Christian experts and ask them why they believe the way they do. There is no corresponding interview of non-Christian scholars who believe differently. The assumption is that the author represents the non-Christian view. Unfortunately, the author never offers any well-reasoned objection to any of these issues. He simply states an opinion that expresses doubt, then goes out in search of an answer from a source that provides only one side.

When the author first approaches an "expert," he chooses words that exaggerate his initial doubt almost to hyperbole. He practically dares the Christian expert to make a case. The effect is to demean anyone who questions these beliefs, by making anyone who doubts seem unbalanced and emotional. Once the Christian expert calmly and reasonably (and it is always calmly and reasonably) offers his argument, the author drops the charade and transitions to an almost open wonder of something he never puts much effort in questioning.

One of the first chapters, which includes an alleged interview with a man who once preached with Billy Graham and then had a crisis of faith and chose a faithless path, is telling. At this chapter's conclusion, the author relates an anecdote that is entirely his interpretation of what he witnesses and in doing so the anecdote renders the interviewee's position worthless. All because this author chose to interpret something that was highly subjective! The author does not do this to any of the Christian experts.

There are countless examples of this bias. After three chapters, I finally pulled out a yellow highlighter and started marking every place the bias appears. My book now looks like a well-used college text.

This is not the work of a journalist. Some may find its content comforting, but be very aware that this book is not much different than the view from most mainstream Christian religions. It is only unique in that it pays lip service to doubts. Unfortunately, it never really explores both sides.

Rating:
Summary: Logic?
Review: It was a very good thing Strobel explained early in the book what a good investigative journalist he is and how he likes to ask the really tough questions. It was a good thing, because I never would have realized it from his writings. (...)

Strobel did an unusual thing in his introduction. Not in asking “What is faith?” The unusual thing was that rather than defining it, he states basically infers that the faithful already know what it is. I found it an interesting choice to avoid the subject.

Strobel makes many points that use contorted logic. Despite the contorted logic he presents, he sometimes arrives at some truths anyhow. Some points I agree with, some I don’t. (...) As it was explained in the book, either

A. There is no God; or
B. The Bible is literally true.

One of the concepts he relied heavily on was the argument that, “Christianity is better than other religions, therefore it is true.” (...)

I found two things interesting in the chapter on the origin of life. The first is that Strobel avoids discussing the entire subject of Theistic Evolution -- the idea that God could have created the world using evolution if that is how God chose to have it happen. I was amazed that the subject wasn’t even broached.

My second wonder was, “Why does he care?” How is insignificant. Only who is important.

He has an interesting use of statistics. (...)

Based on what I’ve typed thus far, it must be hard to believe that I am glad I read the book. I am glad mostly because of the summary. There were three things I liked about the summary.

The first was a sense that Strobel realized that not all of his arguments were convincing. He seemed to state that he chooses to have “faith” despite the fact that he hadn’t proven his thesis conclusively. I respect that.

The second was what he seemed to miss in the book, but realized in the conclusion, that faith/belief is a choice. In one chapter he makes fun of atheists who refuse to believe even after you prove the case logically. In another chapter he states that even if an atheist proves her case logically, you shouldn’t change your beliefs because there must be something wrong with their argument you missed. I find it intellectually dishonest to think some people are stupid to cling to their pre-formed opinions, but others aren’t. That he realized in the conclusion that faith/belief is a choice, was a good thing

The third is that faith/belief is an act. He realizes that in the process of having a choice, the person partakes in the action of faith/belief. Faith/belief is clearly in the realm of actions, not graces.

Strobel didn’t take it to the next natural level, that only one who believes works achieve salvation could believe that salvation is achieved by faith/belief. (That or the person holds two opposing opinions, and that happens a lot.)

This book will never convert an atheist, but people who agree with his philosophy will applaud it’s “logic.”

Rating:
Summary: Strong, clear answers
Review: The author does a great job of answering the toughest questions asked about Christianity, but in an easy-to-read conversational style that makes it a very engaging, comfortable read.