Rating: 
Summary: Good book , Great Ending
Review: The Case for Faith's eight chapters cover some of the questions Christians don't want to ask themselves, or be asked by their friends. The first 7 have a lot of good scientific theory and philosphy, not enough to qualm all my lingering doubts, but good, especially taken as a whole. The last question, Can I be a Christian when I still have all these doubts and the closing chapter, the Power of Faith, are the gold in the book. The problem of doubt has vexed me in my entire time as a Christian, and is particularly painful right now as I face some personal issues. The chapter on doubt in Lee's book was both a comfort and a challenge to me: God loves me despite my doubts, and a challenge to seek out the rebellion in me that is the true source of the doubts. THe Power of Faith chapter motivated me to push past the doubts and simply decide, every day, or every hour if need be, that I have faith in God and I can trust Him with my life.
Rating: 
Summary: Toughest Objections? Hardly.
Review: First, let me say that Strobel does an adequate job of explaining the existence of suffering in the presence of an omnibenevolent god. That's about all this book is good for, though. In my opinion, Strobel glosses over the toughest objections to faith, if he bothers to address them at all. This book assumes the reader already believes in the existence of the judeo-christian god. It does nothing to convince a non-believer of that existence. That would be fine if not for the fact that this book is touted as an objective investigation. Strobel needs to convincingly establish the existence of god before throwing around banter about god's purposes, motivations, and characteristics. The free-will problem is never addressed even though free-will is used to describe the fall, the existence of suffering, and the existence evil. This is a 2-star book (at best) because even though Strobel keeps the reading interesting, his investigation of the "toughest" questions just doesn't deliver.
Rating: 
Summary: A shallow defense of Faith
Review: When I picked this book up I was extremely excited. I was having trouble refuting arguments made by friends that seemed to enjoy playing the skeptic. Reading this book as a Christian looking for "amunition" to be used against "hole-pokers" I was a little disappointed. I was hoping to find a thorough investigation of the hot buttons topics being debated in today's society. Instead Strobel seems to gloss over the surface of the these subjects, assuming that the reader is anxious to agree with his conclusion. That's the bad. THE GOOD: He interviews a wide range of experts in their field on various topics. He cites all his and their sources in each chapter. I came away with some better basic knowledge to refute arguments, but more importantly I came away with some new sources to look into on my own. I am excited about having an expansive list of respected work to refer to when studying certain areas of contention. BOTTOM LINE: A decent read, but not recommended for those that are looking to get their question about Faith answered in one book.
Rating: 
Summary: Lies, evasions, and offensive approval of genocide.
Review: This book is supposedly about Truth, but it starts off with two blatant lies-right on the front cover. First, Strobel's relationship to investigative journalism is roughly that of "creation science" to actual science. Both attempt to hijack the credibility of terms about which they haven't the foggiest understanding. Strobel, plain and simple, is a fundamentalist preacher trying to make converts. Posing as a journalist is dishonest, and it casts grave doubt on the rest of his arguments. Second, the author claims to address the "toughest objections" to Christianity. But the objections are from his imagination rather than from real skeptics, and even then he answers through circular reasoning (it says so in the Bible, and the Bible is the infallible word of God, so...). Strobel completely ignores an array of much tougher questions. Here are a few that come easily to mind: 1) How is it possible to take a document "literally" when it is stuffed to from one cover to the other with contradictions and fantastical nonsense? 2) If it is possible to take the Bible literally, why are there hundreds of different "literal" interpretations? 3) If it isn't literally true, then the best we can do is to rely on someone's interpretation. Who should we believe, and why should we believe one interpretation rather than one of thousands of others? 4) If the Bible is a collection of dictated revelations from God, then why didn't God see fit to pass down even a single scientific insight beyond the set of primitive beliefs about the universe that were held by mankind at the time? Is the earth flat and at the center of the universe? Is a whale a kind of fish? The Bible says so. 5) What about all the tall tales in Genesis? Prime example: the collection of howlers in the story about Noah and the Flood. I wouldn't waste time arguing with anyone who thinks two of each species on the planet (not just zoo animals, but several hundred thousand species of insects, every kind of plant, all the fungi, etc.) could be packed into a so-many-cubit by so-many-cubit box, and then kept alive for 40 days, or that freshwater fish could have survived in slightly diluted seawater, or...ad infinitum. Strobel has enough sense not to touch the Flood, but then he has the gall to claim that he's covering all the toughest questions! But it gets worse than mere intellectual sloppiness and dishonesty. In the most outrageous and offensive parts of the book, Strobel staunchly defends genocide, as long as the perpetrators claim to have been instructed by God (and the dead victims conveniently don't have a chance to write any Bible chapters). Admittedly, this might be the toughest of his softball questions ("If God is morally pure, how can he sanction the slaughter of innocent children as the Old Testament says he did?") For example, on page 120, Strobel approvingly quotes a Bible scholar who says of slaughtered Amalekite children: "...In that thoroughly evil and violent and depraved culture, there was no hope for those children. This nation was so polluted that it was like gangrene taking over a person's leg, and God [through his Israelite agents] had to amputate the leg...God's action was an act of mercy. ... According to the Bible, every child who dies before the age of accountability goes to heaven... ...if they had continued to live in that horrible society, past the age of accountability, the undoubtedly would have become corrupted and thereby lost forever." Really? All of them? What about...um...free will? When this kind of thinking comes from supposedly civilized, educated religious...well, yes, fanatics, how can we be surprised by the endless parade of religion-based genocides in the real world? If this is as good as it gets, the "case for faith" is in pretty sad shape. The book can be an amusing read at times, but it falls miles short of arguments that would sway a thinking person, not to mention an actual skeptic.
Rating:
Summary: Parag Gupte- do read between the lines
Review: Parag- I'm an Indian too. I read your comments with interest. However, I believe you are missing an important point. Ravi Zacharias' words that you have used have been unfortunately quoted out of context. The Christian worldview that he espouses does claim exclusivity in Christ as the only way to salvation. However, his statements are meant to show that the best of our efforts do not make for salvation, even if one says, "Christ is another way to salvation". Zacharias himself states often that all religions claim exclusivity at some point or other, including Hinduism. Do read his writings to see what I mean. His references to Gandhi have always been with great respect, but he notes Gandhi's rejection of Jesus as a pitfall. His point is that even a serial killer (just as much as a child who steals a cookie) can find rest for his soul in Jesus because he is about forgiveness and redemption. Our good works are not precedents of grace, as Augustine said, but rather they are the consequences of God's grace. We may do all the good works we want, but at best they will remain valiant if unsuccessful attempts. "Thus", says he, "no man is to suppose that he has received grace because he has done good works but rather that he would not have been able to do those good works if he had not, through faith, received grace."
Rating:
Summary: Disappointed to read that Mahatma Gandhi is in Hell !
Review: I was born a Hindu in India and attended a Roman Catholic School in Bombay. I am a secular humanist by religion and claim Hinduism as my culture. I was presented this book by one of the senior executives at my office - I work for a major corporation in Houston, Texas. I read the book from cover to cover. I am sure this book is very comforting to many Christians. I have many objections to this book based on all religions (including Hinduism) being completely out of accord with modern science. However, I will not dwell on this here. More eloquent writers than me have written tomes on this topic. I was utterly disppointed to read Lee Stroebl describe how Ravi Zacharias consigns Mahatma Gandhi to hell. Zacharias bases this on Gandhi's continuing to practice the religion of his birth (Hinduism) after having studied Christianity in London. Incidentally, Gandhi had a lot of respect for Christianity and considered Jesus as a valid and viable alternative path to God. I was even more amazed to read Zacharias state that David Berkowitz, a serial killer, is enjoying life in heaven while Gandhi is 'gnashing his teeth and burning in everlasting hell'. Mr Zacharias and Mr. Stroebl, I humbly submit to you that in this age of reason and sanity, these are ludicrous and even hateful views. I cannot expect much out of Taliban type of fundamentalists but would hope for something better out of people like you with a Western education. Belief in a personal God is fine if it makes you happy but for God's sake, let's stop interpreting 5000, 2000 and 1400 year old historical texts as the literal word of God. We all are witness to the events of September 11. I suppose that based on a literal interpretation of the Koran, Mohamad Atta is enjoying 72 virgins in Heaven ?
Rating:
Summary: What about women?
Review: Strobel's book asked and answered questions that are important and common to both Christian and Non-Christian readers. However, I was left asking the question "What about women?" Those interviewed in this book were asked some tough questions of which I am certain they were qualified to answer. I was just left wondering if there was perhaps a reason why the author decided that only men could adequately give all the answers. I was also aware of the fact that the author addressed the importance of kind treatment to animals because there has always existed, throughout the history of mankind, cruel and inhumane teatment toward "lesser" creatures whose lives are subject to human decisions, both good and bad. Unfortunately, throughtout the history of mankind, women have also been consistently placed in this same category. I have always been an advocate for the kind and humane treatment of animals and I applaud the author for listing this subject as one of the great questions. But I am left wondering if the author has ever considered, in all his searching, if women are a creation of God who might be worthy of mention as well?
Rating:
Summary: Interesting, if incomplete...
Review: For those dipping their feet into the vast ocean of theist vs. atheist apologetics for the first time, The Case For Faith offers a great introduction to enduring problems with theism in general and Christianity in particular. Unlike the book's forerunner The Case For Christ, The Case For Faith deals with problems that a believer is likely to hear about or has already been presented with. More people are likely to ask a Christian "If God is so good why does evil exist?" than a question about the corruption of New Testament manuscripts. The book itself is a breezy read for most anyone who can read at a high school level. The author uses 8 interviews with leading Christian apologists to weave together a response of sorts to some of the most tenacious problems that people of faith struggle with. The answers are often anecdotal and by no means definitive, but they provide something to think about for both Christians and Atheists. The author's journalistic style makes difficult concepts (such as the area of theodicy) much easier to understand and read than such better-reasoned apologetics from Aquinas and Augustine whose style often leave modern readers scratching their heads. I think the main reason that this book is the target of either effusive praise or derision is the fact that some people view it as the be all and end all of apologetics. This naturally would leave Christians saying "well that way easy" and not think about deeper issues or responses that athiests might give them and athiests saying "hey, wait a minute!" while not understanding that just a taste of the Christian response to their arguments and not the main course.
Rating: 
Summary: Why Does God Kill Babies?
Review: In Joshua, God commands the Israelites to kill every man, woman, and child of the Canaanites. Many people nowadays have a problem with this. Here is an attempted explanation. First of all, please note that eventually, God kills everyone. That is right. Either by a heart attack, cancer, or simple old age, God kills EVERY PERSON. We all die, and in the older Christian terminology, they knew that it was by God's hand. They used to say, "The Lord took him." They had a better understanding than some modern Christians. The fact is God gives us life and he has the right to take away that life WHENEVER he wants to. What does it matter if he does it when we are 85 years old or when we are 1 year old? It is his choice. Compare our tiny short life with an eternity spent in heaven, and you will realize how little it matters if God cuts our life a little bit shorter. Furthermore, please realize that children who die almost certainly go straight to heaven. Jesus told us that to enter the kingdom you must become like a little child. So in all likelihood these children immediately entered into infinite happiness. Combine these three facts: first, God eventually kills everyone. Second, God has every right do so. Third, children almost certainly go straight to heaven. Thus, his command in Joshua is not nearly as bad as it might appear.
Rating:
Summary: The Case Against Apologetics
Review: Lee Strobel's "The Case For Faith" is marred with a host of errors that are glaringly obvious to even the most undiscerning of us. Strobel's book is just as much a compendium of apologetic error, in the same vain that Josh Mcdowell's "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" was. It is unfortunate that Amazon limits our reviews at a 1,000 words, since there is nothing I would like better than to do a detailed treatment of how much blatant nonsense is passed off as a rational basis for belief in "The Case For Faith". Of course, in order to do that I would probably need twenty times the allotted space. Some of the reasoning (and I use that term very loosely in Strobel's and his collaborators' case) was so bankrupt in "The Case For Faith" that it required me to scribble commentary that filled up the entire margin of some its pages. Strobel's approach was to interview some illustrious evangelical scholars such as "Ravi Zacharias", "J.P. Moreland", "William Lane Craig", "Norman Geisler" and others on typical objections that skeptics have concerning Christianity and the general theistic framework. Much of what was the result of these interviews merely trivializes the objections skeptics have concerning the Christian faith, instead of providing sound rebuttals. Take for example Strobel's interview with Dr. William Lane Craig entitled "Objection 2: Since Miracles Contradict Science, They Cannot be True." He defends the whole notion of the first cause (an argument that has fallen into disrepute sometime ago, and is still specious in spite of Craig's modern Kalam revision) by stating that the universe, being an extant thing, must have a cause that necessarily exists outside of time and space, and hence the only thing that qualifies is the personal God of Christianity. His reasoning as to why it had to be personal and a Christian like God was not made too clear. Talk about your non sequitur! He precludes the notion of a causeless universe with trite sound bytes such as "Something cannot come from nothing". He bases this notion on the common observation that clearly shows that something has never come out of nothing. First, Dr. Craig is committing the fallacy of composition. Secondly, what strikes me as odd is that if we are to base our conclusion on empiricism than by the same notion ex nihilo creation is also impossible because we have never observed an entity create another entity out of nothing. Hence, even God must be barred as a legitimate answer to why anything exists at all. Dr. Craig would do well to heed the saying of David Brooks in that "to explain the unknown by the know is logical procedure. To explain the know by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." Of course, to men like Lee Strobel, juvenile answers like this are satisfactory, and he unabashedly lauds the individuals he interviews for their intellectual acumen even though nothing about their answers warrants such complementary remarks. Strobel, after positing legitimate objections that most skeptics would pose, is easily satisfied with answers that would not even quell the doubt of your novice critic, much less a professional scholar. His seemingly genuine efforts to push the envelope further to make his interviewee seem to struggle are clearly contrived to give the appearance of rigorous scrutiny when it is anything but. Sometimes he doesn't even pose questions that are truly representative of the skeptical community, but instead asks straw man criticisms that are easy to shoot down, thereby portraying the secular intellectual establishment as either vacuous or intellectually dishonest. For example, when asking Dr. Normal Geisler about the apparent contradictions in scripture, this scholar cites how many "skeptics" will use differences in verbiage as a mark of a contradiction, when they are merely differences, not contradictory statements. For example, one Gospel will state something to the effect that Peter saw Jesus walking away; another will state that the disciples saw Jesus walking away. These are not contradictions, but merely different ways of saying the same thing. And yet, according to Geisler, critics will call it a contradiction. Really? Which critic is he referring to? He is probably referring to a critic that is a figment of his imagination, but not a bona fide critic. Of course when has academic integrity ever been a paramount concern for Strobel and his cohorts? When it comes to addressing the problem of evil and suffering Lee Strobel's interview of Dr. Peter Kreeft left even more to be desired. For well-seasoned scholars it seemed that Dr. Kreeft and Strobel haven't kept up with the latest scholarly debate that has been happening for, say, the past 2000 thousand years! Its been pretty much established that these clichéd theodicies, articulated by theologians to explain, or shall I say, excuse the problem of evil, do not hold water. I do not have the space available to explain as to why but when you consider God's omnipotent and omniscient nature, even when taking to account his refusal to contravene "free will", one can see how suspect most theodicies are. Just mull over it awhile, and I guarantee if you have common sense, you can come up with scenarios that preserve the autonomy of freewill, but at the same time allow for God to exercise his infinite power to vanquish suffering, or at least mitigate it to a triviality. Overall Lee Strobel's "The Case For Faith" really left a bad taste in my mouth. If anything, he makes a good case against the efficacy of apologetics. Strobel really justifies the adage that people never doubted God so much until scholars tried to prove him.
| 
