Rating: 
Summary: Burnt out on faith, but brought back. Thanks, Mr. Strobel
Review: For many years, I identified with an earth-based, pagan religion. From there, I had very negative experiences with both pagans and Christians and finally came to a place where I was so disgusted with religion that I actually felt an anomosity towards all things God related or religion related and felt it was all, frankly, a bunch of B.S.
Problem is, that was a rather reflexive response that didn't match what my soul's response was.....I missed having a religious system. I missed prayer, I missed believing in God. I missed Jesus, even though I had never identified myself as a Christian. I started to realize that I still believed in and longed for God and faith and had to try to separate that from feeling so profoundly disgusted by the experiences I had had with "believers" of all walks.
Enter, Lee Strobel's The Case for Faith.
I stumbled on this book at the library, took it home because I was so hungry to have both my intellect and my spirituality fed, and was delighted with the content of "The Case for Faith" as well as the positive influence it has had on my faith in God.
The content addressed the toughest objections I had to Christianity and faith. At times, I'd be reading and be thinking to myself, "Yeah, o.k., but what about....." and there would be my question posed in the very next paragraph. In my opinion, Strobel doesn't back away from any tough question and asserts throughout the book that intellect and faith can and should be partners, not enemies and can serve to enrich and strengthen each other.
One of my favorite parts of the book was how Strobels experts addressed hell---very well done, comforting and sensible.
The one weak spot was how Strobel's expert addressed the topic of reincarnation. That particular person was very dismissive and his arguments against reincarnation flimsy. The fellow made reference to reincarnation being absurd because people could come back as anything--even an ice cube. Well, sir, last time I went to my freezer, it contained no sentient ice cubes so I don't think your analogy holds water--no pun intended. While I am a natural skeptic about reincarnation, I thought the discussion of that topic could have been given more articulate attention. Many religius systems believe that humans only reincarnate as humans or higher sentient animals, such as apes, dolphins or whales, for example. How would the expert respond to that more plausable and interesting hypothesis? Save for the weak handling of reincarnation, the book is excellent and I would highly recommend it. This book has restored my faith in faith and taken me from a path were I was trepidaciously embracing atheism back to feeling like I can enjoy faith, love Jesus, embrace Christianity, pray, study, worship and not have to put my questions, doubts, explorations or intellect out to pasture to do so. Bravo, Mr. Strobel. And thanks a million.
Rating:
Summary: Not much of a reader from Colorado Springs
Review: I am a Christian. A well informed Christian. I've met and discussed with many a well informed atheist/agnostic. The reader from Colorado Springs (here on out known as Bob, due to the length of the name) does not fit into the aforementioned category. Bob has demonstrated himself to be completely unfamiliar with scholars (in general?) of any tradition other than his own. His implication that the contributors (or rather interviewees) are all "obsure teachers" at Bible colleges is preposterous. Walter Bradley is a prof at Texas A&M, Peter Kreeft is from Boston College, William Lane Craig has published a book with Quintin Smith (atheist), and has debated such big name atheists as Antony Flew and Peter Atkins. Hardly "obscure", hardly "Bible Colleges" (though I don't think Bible colleges are the horror of horrors Bob seems to imply they are). The other contributors have similar resumes. It's clear that Bob is completely unfamiliar with those he seeks to critique. Another shameful aspect of Bob's review is that he lists Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein next to David Hume in his little list of (presumably) skeptic's heroes. Rather shocking considering Newton was a churchman and Einstein took a stricly philosophical view against the existence of God (problem of divine foreknowledge and future contingents) while claiming that scientist aren't philosophers, thus undermining his own credulity. It takes a very bold, and in fact uninformed, skeptic to list them with the likes of David Hume. So there's my critique of the critique. On to the book. Obviously the chapters weren't meant to be comprehensive, merely introductory, and it succeeded in it's goal. It would have been impossible to make the chapters much more detailed due to the lenth and format of the book. The great thing about it is that it brings good, respected scholars with which most Christians are unfamiliar into the accessability of the average layperson. That's the success of this book. Strobel is a talented writer finding ways to put tough thoughts into the accessability of the average person. Well done!
Rating: 
Summary: A Better Title: Preaching to the Choir
Review: Lest anyone else make the same mistake as I, this is a book for Christians (with a capital C), not for those who are looking for answers or who actually object to christianity. Reading the subtitle, "a journalist investigates the toughest objections to christ," one might expect a rigorous investigation of things that might stand in the way of a belief in christ. One would be wrong. The book is actually a series of sympathetic discussions with folks who are unknown outside Christian circles about topics of interest to believers. I suspect that Christians would find these interviews affirm their faith. For others, the "skeptics" and "atheists," who serve as punching bags throughout the book, the book is probably useless, irrelevant, shallow, or intellectually dishonest. This would be an easy book to trash. Making fun of it would be easy but unfair. Claiming the book's title is misleading would also be unfair -- anyone who has completed a bible study session run by a fundamentalist sect would know what he or she were getting into. I suspect this book will sell mostly at church-run "study groups" and off the "literature" racks in church lobbies where those who genuinely expect a thoughtful, rigorous treatment of these topics will be few and, even if misled, will readily forgive the subtitle. This is a book for a sympathetic audience looking to reinforce its beliefs. Apparently that is a group that, like the "journalist" of the subtitle, is able (and anxious) to give the same credence to the words of an obscure teacher at a "bible college" as they give to thoughts of David Hume, Isaac Newton, and Albert Einstein. The writing style is acceptable and typical for the genre. Those accustomed to weight loss, pro-ufo, and conspiracy theory books will feel comfortable with its approach, language, and tone. Though some may find the pattern used by the author repetitious, others will find it clear and reassuring: thoughts about the airplane the author takes to the interview are followed by a description of the interviewee -- typically a list of insignificant credentials followed by a physical description. This introductory material often highlights a friendship or intellectual kinship with other bright lights of the fundamentalist movement. This introductory material is apparently designed for those familiar with the scholarly backwaters of bible colleges yet unfamiliar with the routine of modern air travel. It establishes the credibility of both author -- who can afford to travel in these amazing "silver birds" and the "scholar" who is about to pontificate. A series of softball questions and tract-like responses follows. The text would be readable by even the most attention-challenged drop out. The bold-faced headings that one expects in this style of writing are plentiful. The headings help break the text into bite-sized chunks, helping the reader follow the obvious points made in the text and presumably giving readers a sense of progress. Though this is not a book I found edifying or even interesting, I believe it will gratify its intended audience. It would also be an excellent sourcebook for discussion for a study group of believers who feel challenged by skeptics and atheists.
Rating:
Summary: The Doubt-buster!
Review: I had a lot of doubts about whether God exists before I read this book. I am a college student in a public school, and so many of my classes were challenging my Christian beliefs because I didn't have the knowledge to eliminate my doubts. Lee Strobel documents his research in such a straightforward way, and addresses all of my doubts...and more! My faith has been restored thanks to this book. Everyone who has doubts should read The Case For Faith because it provides insight that you won't find just from talking with other Christians or going to church.
Rating: 
Summary: Another botch of thermo
Review: When I first looked through this book, I was impressed with it for mentioning Paul Davies' books, etc. On further reflection, I'm very disappointed with its treatment of sciences. For example, it quotes Christians who are experts in their own fields, but not in the fields on which they speak in this book; a clever dodge all too typical of my co-religionists. Most egregioulsy, it completely botches the discussiuon of thermodynamics and evolution.
Rating: 
Summary: The interaction of belief and doubt.
Review: Strobel, former investigative journalist and atheist, tackles what he calls "the Big Eight", the toughest intellectual objections to Christian faith. What we find, in most cases, are objections of the will, not the intellect.
Supposed 'scientific' objections to God's existence are, in all cases, issues of metaphysical taste and not science. Science, which by definition is the interrogation of nature, cannot examine that which, by definition, is beyond nature (God). As to things theological, science can offer nothing further than the inferences or suggestions of its current paradigms of thought. Strobel discusses these issues with philosopher William Lane Craig. Only those who prefer science fiction to actual science will be surprised to find that atheism offers no rational (or even phenomenological) explanation for [the Cause of] Big Bang cosmology, for the fine-tuning of the universe, for the mind bending specificity of the laws of nature, for the origin of life. Neither atheistic materialism's leading brain-trusts (actually both Hume and Darwin were agnostics, not atheists) nor present day science have anything to offer on these most fundamental questions. So much for any supposed conflict between science and theology.
Detractors of the Christian faith disingenuously insist that faith and doubt are incompatible. But faith, like science, requires an interaction of belief and doubt. Without doubt, neither faith nor science is possible. Strobel's discussion with Lynn Anderson concerning doubt is one Pascal would have enjoyed. Anderson says, "When you scratch below the surface, there's either a will to believe or there's a will not to believe. That's the core of it." Philosopher / theologian Dallas Willard says, "God ordained that people should be governed in the end by what they want." Ultimately, beneath all intellectual and spiritual seeking is the human mind and its will to believe; either that there is a rational purpose for existence (and thus God exists), or that existence is a purposeless accident and thus meaningless (beyond whatever importance I assign to what I want). Regarding doubt, Strobel offers this thought from Gary Parker:
"If faith never encounters doubt, if truth never struggles with error, if good never battles with evil, how can faith know its own power? In my own pilgrimage, if I have to choose between a faith that has stared doubt in the eye and made it blink, or a naive faith that has never known the firing line of doubt, I will choose the former every time."
The book does have some weaknesses. The discussion with chemist Walter Bradley was interesting, but as someone familiar with the problem(s) of supposed abiogenesis, Bradley's indictment of this whimsical dogma is less powerful than it might have been. Perhaps, for the sake of brevity, this was necessary. The books greatest weakness however, was the defense of the traditional doctrine of Hell. This task was the lot of philosopher JP Moreland. He gives it a valiant effort, but is it helpful to reject the eternal, subterranean torture chamber -- the idea of eternal torment adopted from Hellenistic mythology -- if it is only morphed into the idea of eternal misery? Well, it's a step in the right direction anyway. I think that what Paul calls "eternal destruction" fits with the preponderance of scripture and better supports the "annihilationist" exegesis. I don't want to dwell on this but even a highly respected intellect like Moreland is going to have a tough time defending the modern variant of the Greco-Roman concept of hell. Moreland does make several excellent points nonetheless, particularly in Strobel's summarizing chapter.
Strobel's treatment of these topics is basically introductory, he considers a broad spectra of philosophic and psychological issues. As with faith that is sound because it is both studied and known experientially, The Case for Faith is rich enough in its strong points to overcome its unanswered questions. As for unanswered questions, this volume might serve as a starting point for further study. Much has been written about each of the issues argued here.
Rating:
Summary: Strobel's non-philosophical background shows through
Review: This is an engaging and interesting book; it mostly takes the form of a series of interviews with famous (Peter Kreeft) and not-so-famous theologians and apologists. That said, Strobel comes off (to this skeptic anyway) as someone who is basically honest but a bit unschooled in some of the more technical areas of the philosophical ideas he's discussing. This is far more germane to the chapters dealing with abstract objections (e.g. the first chapter, dealing with the argument from evil) as opposed to biblical interpretation or history. I'll give three examples of what I'm talking about, both drawn from the first chapter. The first chapter deals with the question: given that there is evil and suffering in the world, how can a loving and all-powerful God exist? As Epicurus puts it (and Strobel uses it as an epigraph): "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" 1. Kreeft argues that a world in which people have free will but without the possibility of evil is a logical contradiction. Strobel lets this pass without comment or criticism. But it's far from obvious why this is so. Consider: what's the last thing you did that was morally wrong? Call it S. Now that you've thought of it, could you have done the right thing (not-S) instead? If so, then it was logically possible for the world to have had a tiny bit less evil in it (since you'd have done not-S and everything else stays constant). If not, then you didn't really have free will in the choice of whether or not to do S. Kreeft seems to think that a world without *anyone* doing the wrong thing, and having free will, is a logical contradiction, but that implies we are *destined* to do evil -- and that's not consistent with free will. This is a complex and not-easily-grasped argument, which is why I don't fault Strobel for not raising it with Kreeft, but Strobel didn't make much of an effort to discover it (and arguments like it) either. 2. Strobel raises the question of a world with "a lot less" evil. Kreeft says this is a loaded phrase, because after all it's silly to say that it would have been "less evil" for the Nazis to murder 5,999,999 Jews rather than 6 million. You can't compare like that, according to Kreeft. But of course you CAN compare things like that; you just can't do so *cardinally* (that is, using numbers with definite cutoff points). You can do so *ordinally* -- using just comparisons ("more than", "less than", etc.). Kreeft's analogy depends entirely on obscuring this distinction, which again is not a well-known distinction among laymen. But consider the consequences of what Kreeft says -- if we really CAN'T say X is "more evil" than Y, what's to stop us from just declaring everyone morally equivalent? Jeff Dahmer and Ted Bundy are no more or less evil than you or I. Of course that statement is absurd, because when we talk about evil we take the "ordinal" comparison for granted; it doesn't occur to us to think of Dahmer having 20 "evil units" and Bundy having 19 and you or I having 2 or 3. Strobel lets Kreeft get away with this move, where no philosopher familiar with these issues would have. 3. Finally, Strobel lets Kreeft get away with an astonishing non sequitur (that's Latin for "does not follow"). Kreeft claims that the existence of evil actually provides reason to believe there IS a God, rather than denying God's existence. Why? Because the concept of evil only makes sense if there is some ideal to compare to; that ideal, says Kreeft, is God. If we reject God, we are committed to saying that there's really no such thing as good or evil. But this simply doesn't follow. One can deny the existence of God and accept that there are moral facts, which humans can become aware of. Simply put: 1. There are moral facts (e.g. "Torturing people for fun is evil" and "Keeping promises is good")
2. Humans can become aware of moral facts (through reason, conscience, etc.). It's up to the apologist -- Kreeft -- to show why this formulation, which does not involve God, is incoherent. He doesn't do any such thing; he just assumes that moral facts are somehow identical with, or dependent on, God. That's far from obvious. A trained philosopher wouldn't have let Kreeft make such an astounding leap in reasoning. These are just a few of the things I noted when I read the book (and that's just one chapter). It's not a bad book but readers, particularly theists, should keep in mind that Strobel's claim to have "stated the case for atheism as strongly as possible" is at best exaggerated.
Rating:
Summary: I view it as a supplement more than an end in and of itself.
Review: First of all, I'll say that this book is very well written, easy to read, and contains important information. It is valuable for most Christians to read.
I will say one that the one problem does not have so much to do with the author himself as it has to do with apologetics in general. People are not "convinced" into the Christian faith, they are drawn to God by him. I won't get into the scripture behind this, since those who are Christian are capable of finding that fact, it's all over the place. A Christian can argue until their face turns blue, but a skeptic will always find some way to convince themselves against believing. Conversion comes when someone feels the presence of God.
This book is great in that the author makes a good case to support our faith, which strengthens it, and allows someone to give reasons for faith while sounding intelligent. In the end, though, the basis of faith is not in facts but in experience of God.
Rating:
Summary: Outstanding Work
Review: Lee Strobel's "The Case for Faith" is without question a must for any Christian new to apologetics or for anyone new to the faith. It asks, without reservation, the seemingly "tough" questions skeptics love to ask and then with the precision of a power drill answers them with clarity. Guaranteed to be despised by atheists & agnostics and loved by believers, this book is an absolute must on every Christian bookshelf.
Rating:
Summary: Case for faith
Review: Lee Strobel has gone through great pains to create an intellectual argument for Christianity and indeed I am greatful for his effort to shine a light on the path for the intellectual atheists to follow to the truth of God and Christ. I'm sure it has planted many seeds out in the world.
I've got to be honest though, this book will not convert steadfast atheists based on its intellectual punch and its not because it is intellectually insuperior its because the Christian faith is NOT an intellectual matter and likewise cannot be explained by human reasoning. (look at the 1-star reviews and check out all the logical and rational deconstruction for yourself)
Take this scripture from 1 Chorinthians 2:4-5 and 7-8
"...and my message and preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in the demontration of the Spirit and of power so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but the power of God."
"...but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God has predestined before the ages to our glory; the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory;..."
I still highly recommend Strobel's book to all Christian's and anyone else who might be searching for truth. But I believe we will persuade non belivers not with arguments, but by example, and they will see the power of God upon our lives, and it will be undeniable.
|
