Lee Strobel

I'm a sharp nosed journalist and quite the skeptic so I set out to really dig into the evidence on the question of Christ. I went to ten different fundamentalist christians and asked them some hard questions like: "Is it really true that Jesus is Lord?". The man sipped his coffee and looked me in the eye and said "Yes". Being the astute critical mastermind that I am, I wasn't going to let him get away that easy, so I asked: "And what about all those academics who say there are mistakes and show more contradictions in the Bible, are they just wrong?". He chuckled to himself and said "Indeed they are". He waved some papers in my face and said it was all evidence of how wrong they were. I was stunned. My immense skepticism had been completely refuted. I fell to my knees and thanked Jesus for dying for our sins.

Lee Strobel must think the reader a complete moron. show less

Admittedly, there was very little chance that this book was going to change my skeptical worldview. I think a lot of people cross a threshold of inquiry from which it is impossible to return. Regardless of what Strobel writes in this book, it is clear that he wanted a change in his life, and he only interviewed apologists that would grease his path to faith. To use his somewhat tortured analogy of building a legal case, it is a bit like a trial in which only the prosecution was allowed to show more present evidence.

My first problem with Strobel is that he is a mediocre writer. There is a lot of shifting in chairs, sipping coffee, leaning forward in excitement, and grinning with confidence. I think that all of this description of his interview subjects is meant to build their ethos, and to create a sense of realism, but what you get is gruelling repetitiveness and a wish that he would just get to the point.

C.S. Lewis is much better, mainly because you get a sense of candor and honesty about his spiritual belief- he not trying to hoodwink anyone, merely express his true faith the best way he knows how. The Case for Christ, on the other hand, is a classic example of card-stacking and argumentative sleight of hand.

Some basic logical problems with the specious reasoning of this book:

1) Strobel argues that the apostles could not have lied about the resurrection without the people of Jerusalem refuting them. Well, most people of Jerusalem DID NOT adopt Christianity. It is entirely possible that they saw this as just another sect that they could ignore.
2) People do not die for a lie - I agree with this. But a lot of religious belief could generously be called delusional - meaning that the early followers of Jesus actually believed in the Resurrection, ignoring contradictory evidence to grasp on to a belief that gave their lives meaning and purpose. The great classic work on religious fervor is William James' "The Variety of Religious Experience". I assume most Christian apologists disregard James, because he clearly shows how people's spiritual experiences can lead them to extreme acts.
3) Strobel never addresses the supernatural vs. materialism piece. How do you bring a dead body back to life? Does it require supernatural "magic", or is there a rational scientific explanation? People for many centuries were absolutely convinced of the existence of witches and demons in their midst. From the modern perspective, these beliefs can be explained away as a lack of understanding of natural phenomena.
4) Christianity spread rapidly through the Roman Empire - which is not proof of the truth of its claims - and coincided with the decline of Rome and the onset of the dark ages. Not exactly an argument in favor of Christianity.
5) He interviews psychologist Gary Collins, who professes a belief in demons as a cause of psychological distress / mental illness. Dr. Collins should have his license revoked.
6) This was the most offensive part:
"I shook my head, saddened at the thought of how many other Jewish children have grown up thinking of Christians as their enemies."
Does Strobel not know about THE CENTURIES of persecution and slaughter of Jews by Christians, culminating in the Holocaust? Do Jews have no reason to suspect Christians, especially when Christians call them IGNORANT for not embracing the "truth of Christ"?

I would like to hear more about Strobel's supposed "atheism" before he started writing this book. Did he read the great skeptical writers and philosophers? Or was this a canard to draw in unbelievers?

Also, the ad hominem attacks on the Jesus Project as being "radical, left-wing scholars" does nothing to diminish their arguments. Why not interview one of the participants, instead of giving all of the page space to their right-wing critics?

As an agnostic, I don't believe that this conversation will ever be over. What troubles me is that Evangelicals (along with radicals in all religions) are not content to let people alone with their beliefs. Atheists can be just as strident and dogmatic in their desire to convert people. To me, it is interesting that people are drawn to religion - but the individual should have the freedom and autonomy to find his own way through life. show less

Do yourself a favor. If you're not already a Christian nothing this book insists is evidence is even slightly convincing. If you are a Christian don't give this to you're non-Christian friends to try and convert them, you'll just annoy them (and waste your money).

It is obvious to any skeptic reading this book, that for all of Strobel's insistence that he was a hardcore atheist and bristling skeptic he has absolutely no idea what sort of questions and answers matter to skeptics. Nor does his show more interaction with his all Christian interviewees suggest anything but compliant and soft handling. He appears to be wearing two or three pairs of kid gloves. He'll say that he can't let them off the hook and that he's going to give them a tough question and then lob some sort of crackpot theory no self respecting skeptic would ever take seriously.

The formula it this.

1. Start chapter with an exciting, but irrelevant anecdote about criminal investigation. It's a terrible and transparent gimmick aimed it showing that investigating the Bible is the same as investigating contemporary crime, even though there aren't any witnesses, material evidence, forensics or really any means at all to demonstrate anything concrete whatsoever.

2. Talk about the dude you're going to interview. Spend a page talking about his credentials, but then tell us not to worry about him bein' some unrelatable academic snot. He likes hockey! And has pictures his kids drew! And and he looks like a nice guy! Frankly I'm surprised he never got around to comparing them to lovable pop culture icons.

Reading this ridiculous dribble about why I should like this academic every-man I couldn't help wondering what he would have said about skeptical academics had he actually interviewed any. I doubt that he would talk about them in such sappy heartwarming language. Would he simply omit the gratuitous page of leg-humping (which really didn't need to be there at all) or would he mention the "cold uncomfortable feeling he felt in their presence" and describe the "lack of human touches in their office"? I don't know. It's one more reason I wish he had included interviews from people that weren't all presenting the argument he was selling.

3. Next you dive into the interview. This involves Strobel asking a question involving the theme of the of the chapter and immediately accepting whatever answer is given. Sometime he admits that that was enough to convince him, but asks a few more softball questions anyway to demonstrate his commitment to academic pursuit. Almost all examples of scholarly opinion and evidence is only vaguely referred to and lacking reference. They say things like "every one agrees that..." but fail to say who everyone is, or more importantly why they agree. It is assumed that hearing that some unknown theoretical scholars think it is as good as actual evidence and evaluation. It's not uncommon for them to insist that agreement is unanimous in the academic community regarding an issue when a simple google search shows it isn't. I shouldn't need to point out that conducting a criminal investigation or trial in this manner would be a joke.

4. Having declared the previous claim fact without actually applying any sort of rigorous evaluation or providing any evidence Strobel then uses it to prove more claims. This is basically all the book is. Making a claim, not really investigating it, declaring it inequivocally proven and then using it to prove other claims.

5. Throw in some strawman versions of skeptic arguments and you're good to go.

In a nut shell, this book argues that what the Bible says must be true because the Bible says it. It never addresses any real arguments against religion in general or Christianity in particular and on the occasion Strobel accidentally raises a legitimate objection his subject wasn't prepared for it is dismissed with a wave of the hand rather than actual logic or evidence. Unless you already accept the Bible as fact this is just going to be a lot of self appreciative nonsense and a giant waste of time.

Some of you may be wondering why someone like myself that so clearly didn't like the book felt the need to read it and review it. It was given me by my mother. She was completely convinced it would show me the light and save me from my atheist ways. This is the third book I have read that was given to me to these ends, and while none of them has come even remotely close to addressing the sort of the things that me make an atheist rather than a Christian, this book was by far the worst of the bunch. I don't recommend giving your atheist or agnostic friends religious books or attempting to convert them, it is more likely to strain the relationship than make good Christians of them. show less

I somehow had the urge, on Christmas day, no less, to review this... maybe as explanation for why I'm not sitting in church right now... a "bah, humbug" review, I suppose. I used to identify as Christian. I read this book. I'm now agnostic. Obviously, losing faith isn't that simple, correlation doesn't imply causation, and this book may be great for some people, but I want to add my reaction because I'm concerned for anyone who reads this book while troubled about their faith...it may be a show more really, really bad idea.

I grew up in the church, but I've always had doubts. I'm a logician at heart, and there are a lot of direct contradictions in the Bible. There are also a lot of teachings which have been discarded in light of our culture(e.g. the role of women, most of the Old Testament laws, etc) and my very tautological mindset has issues with pick-and-choose precepts. Anyway, growing up in the church, I learned quickly that hard questions were not welcomed. (Yes, this includes those alpha groups. I tried a few--after getting questions shut down, I tried contacting the leaders and asking if it was ok for me to come...I was gently told that my concerns might "contaminate" others.) That "don't confuse me with the facts" mentality is what eventually made me give up. And this book has it in spades.

I was given this book (as a Christmas gift, incidentally) quite a few years ago by a truly kind and compassionate member of my church who hadn't read it but thought it might help me with those "hard questions." As it turns out, it didn't, and in fact helped to kill most of my remaining faith. I found Strobel's God to be one much more interested in righteousness and justice than forgiveness or compassion. He felt to me like the other side of the coin of C.S. Lewis's God of joy and love.

Strobel sets out a bunch of "laws" and "rules" dogmatically, not all of which (I felt) are biblically supported. Take, as one example, the fun parts of the Old Testament where God orders pillage, rape, murder and genocide. I sort of developed a comfort with the "continuing revelation" view of the Bible--that God first reveals himself to Abraham as in some ways a god of the mountain, and that as he continued to reveal himself, people understood more clearly about mercy as opposed to hard justice. Strobel doesn't agree. I also never believed in inerrancy--it's the whole direct contradiction issue--and Strobel does. So that means he actually had the fun task of arguing that the genocides and rapes and slaughters,of, say, the Canaanites in the Old Testament were justified. Strobel's response: they were bad people, so they--and their children and camels--deserved what was coming to them.

Another section that bothered me was about exclusivity. I've always believed (I know, I know, this automatically shows why I couldn't survive in the church) that God must be bigger than the labels and regimented doctrine of Judeo-Christianity. Why would he limit himself to only one small group? What happened to people born before then? What happens to someone who never learned of Jesus? Why could God not have been continually revealing himself to people throughout time, to people who never fully grasp Him and therefore splinter themselves into various religions? (I know, it's heresy. But then, I'm no longer Christian...maybe I never really was.) Strobel asks some of these in his interview...but comes up with neatly packaged answers supporting exclusivity. He argues that God being God, God must somehow give everyone the opportunity. And apparently, all other religions are "wrong" and "arrogant" for "daring" to consider their religion better than Christianity. I cannot reconcile with a God who sends backbiting Christians to Heaven because they jump through some hoops and get all their names right while sending, say, faithful, righteous, and compassionate Muslims to Hell.

And speaking of Hell...there's an entire chapter devoted to it. It is actually possible, if you're careful, to read what Jesus says about Hell, the weeping and gnashing of teeth, as simply ending rather than eternal torment. For me, that was OK. I'm comfortable with ending and becoming nothing. Eternity scares me. Eternal Hell also seems to me to contradict the argument that God uses earthly pain as a teaching tool like a parent making a child do his homework. (Speaking of which, apparently children get a free pass--Strobel "saves" the children from Hell via the "age of accountability" doctrine--apparently there's a mystical cutoff at which point you become responsible and can go darkside. I don't understand this, and I see no biblical support.) What parent, no matter how sick, twisted, and bad, could ever send their child to eternal time-out, let alone Hell? How could God? According to Strobel and his interviewee, God thinks we each have "intrinsic value", so shoving us in hopeless Hell from which there is no chance of redemption somehow "saves" that "value", whereas nonexistence would destroy it. That sounds dangerously close to a sociopathic viewpoint to me. And how could anyone be happy in Heaven knowing anyone--no matter how bad--was being eternally tormented? Apparently, they're just dandy with that "value" thing. Look, if Strobel's right, I'm headed straight to Hell without passing go or collecting $200. I can't picture my parents feeling happy knowing that I'm eternally tormented. They'd rather I was just gone. The only reason to keep us there would be the CS Lewis Great Divorce style redemption--where even after death, people could be reconciled to God. No chance, says Strobel, because if God is infinitely wise, how could anyone die without having sufficient opportunities? This touches home, as (like most people) I know people who have committed suicide due to serious mental depression (and possibly poor medical treatment for it). According to Strobel, they're downstairs being tortured right now, and will scream in Hell for all eternity.

The last section is about how it's OK to have doubts. But before you start feeling better, they have to be the "right" doubts. And of course, they will be magically resolved via prayer and supplication and a relationship with God. To be honest, I've tried and agonized. I've never felt God. I've never had a relationship. And I still have (pardon the pun) a Hell of a lot of doubts.

I'm no longer Christian. This book isn't the only reason why, but it certainly was a contributing factor to my sense of alienation from the church and the community. I want to dismiss it, ignore it, erase it from my mind, but I never can. Much of it also has a significant amount of biblical support. This book scares me, and while it promises me eternal torment for not towing the line, it also makes me physically unable to do so. I worry that for doubters like me, this book is dangerous and toxic to faith. But again, everyone reacts differently; maybe some people will benefit from it. If you are firm in your faith, it may be a very interesting read to contrast with C.S.Lewis. show less