| Case for Faith (Walker Large Print Books) |  | Author: Lee Strobel
Publisher: Walker Large Print
Category: Book
List Price: $17.95
Buy New: $13.46
You Save: $4.49 (25%)
New (3) Used (6) from $5.98
Avg. Customer Rating:  213 reviews
Sales Rank: 452937
Format: Large Print
Media: Paperback
Edition: Largeprint
Number Of Items: 1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1.2
Dimensions (in): 8.4 x 5.4 x 1.1
ISBN: 141040045X
Dewey Decimal Number: 200
EAN: 9781410400451
ASIN: 141040045X
Publication Date: February 2003
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Amazon.com
Award-winning reporter and author Lee Strobel (The Case for Christ) once again uses his investigative skills to address the primary objections to Christianity. As a former atheist, Strobel understands the rational resistance to faith. He even names the eight most convincing arguments against Christian faith: 1) If there's a loving God, why does this pain-wracked world groan under so much suffering and evil?
2) If the miracles of God contradict science, then how can any rational person believe that they're true?
3) If God is morally pure, how can he sanction the slaughter of innocent children as the Old Testament says he did?
4) If God cares about the people he created, how could he consign so many of them to an eternity of torture in hell just because they didn't believe the right things about him?
5) If Jesus is the only way to heaven, then what about the millions of people who have never heard of him?
6) 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?
7) If God is the ultimate overseer of the church, why has it been rife with hypocrisy and brutality throughout the ages?
8) If I'm still plagued by doubts, then is it still possible to be a Christian?
These are mighty tough questions, and Strobel fields them well. Rather than write a weighty dissertation about the merits of faith, he brings us along on his quest as we meet leaders in the Christian community, such as Peter Kreeft and William Lane Craig. We also encounter his everyday friends and acquaintances that serendipitously fill in the holes in each of the eight arguments against faith. The use of dialogue from personal interviews and a scene-by-scene active narrative makes this an easy and engaging read. However, easy does not mean breezy. This is a book of substance and merit, one that will help Christians defend their faith, especially during the hardest of times, when they have to defend their faith to themselves in moments of doubt. --Gail Hudson
Product Description
This eagerly anticipated sequel to Lee Strobelas best-selling The Case for Christ finds the author investigating the nettlesome issues and doubts of the heart that threaten faith. Eight major topics are addressed including doubt, the problem of pain, and the existence of evil.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 208 more reviews...
 Anything but scholarly March 10, 2008
2 out of 6 found this review helpful
I picked up this book as it was recommended to me by a discussion partner. She gave it high marks and I was looking forward to seeing what it said. Unfortunately, I learned by the beginning of Chapter 2 that Mr. Strobel is not, in fact, a scholar worthy of the name. Rather he makes claims for which he can provide no valid citation, and in what can only be described as great arrogance, cites himself in other situations.
If Mr. Strobel wishes this book to be considered an objective, scholarly investigation than I will hold him to such standards. He fails. Miserably.
Master of Strawmen January 1, 2008
2 out of 8 found this review helpful
The premise of the book "The Case for Faith" seems to be an exploration of Biblical Christianity through its better-known proponents by a curious and impartial skeptic. Of course, that is not the case and it is only a dishonest marketing ploy to call it a journalistic investigation and a laughable ruse to say it is the toughest objections. There is an intentional and cleverly fashioned flow in the book through a sequence of interviews by a (supposedly skeptical) journalist in a deliberate progression. These interviews are used to persuade under the illusion of investigation as the author posed questions in a manner that could be dismantled by a clever apologist. Any of Strobel's questions of the apologists' theories are short and feeble, they are strawmen. If you are a believer and want to feel more reassured, then you might find it here provided you don't apply critical thought. Also, if you are a believer - ask yourself if you want to support an author and marketing staff that distorts truth for gain. If you are not a believer, you would have to lack the ability to realize fallacious arguments and strawmen to be persuaded.
 THANKS December 8, 2007
2 out of 2 found this review helpful
I have just had a daughter.
I try to have "my" own opinion about GOD because I would like to give it and teach it to her. That's my why.
Thanks to this book I am again very interested in GOD and I don't feel I am silly. There are good and clever reasons for being a believer.
Read it and give it a chance. You and God deserve it.
Sorry for my bad English.
 Weighed, and found wanting November 17, 2007
22 out of 24 found this review helpful
Strobel tries, but does not ultimately succeed, in his goal of making the case for faith.
PRELIMINARY EPISTEMOLOGICAL PROBLEMS.
1. We simply cannot think like God. Any absolute truth, even direct revelation, is filtered through our imperfect senses and memories, the Kantian phenomenon vs. "noumenon" problem. Therefore we cannot say "God's view is X" because by our imperfect nature we cannot determine God's true view.
2. You cannot bootstrap the supernatural off of the physical (p 251). If I told you God appeared at Solomon's Temple, and showed you the Temple Mount as "proof" of such appearance, would you find that sufficient? Non-contradiction of the physical is necessary, but not sufficient, for proof of the supernatural.
Here's a review of Strobel's reasoning by chapters.
CHAPTER 1 (the problem of evil and suffering; philosophic arguments for God's existence). This is Strobel's second-weakest chapter. Here are its major problems:
* Strobel ducks the question of human suffering that has no obvious moral lesson, caused by non-human acts, e.g., the 2004 tsunami, particularly as this type of suffering is experienced by children.
* You cannot use the idea of God saying "trust me" (pp 32, 39, 43, 48, 252) as a basis for faith. First off, God is not saying "trust me" but rather a person, either ourselves or another, is saying God says to trust him. Even a direct revelation is filtered through our imperfect understanding. That puts you in that epistemological box described above. Second, you're bootstrapping the case for faith by saying that a reason you should have faith is that you should trust God. Such a trust would occur at the *conclusion* of an attempt to acquire faith, and is not a part of the *process* of acquiring (i.e., making the case for) faith.
* It is inappropriate to analogize God to humans because the analogy nearly always breaks down upon closer examination. Strobel's interviewee analogizes God to a hunter rescuing a bear from a trap and temporarily causing the bear to feel more pain (pp 32, 43). A better fit using this analogy is God setting the trap in the first place and making the bear feel pain (omnipotence), knowing the bear would get caught in it (all-knowing).
* Why should my notion of the Good mean God exists (p 34)? Why can't I acquire it the Lockean way, through sense impressions?
* If atheism is acting "snobbishly" by saying 9 out of 10 people are wrong about God (p 35), then aren't Christians "snobbish" by saying the 4 out of 5 people who aren't Christians are wrong?
* "How is it possible that over ninety percent of all human beings who have ever lived...could believe in God?" (p 35). That's an argument for God? That's a classic logical fallacy, the argumentum ad populum.
* It may be true that the day is coming when God will "settle accounts and people will be held responsible" for their evil (p 43), but you must already have faith in that day of reckoning. Once again, Strobel makes an argument from a conclusion already made, not an argument to help reach that conclusion.
* Good people don't suffer because "there are no good people" (p 44)? Children aren't good? They aren't the "kingdom of heaven" (Mark 10:14)?
* What difference does it make that Jesus suffered (pp 51-52)? This is a non sequitur vis a vis our own suffering. What's the necessary inference? Jesus' suffering may help him empathize with us, but it's not relevant to *why* we suffer.
CHAPTER 2 (Miracles; arguments for God). I actually have no difficulties with miracles per se. If God exists, certainly he can perform miracles. However, Strobel has some problems with his arguments for God.
* The fact that there have been no other resurrections *is* evidence that Jesus did not resurrect (p 65). Granted, it's not definitive, but it is evidence. If someone tells me he has made a perpetual motion machine, but no other one exists, doesn't that provide some justification for my skepticism?
* If multiple, non-contradictory accounts of biblical acts such as feeding 5,000 people are evidence of biblical truth (p 68), then would multiple, contradictory accounts of biblical acts, such as the four varying accounts of what the sign above Jesus on the cross said (Mat. 27:37, Mark 15:26, Luke 23:38, John 19:19) be evidence of biblical falsity?
* If "something cannot just come out of nothing" (p 75) then where did God come from? If he always existed, then aren't you just pushing back the question of existence by one step? How can something always have existed? If the answer is "I can't explain it" then how about using that as the answer to the question "how can something just come out of nothing?"
* If everything must have a cause (pp 75, 250) then what caused God? If God has no cause, then haven't you just pushed the question of causation back a step - and violated Ockham's Razor in the process? Also, if A causes B, which causes C, which causes A, doesn't that explain a "caused" universe without reference to an uncaused causer?
* "'If God does not exist, do objective moral values exist?' And the answer is `No.'" (p 80). This is a non sequitur. Who says objective moral values must exist?
* The empty-tomb story *does* bear signs of embellishment (pp 82, 267). Mark's gospel has one angel outside the tomb while the later gospel of Luke has two (Mark 16:5; Luke 24:4-5).
* "All of the old theories like `the disciples stole the body' or `Jesus wasn't really dead' have been universally rejected by modern scholarship" (p 83). Says who? That would be revolutionary news if true, but Strobel provides no footnote or endnote to back that statement up.
CHAPTER 3 (evolution; origins of life). This is Strobel's best chapter. Strobel debunks the Stanley Miller "primordial stew" experiment (pp 96-97), assuming Strobel's giving us the straight story. I must point out though that evolution is not so much an argument against God but rather against a literal interpretation of the bible, which Strobel never addresses.
CHAPTER 4 (Murder and torture commanded by God; bible inerrancy). This is the weakest chapter of the book.
* "The bible doesn't have any cruel or tortuous executions that God commanded" (p 117). Oh? God punishes the wicked by putting them to death by fire. Gen. 19:24 (Sodom and Gomorrah), Lev. 20:14, 21:9, Num. 11:1, Josh. 7:15. That's not tortuous?
* It's ok to kill children because "nobody is truly innocent" (p 119)? Was Jesus truly innocent? Killing a child is "an act of mercy" because the dead child will "go to heaven" (p 120)? Isn't that what Andrea Yates thought?
* "If you can't create" life, then you don't have the right to take it (p 119)? Not even to defend your life or the lives of others? Why does God command people to kill then?
* I certainly agree that we can't classify God's acts in human terms, with terms like cruel, and vicious (pp 119, 158). But the flip side of that is that we also cannot classify God's acts as loving, good or kind (pp 173, 179, 181). You can't have it both ways. God's acts are what they are, and what we think of them is irrelevant. C.f. Job ch. 38. Of course, that doesn't exactly make the case for faith.
* The bible should be given the benefit of the doubt regarding its supposed contradictions (pp 137-138). Why? Is it a perfect book or not? Comparing it to science is ridiculous. Scientists never claim to be perfect. Likewise, you can't give Christianity the benefit of the doubt and simply defer answers to a later time and then not provide the same boon to science (p 252). No burden-of-proof switching *here* please.
* Strobel's interviewee takes Bertrand Russell's quote out of context. Russell was speaking of a miraculous future event Russell could actually witness, not about a supposed past event witnessed by others (p 141). Speaking of that, show me a specific future event that will occur and when exactly it will occur and I will take that as a cause for faith. Until then...
CHAPTER 5 (Exclusivity of the Christian God). This could have been better. The interviewee made elemental errors that Strobel could have easily followed up on. Specifically:
* The argument that "Christianity is not the only religion that claims exclusivity" (p 149) is just an ad hominem response and gets you nowhere as a valid argument.
* "[N]aturalists have no explanation for humanity's moral framework" (p 152). Nonsense. They argue that a moral framework, among other things, permits a greater degree of human propagation and health.
* Despite what Strobel's interviewee says, the parable of the laborers in the vineyard (p 160; Mat. 20:1-16) does not refer to the reward of salvation. If it did, then the first laborers, who knew what their reward would be, would be able to earn their way into heaven. The parable refers to the receipt of the gospel message.
* Regardless where a person lives in the world, God will send the salvation message to him (p 162)? Come on. What about a kid living in the Amazon in the year 662 A.D.? And the interviewee is glossing over the belief of most Christians that a person must specifically recognize Jesus as Lord and Savior to be saved.
* Is it true that you can be Christian and not share a creed with other Christians (p 163)? How can Strobel's interviewee square that with his implication that Mormons aren't Christian (p 156)?
CHAPTER 6 (Hell). Another weak chapter:
* Strobel's interviewee claims hell is separation from God (pp 173-174), but the bible says God's presence is found even in hell. Ps. 139:8, 1 Pet. 3:18-20.
* Strobel's interviewee thinks it would be "immoral" for God to treat us as "means to an end" (pp 182-183; 191). Says who? If God wanted to treat us as means to an end, he will, and in fact, he does. We are a means to his end of self-glorification.
* "[I]f people saw the judgment seat of God after death, it would be so coercive that they would no longer have the power of free choice" (p 189). But didn't the angels who sinned (Jude 1:6; Rev. 12:7) have communion with God yet still chose to disobey him?
CHAPTER 7 (Bad Christians). Strobel and his interviewee address some of the worst aspects of Christian history and also discuss its positive role in a fair manner. What makes this chapter mostly a failure though is its willing omissions. The author and the interviewee spend plenty of time discussing the sins of the Roman Catholic Church (Crusades, Inquisition) and no time at all discussing the Wars of Reformation, internecine Protestant wars and oppression, or the mass witch killings that occurred in Protestant Europe.
CHAPTER 8 (Doubters as Christians). This was a generally good chapter, with the appropriate tone that it's OK to have some doubts and still be a good Christian. However, Strobel attempts a head fake several times by implying that intellectual objections to Christianity are frequently, or even commonly, only rationalizations for wanting to continue to live a sinful lifestyle (pp 232, 235-236, 239-239, 244, 255). If you object to Christianity intellectually therefore, your motives have just been impugned. He also does the head fake of saying if you *really* want to have faith ("search and you will find"), God will give it to you. In other words, if you don't have faith, it's because you don't want it. That sort of absolves God of providing faith at all, doesn't it?
APPENDIX A (The case for the divine Jesus). This is not the focus of my review, but I noted a few problems with the appendix.
* "The New Testament is 99.5 percent free of textual discrepancies, with no major Christian doctrines in doubt" (p 264). First off, there goes your inerrancy with that .5%. Second, the Comma Johanneum (which states, in part, in 1 John 5:8 "...the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one...") places the doctrine of the triune God in doubt. You don't get more of a major Christian doctrine than that. A diune God you can get from John 10:30; a triune God you can only really get from the Comma Johanneum. Might the Arians have been right after all? Hmmm.
* "No discovery has ever disproved a biblical reference" (p 265). Response: the science of carbon dating and the discovery of fossils disproves a literal interpretation of the creation story.
* Jesus "ultimately possessed every qualification of deity, including omniscience" (p 266). Is Strobel admitting that Jesus at some point did *not* possess all qualifications of deity (since Strobel uses the qualifier "ultimately")? If so, he's right, because during mortality Jesus did *not* possess all the qualities of deity. Luke 2:52: Jesus *increased* in wisdom as a youth, he did not have all knowledge.
* "Nobody knowingly and willingly dies for a lie" (pp 252, 268). There are several thousand suicide bombers whose examples show us otherwise.
 Very good arguments for having faith. November 10, 2007
0 out of 1 found this review helpful
My thoughts on Strobel's book might be akin to what he summarized in the last part of it: "In several matters they were able to offer clear-cut explanations that definitely settled the issue in my mind. For some subjects that didn't lend themselves to that kind of decisive resolution, the scholars managed to dilute the potency of the objections by providing important context and insights."
There are many good points that the various interviewees brought out in regards to the issues. Like Strobel, the existence of suffering and the doctrine of hell were my main interests in reading this book. Not all objections were raised in this book, but are all objections that people would have ever raised in any book? People who argue this need to consider if that's ever been the case with books written by skeptics. Besides, there are plenty of good books out there that argue for Christianity and do just as well, if not better, a job.
However, there were times when I thought that either a better argument could have been used or that I disagreed with a doctrinal view presented. For example, I felt that Woodbridge apologized too much for the actions of what other so-called Christians did in the past. Although he gave good reasons for why these things happened, he apologizes for actions that, first, were not his fault. Secondly, he apologizes on behalf of a people who were not either truly committed to what Jesus taught or weren't aware of what he taught. It's unfortunate that those things happened in the past, but Christians who recognize that these things were not sanctioned by God in his Word should not feel as if they need to apologize for actions that they themselves do not and would not condone. That's sort of like saying someone is guilty of the holocaust because they're German.
In his interview with Geisler, I guess I can understand why Strobel includes a section on the reliability of the Bible, due to Geisler's reference to it in his arguments, but it seems like it's out of place. Strobel seems to go from discussing why pain exists to the reliability of the Bible. This section seems like it would be better suited for a book in his series, titled "The Case for the Bible" than it does here.
I found the interview with J.P. Moreland to be insightful. I think that Moreland's interview demonstrates that, along with simple answers not being sufficient for this topic, that God is not either. I think skeptics who argue against God tend to simplify him in order to "knock him down", thus creating straw men arguments. The more human or simple you make God, the easier it is to argue against him. Moreland's replies demonstrate that God is not a simple being.
Also, I felt that Anderson's discussion on doubt to be refreshing and sincere. He speaks as a person who has truly gone through and survived the gauntlet of doubt. He also makes a good point that having doubts doesn't necessarily not make you any less of a Christian. Anderson makes several good observations when he discusses the true motivations many people have against Christianity.
In all, Strobel's second book in his series did a good job and I think accomplished what he set out to do. I think that someone new to the area of Christian apologetics can definitely benefit from reading this book.
|
|
|
Powered by Associate-O-Matic
| |
