The Case for Faith

The Case for Faith is a popular book on Christian apologetics by Lee Strobel.

This is a side-by-side review of Strobels works, revealing and refuting his fallacious arguments.

Chapter 1: Since Evil and Suffering Exist, A Loving God Cannot

Strobel's Case for Faith

RationalWiki Responses

Here, Strobel confronts the problem of evil. He provides several pages of how he deals with how he usually deals with it, and how it turns other people away (such as a Christian who lost his faith over seeing a photo of an African mother holding her dead baby who died of starvation).

For this, Strobel interviews Dr. Peter John Kreeft, Ph.D. who tries to provide several explanations for the mother who lost her baby due to starvation. His reason: finite humans with limited reason cannot understand the infinite reasons of an eternal God. Kreeft uses an analogy of a bear trap, which breaks down to God must allow some short term suffering in order to achieve a greater good. Imagine a bear in a trap and a hunter who, out of sympathy, wants to liberate him. He tries to win the bear's confidence, but he can't do it, so he has to shoot the bear full of drugs. The bear, however, thinks this is an attack and the hunter is trying to kill him. He doesn't realize this is being done out of compassion.

The analogy is portraying the hunter as God and the bear as humanity. However, it is not free of problems. God is supposed to be omnipotent, is he not capable of achieving good without suffering? Of course.

To explain how suffering can lead to a greater good, Kreeft offers the analogy of when his daughter pricked herself and suffered a small amount of pain, but learned from it. However, his daughter's pinprick isn't comparable to the suffering of the African woman (or the Indian people Strobel discussed). Kreeft claims that injustice not rectified in this life will be rectified in the next while quoting Mother Teresa, who said, "In light of heaven, the worst suffering on earth, a life full of the most atrocious tortures on earth, will be seen to be no more serious than one night in an inconvenient hotel."

In other words, in the grand scheme of eternity, the dead baby's needless death is "no big deal." But doesn't that make this life on Earth rather pointless? The baby, for all intents and purposes, had no human life, having died so young. And this baby is (presumably) doing fine in Heaven. Then what value is life on Earth at all? There is yet another significant difference between his daughter's pinprick and the death of the African baby: For his daughter's pain resulted in a verifiable greater good--a learning experience for her--in this lifetime. By contrast, the African baby could not possibly experience any greater good resulting from its own death while it was still alive. To defer to a person's unverifiable condition after death in order to find any resulting greater good appears remarkably forced--it is tantamount to admitting that there is no greater good to be found. For we have to take it entirely on faith that this otherwise seemingly needless suffering resulted in any greater good at all. To postulate that, since we can't find any evidence of a greater good in this life, it must reside elsewhere, after death - basically one huge ad hoc assumption designed to explain away any contrary data.

The biggest cure for suffering, according to Kreeft, is Jesus. Freeft says Jesus is a wonderful friend who will stick with you through thick and thin.

The problem is, this is the same childish behavior of imaginary friends. Examining the quality of Jesus' friendship, when friends stick with friends through thick and thin, they actually do things for each other: protection, talking, follow each other, etc. If a friend promised to do each of those things, but hid in the bushes every time you turn around, that would be a dispassionate stalker, not a friend. But ignoring that, it might be great that Jesus will love you and walk with you no matter what happens, however, that is just a way for suffering and evil to be tolerable. The central issue at hand (how can an all good God and suffering exist simultaneously?) remains inadequately answered.

Strobel also brings up the topic of atheism, but Kreeft dismisses atheism as "snobbish" and "elitist." He argues that more than 90% of all human beings that have ever lived have believed in God.

What Kreeft misses is that more than 90% of the world's population believed that the Earth was the center of the universe or thunder was created by gods, but that certainly didn't make it so. But understanding our world and natural forces has been a quest of humankind throughout history. And during this quest, at times beliefs that were held as unquestionable by the majority have been proven false. And Kreeft must, of course, also realize that 90% of all human beings that have ever lived have not believed in his God. Kreeft seems likely to believe that the followers of Buddhism, Hinduism, pagan religions, and so on are completely wrong, but he is happy to accept their members just for the moment to "prove" how "snobbish" atheism is. Is Kreeft any less "snobbish" and "elitist" in believing that his God is the real God, and everybody else's God isn't?

Chapter 2: Since Miracles Contradict Science, They Cannot Be True

Strobel's Case for Faith

RationalWiki Responses

Interview with William Lane Craig.

This chapter addresses miracles and how we identify them. Craig defines miracles as "an event which is not producible by the natural causes that are operative at the time and place that the event occurs." Criag argues that David Hume's definition of a miracle as being as a "violation" of natural law is incorrect. He argues that "natural laws have implicit ceteris paribus conditions--that's Latin meaning "all other things being equal." In other words, natural laws assume that no other natural or supernatural factors are interfering with the operation that the law describes."

The problem with this is that natural laws don't assume anything since they do not think. His argument also breaks apart when describing "interfering" with each other. Strobel uses a falling apple as a visual description. While catching it before it hits the ground, Strobel correctly notes that "You're not violating or negating the law of gravity." He then adds, "You're merely intervening," which is also true--so long as it is clear that you are intervening in the trajectory of the apple, not the force of gravity itself. If you catch the apple, the force of gravity remains unchanged. The gravity is still there.

Craig defines miracles as, "...an event which is not producible by the natural causes that are operative at the time and place that the event occurs." Craig uses Michael Behe and William Dembski as examples of "theistic science" - that is claiming the observable world is intelligently designed.

Note the word of choice "natural." Craig is describing a miracle that has no natural causes. How does this differ than the basic definition of magic? Also, the works of Behe and Dembski have both been heavily criticized by the scientific community for their poor and erroneous science.

Craig defines acts of God as "...events, by which, in a principled way, you could legitimately infer that there was a supernatural agent intervening in the process."

First of all, how in the world can anyone legitimately infer that? Without any scientific evidence or testable data available, there is nothing to base this on.

When Craig address the Resurrection of Christ, Strobel concludes, "As improbable as the Resurrection might seem to skeptics, this has to weighed against how improbable it would be to have all of the various historical evidence for its occurrence if it never actually took place." Craig claims that, unless you decide that miracles are impossible, their historicity is indisputable and "the historicity of the events [miracles of Christ] is not in doubt."

Really? Really? With absolutely no historical evidence whatsoever to prove that the resurrection took place (a belief that is only supported by blind faith by Christians), how is it likely that the resurrection is simply a fictional story? A miracle, by definition, is impossible - which makes all the alternative possibilities (no matter how small) are much more likely to be true. "the historicity of the events [miracles of Christ] is not in doubt"... that is only if you accept the gospels are accurate historical texts (a belief that is not supported by evidence).

Chapter 3: Evolution Explains Life, So God Isn't Needed

Strobel's Case for Faith

RationalWiki Responses

Chapter 3 begins with Strobel retelling that perhaps the greatest obstacle that turned him away from faith was what he learned in his biology class. Strobel says this is not uncommon, and uses Patrick Glynn as an example. Strobel then claims that after he began more carefully examining the conclusions of the "Darwinists" his faith slowly returned. Strobel wanted to know how life began, and after he learned (from non scientific sources, of course) that even scientists had objections to evolutionary theory (ie., intelligent design and irreducible complexity) he concluded that Darwin's theory no longer held any weight with science or himself.

Strobel continues to this day to label intelligent design proponents as scientists - and while it is true that some do hold legitimate degrees, intelligent design has been proven not to be science at all, rather it is pseudoscience and even proven fringe science in court.

This chapter conflates the origin of life (abiogenesis) with evolution (the modification of existing life-forms over time). Strobel latches onto the problem of the origin of life and directly extends that to a "problem" with Evolution. For this chapter, Strobel interviews Dr. Walter Bradley, author of the book The Mystery of Life's Origins. Walter Bradley contends that the origin of life cannot be explained by naturalistic forces, meaning life must have had a supernatural origin. Bradley argues that more faith is required to assume that life had a natural, rather than supernatural, origin.

The tactic "atheism requires more faith than belief in God" is a popular line recited by apologists. Bradley does not present his own case for a supernatural intervention. Lack of a good explanation is not sufficient cause to invoke the miraculous.

Chapter 4: God Isn't Worthy of Worship If He Kills Innocent Children

Strobel's Case for Faith

RationalWiki Responses

Interview with Dr. Norman L. Geisler.

Strobel quotes from Thomas Paine's book The Age of Reason about the torture and evils ordered by God contained in the Bible. Geisler responds to this, "Too bad [Paine] didn't have a Bible.... Paine is just factually wrong. The Bible doesn't have any cruel and tortuous executions that God commanded."

No cruel and torturous executions commanded by God in the Bible!? Perhaps Geisler is the one who does not have a Bible or not even slightly familiar with some of the common Biblical stories told to children, such as the story of God slaughtering countless lives during the Great Flood (including children and unborn babies). God murdered Nabal and ordered Moses to kill the Canaanites (which Geisler admits happened later). God ordered that parents who sinned on their second offense MUST eat their children (which is without question both cruel and tortuous execution). The list of examples goes on and on. In Joshua, God Himself forces the Israeli enemies to wage war, so as to give Himself an excuse to "exterminate them without mercy." Similar to how God repeatably hardened the heart of the pharaoh to say no to Moses, thus excusing God to cast the plagues unto the Egyptians (to starve them, to sicken them, to terrify them, etc).

Strobel questions Geisler about how a "merciful" God could order the genocide of the Canaanites. Geisler responds that the mission of the Canaanites was the genocide of the Jews, and that "the destruction of their nation was necessitated by the gravity of their sin." He argues that the Canaanites were simply beyond salvation. What their "cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys" could have done to warrant their slaughter is never explained.

This claim that the Canaanites were simply beyond salvation flies right in the face of the Christian claim that salvation is open to all.

Can the Bible Be Trusted?

Confirmation from archaeology: Geisler basically argues that many of the stories reported in the Bible have been shown to be historically true, and thus archaeology confirms the Bible is trustworthy.

Simply showing that certain tales in a story to be historically and archaeology confirmed is not enough to prove that the contents of the story is true. For instance, Homer's Iliad contains many historically accurate geographic sites as well as the locations of cities and names of Kings, but that does not mean that cyclopes, goddesses, and other bizarre creatures exist. Similarly, the fictional superhero Spider-man fights evil in New York City, but the existence of New York City does not prove the existence of Spider-man.

Cosmological evidence: Basically a repeat of Craig's argument in the previous chapter, Geisler states that the events recorded in Genesis is parallel to how science has shown how the universe came to be.

Confirmation by prophecies: Geisler claims that the Bible contains specific predictions that were made a hundred years in advance that all came to be literally fulfilled.

Prophesies are often vague and thus can be made to fit any scenario.

Confirmation by miracles: Geisler states "the Bible is miraculously confirmed...by the miracles performed by those who purported to be speaking for God."

Basically, the Bible is proven by miracles. The miracles are proven since they are recorded in the Bible. This is clearly a circular argument and thus does not prove Geisler's case.

Coping with Contradictions

Geisler openly states "I haven't found one single error in the Bible" and claims that there absolutely no contradictions in the Bible.

It seems the earlier claim that Geisler does not have a Bible may have just been confirmed. Countless readers in the bible have read, spotted, and documented hundred upon hundreds of errors and contradictions in the Bible.

The Pain of Animals

Regarding the Garden of Eden, Geisler claims "God did not appoint animals to be eaten in paradise, and animals weren't eating each other. The prophet Isaiah said someday God will 'create new heavens and a new earth' where 'the wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox'." Basically, he rejects the hunter/prey nature of animals existed in the Garden of Eden, that is until Adam sinned by eating the forbidden fruit.

First of all, this "Garden of Eden" or "Paradise" is entirely fictional. It is curious how an all-knowing deity who created every single big-and-small aspect of the universe made it so with the knowledge that would inevitably fail. And how can Strobel, Geisler, or any other Christian accept that the fault of two humans brought forth the suffering of every living organism on this planet? Putting that aside, how can it be know that animals did indeed eat other animals 6,000 years ago? A good example would be the shark, predator of the sea. If God created it with all its features, and said it was "good", then God created to eat other animals. Its diet is limited directly to other animals, but it more importantly, in the womb of a shark, the baby eats its younger siblings to live until it is born. That is right, sharks are biologically built to eat other animals, even in the form of cannibalism, and are thus born predators. Also, the idea that predators did not exist is without any merit. Why would God create animals with camouflage? Why give lion-vegetarians long teeth and claws. Herbivores have differently shaped teeth, different saliva pH, different digestive enzymes, different stomach or intestinal design, and such.

Chapter 5: It's Offensive to Claim Jesus Is the Only Way to God

Strobel's Case for Faith

RationalWiki Responses

Interview with Ravi Zacharias.

While the claim Jesus is the only way to God may be offensive to some, it is not that offensive to those who do not desire to seek God. But for those who wish to look, this claim is full of bias and would appear offensive. For Zacharias, Christians singling out the other religions in favor of Christianity is not unfair. Why? Because Christianity claims exclusivity (see John 3:18) and Ravi concludes all truth is exclusive.

Zacharias states that we should consider Jesus the path to God because he answers the fundamental questions of religion whereas other religions fail.

However, this is just a matter of opinion. Zacharias also states that all other religions do not teach the same fundamental tenets as Christianity (such as "fatherhood of God"). Strobel quotes John Hick that various religions are culturally conditioned responses to the "Real." Zacharias responds: "Hick's explanation ignores the possibility that God would reveal himself, and therefore we can have knowledge of who he is.... But the Bible says God did reveal himself." However, if God did indeed reveal Himself, why hasn't He revealed Himself to everybody throughout human history or at least every person living on earth that era?

When Strobel asked Ravi about the fate of Ghandi (a nonbeliever), Ravi dodged the question, twice.

Strobel asked Zacharias why Christianity is not winning many converts today, Ravi answered that it takes a certain level of commitment. Zacharias assures Strobel that people who do not live in heavy Christian areas could still find Christ (he gives a few examples) and God knows where we will be born and has planed our positions carefully so the gospel can reach all.

Chapter 6: A Loving God Would Never Torture People in Hell

Strobel's Case for Faith

RationalWiki Responses

Interview with Dr. J. P. Moreland.

Right off the bat, Moreland understands that torture cannot be justified, so he changes the concept of hell. Moreland describes hell is not a "fire and brimstone" place, but merely a separation of God. This "separation" is not torture, just excludes us from the most beautiful thing in the world - God himself - and this separation will bring shame, anguish and regret. Morerland describes it as "The pain that's suffered will be due to the sorrow from the final, ultimate, unending banishment from God, his kingdom, and the good life for which we were created in the first place." To Moreland, the bible verses that describe hell as literal place of fire and anguish is just figurative.

The problem with this concept is that that is not how the Bible authors viewed hell. To them, it was a real place full of torture, and it remains that way for millions of believers for over 2,000 years. Moreover, Moreland claims that "hell was not part of the original creation...hell is something God was forced to make because people chose to rebel against him." However, this is very problematic for someone who also believes in an omniscient and omni-benevolent God. God is known for creating a perfect place (Heaven) so how is it he failed to create something less perfect?

Subobjection 1: How Can God Send Children to Hell? Moreland denies that God sends children to Hell.

However, Moreland contradicts himself in subobjection 4.

Subobjection 2: Why Does Everyone Suffer the Same In Hell? Using Matthew 11:20-24, Moreland concludes that there are separate degrees of suffering in Hell.

The problem with this reasoning is that it does add up with Moreland's concept of Hell. Either you are separated or not.

Subobjection 3: Why Are People Punished Infinitely for Finite Crimes? Moreland does not answer the question directly, but his responds ads up to basically: the amount of punishment meted out in return for a crime is unrelated to the time it took it commit it.

Interesting, but the severity of a punishment should clearly be related to the severity of the crime it reprises. Today, we do not punish people because they are inheritably wicked, but because we want to reform them.

Subobjection 4: Couldn't God Force Everyone to Go to Heaven? Here, Moreland asserts that God doesn't want to force people to be with Him if they don't want to.

But the only alternative is that God sends these people who do not want to be with him on a way-one ticket to an eternal fury place of punishment? How can anyone call that God "just"?

Subobjection 5: Why Doesn't God Just Snuff People Out? Moreland says that Hell is a place that protects the "intrinsic value" of those in Heaven.

But how can a person live in bliss with the full knowledge that their loved ones, neighbors, heroes, friends, and such are trapped, with absolutely no hope of escape, in "the worst possible situation that could ever happen to a person."

Subobjection 6: How Can Hell Exist alongside Heaven?

Possibly a better question to ask is: if heaven is better than earth, why bother creating earth in the first place?

Subobjection 7: Why Didn't God Create Only Those He Knew Would Follow Him? Moreland concedes that God probably could have created only those that He knew would follow Him, but only if He just wanted to create a few people--he specifically says maybe "four, six or seven people."

However, interestingly, Moreland is silent about God's inability to predict even the behavior of just two people (Adam and Eve in the Genesis account). Moreland elaborates, adding that "once God starts to create more people, it becomes more difficult to create the people who would choose him and not create the people who wouldn't." But how can anything ever be "more difficult" for the omnipotent, omniscient Creator of the universe? Words like more difficult" do not apply to an all-powerful being, so Moreland's arguments are irrelevant.

Subobjection 8: Why Doesn't God Give People a Second Chance?

Subobjection 9: Isn't Reincarnation More Rational Than Hell?

Does not matter if it is more rational than torture, all that matters is if it has any evidence to support it.

Chapter 7: Church History is Littered With Oppression and Violence

Strobel's Case for Faith

RationalWiki Responses

Interview with Dr. John D. Woodbridge.

Typical of many fundimentlaists, Woodbridge excuses Christianity for the evils performed by "misguided" Christians, while simultaneously giving Christianity full credit for any good that happens to have been done by Christians. Likewise, he blames "Atheism" for the evils of a few atheists, while never crediting "Atheism" with any good that atheists happen to have done.

The blatant double standard and hypocrisy is astounding.

Woodbridge tries to distinguish the difference between what he calls "cultural Christians" and "authentic Christians". He defines true Christians as those who follow Christ (his version of Christ, that is) while "cultural Christians" merely claim to be Christians, but do not actually follow Christ. The spread of early Christianity was possible only because True Christians did good things, like helping their neighbors and the poor . While it is true the Catholic Church has had a large history of violence, Woodbridge constantly emphases that "True Christians are not to blame".

Perhaps the responsibility goes to dogma. Dogma is the prevention of progress and has driven many into irrational violet acts. Woodbridges reasoning only gets a few individuals a pass, but not organized religion. Authentic Christians may run churches (and they do their fair share of horrible deeds), but it is the churches that produce cultural Christians.

Next, Strobel and Woodbridge share and comment on five "sins" of the church. Woodbridge does everything in his power to shove these horrible acts away from "true Christianity."

However, this is simply just a repeat of using the No True Scotsman fallacy.

1. The Crusades

The first crusade began with Pope Urban II because "God willed it."

2. The Inquisition

Here, Woodbridge explains the reason behind the Inquisition began in Albigenses of Southern France who were accused of heresy, and the only alternative to deal with this spread of heresy was the Inquisition.

Woodbridge actually makes it sound as if Albigenses of Southern France deserved what they got, and adds insult to injury for calling the inquisition an "alternative tactic."

Woodbridge also notes that back then religion and politics were bound together, and heresy was seen as a political move.

This is another big reason to promote secularism and separation of church and state.

3. The Salem Witch Trials

Important note, the "Salem" word should have been left out. There were hundreds of with trials, and here Strobel only rules out one as one of the "sins" of the church? Does Strobel then approve of the other trials outside of Salem?

4. Exploitation By The Missionaries

Here, Woodbridge acknowledges that some missionaries were harmful, but he stresses the goodness of the rest to diverge the readers attention from the bad parts.

When Christians arrived on North American soil, the leading cause of conflict was religious prejudice towards the Native Americans.

5. Anti-Semitism

Woodbridge declares Hitler an impostor who only affiliated and associated himself with Christianity as a ploy. Woodbridge concludes that Hitler "could not have been an authentic Christian."

The big problem for Strobel and Woodbridge is that all of these horrible acts can be justified through biblical scripture, which is exactly what happened throughout history to this very day.

Woodbridge goes on to examine a hypothetical scenario of the absence of the "Holy Spirit." Woodbridge concludes the results would be catastrophic, with morality and value demolished. Woodbridge goes on to claim that atheism denigrates the value of human life. To Woodbrige, if there is no God then we are just byproducts of natural forces with no intrinsic or eternal value.

What would Woodbridge think of the value and meaning of a glass of lemonade? It has a limited life until it is disposed of or drunk.

Woodbridge approaches discussing absolute morality scribed by God. Woodbridge delves right in to addressing Hitler and Stalin an attributing heir evil deeds with atheism: "Given the lack of framework in atheism for making moral decisions, it's easy to see why the world has experienced the horrors of these regimes. Where there's no absolute moral standard, raw power often wins."

Hitler, however, was not an atheist. He was a Roman Catholic. As for Stalin, he was a power-hungry dictator an not a rational person. As for God providing absolute moral standards, then why can't genuine Christians agree on certain matters? Such has burning witches, divorce, abortion, homosexuality, racism, and such.

Chapter 8: I Still Have Doubts, So I Can't Be a Christian

Interview with Lynn Anderson.

External Links

• Google Books: The Case for Faith
• Critique of Strobel's Case for Faith
• Objections Sustained! by Kyle Gerkin

See Also

• The Case for a Creator
• The Case for Christ