A Look at Lee Strobels, the Case for Faith

The Case for Faith is a Christian book written by journalist Lee Strobel. He holds a journalism degree from the University of Missouri, a Master of Studies in Law from Yale Law School, and was a self described "spiritual skeptic until 1981". He has won four Gold Medallions for his books including the one being reviewed here. In The Case for Faith, Strobel does not attack as much as poke at his eight objections to faith.

I read this book from cover to cover hoping to gain some insight into my Christian friend's ways of thinking about various topics. I also hoped to learn a little more about Christianity as I have a few of my own questions in regards to their beliefs. Unfortunately, what I found was a lot of judgmental thought wrapped inside a disguise of faith, bad analogies, and a much harped upon connection between being immoral and being an atheist. Over and over again Strobel who claims to be a reformed atheist equates atheism with leading a depraved and morally challenged lifestyle.

He interviews a variety of people including authors and scholars like Charles Templeton and William Lane Craig, PHD. The book is easy to read and understand though not necessarily to agree with.

Throughout the book there are several analogies made and one of the strangest is found on page 32. In this chapter in the book he is interviewing Peter John Kreeft, PH.D. It is Kreeft that actually makes the analogy in trying to describe our relationship with god:

"Okay, then, 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 that the hunter is trying to kill him. He doesn't realize that this is being done out of compassion.

Then, in order to get the bear out of the trap, the hunter has to push him further into the trap to release the tension on the spring. If the bear were semiconscious at that point, he would be even more convinced that the hunter was his enemy who was out to cause him suffering and pain. But the bear would be wrong. He reaches this incorrect conclusion because he's not a human being."

Kreeft then goes on to say "...how can anyone be certain that's not an analogy between us and God?"

Now perhaps it is just me, but did anyone else think if it weren't for the fact that the hunter laid the trap the bear would not have been caught to begin with? Even if we assume that this hunter did not lay this trap he still is a hunter. He kills animals, whether it be for sport or resources is not of consequence in this analogy because either way the bear still has a rational reason to be afraid. It's not as if he's a flower hunter. I read the quote over and over again and then continued reading expecting Strobel to point out the flaws in the analogy but he never did.

In fact throughout the book Strobel positions himself as a skeptic throwing out confrontational questions to various scholars and describing his questions as demanding. I found it hard to believe that Strobel actually ever doubted what he was being told. In one instance he is conversing with Kreeft about whether or not evil disproves god's existence and he says to Kreeft

"Aren't you conceding therefore, that evil disproves God's existence?" I thumped my hand on his desk, "Case closed!" I declared with a mock air of triumph."

"I declared with a mock air of triumph" he writes. I am not sure if he actually expects the reader to think he is truly skeptical or if expects the audience to just go along with the role he is purporting to play. Anyone who is truly skeptical does not have to prove their skepticism by describing their wording, the questions alone should suffice; however, time and again Strobel resorts to trying to prove his skepticism in this manner.

I think the biggest failure of the book is Strobel's inability to describe atheism as anything other than "cheap", "inadequate", and "depraved". According to the book, atheist's lives have no meaning and neither does death, as there is no afterlife for them. The reality that Strobel misses here is that without an afterlife our day to day lives have even more meaning. While my Christian counter parts focus their energies preparing for their deaths and their eventual meeting with their creator, I focus my energy on what is happening in my life right now. Instead of spending countless hours begging for forgiveness for my "sins", and constantly feeling worthless of the "love" I'm being give by my savior I enjoy my life. I recognize that I'm not getting another chance at this and instead of concentrating my efforts on later, I am enjoying the now. I put into my family, career, and hobbies all the energy that others put into prayer and meeting all the guidelines that have been set forth for them by their faith. Instead of a constant feeling of guilt, I am happy and grateful. Unfortunately, Strobel's misses this and many points of atheism.

His interview with William Lane Craig, takes an especially bad turn when Craig says that atheists have no basis for saying that rape is wrong without the existence of god. Craig says that rape could in fact be considered advantageous for the development of the species but because god exists we know it is not. The thought here that atheists could not have any moral code without the help of god is, to use Strobel's own word, cheap. If we all have this moral code instilled in us by god what about the murders? The rapists? The child abusers? What happens to the moral code that is instilled in them by god? I won't be so arrogant as to pretend to know what sets one of these individuals off but what is obvious is that there is nothing in them that prevents them from overstepping these moral boundaries.

In one interview Strobel poses a question as to why god can't simply force people to go to heaven and the answer that is given is that because to do so would be "immoral". The interviewee, J.P. Moreland, PhD, says that forcing people into heaven takes their choice away from them. Forcing people to be with god when they have "chosen" to ignore and mock him dehumanizes them by taking away their free will. He goes on to say that when god allows people to say 'no' to him he actually respects and dignifies them.

First, tackling this from the assumption of the book that god exists and respects people by giving them choice, what about Jonah and the whale? In the book of Jonah god commands Jonah to go and preach his word and when Jonah refuses and escapes to a ship god sends a storm to him and has him eaten by a whale. I don't see where Jonah is given a choice in this case.

Furthermore, speaking from my own perspective where I don't believe in god, let alone the bible, how do you rationally accept that a god would say "I respect you enough not to force you to love me but when you choose not to believe in me I shall send you to an eternity of punishment?" Even beyond that how do you then call this act of "allowing" you not to believe "moral"?

While Strobel's objections to faith are interesting and valid I don't think he did an honest job at defeating them. Several times in the book he references a study without saying where it was performed or when. He spent more time offering up questions that would support the answers being given and does not tackle the analogies as well as he could have. Also, while it seems that the aim of the book is to bring skeptics closer to god and further from their obstacles to faith he does a far better job at pushing them further into their doubts. He simplifies atheism as an excuse to drink and constantly equates it with communism as if all atheists are communists. For this reader, the case for faith was certainly not proven.

Lee Strobel, The Case for Faith, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 2000)