Perhaps,(I don't remember clearly) but "former" to what? To his investigation? This would imply at the time of his investigation he was a skeptic. If he was no longer a skeptic at the time of his investigation then I don't see the point in even mentioning it.

That is an interesting question. But I'd also have to ask it of many of the skeptics on this board that fall all over themselves to identify themselves as former Christians.

It would seem obvious to me that the point
listing him as a "former skeptic" is to
imply that the research presented in the book
has convinced him that he was wrong for
being a skeptic and decided to be a believer.
However, if the research in the book does NOT
do that adequately (sp?) then it means that
his decision to convert from skeptic to
believer was based on incomplete research.

In which case, it (the claim of being
a skeptic) should NOT be presented as an implied
gauge of the quality of the research.

The book does say he is a FORMER skeptic. Also, if you make it through the book, you'll read Strobel admit that his conversion to Christianity occured in 1981, and his interviewing that took place for this book occured in the 90's. This has lead many people to assume he was a skeptic when he interviews all those people, but he wasn't. He never says that he was either, but they sure go out of their way to not make that obvious. It almost seems like they were purposely being vague about his earlier conversion to give the impression that he was a skeptic when interviewing for this book. The fact that they say "former skeptic" isn't that sufficient because many people thought that meant he was a skeptic when he interviewd for the book, but now isn't after the interview, and so is now a former skeptic.

Umm.. I'm not sure why that would matter. Would it somehow modify people's expectations for Strobel's book? (based on the promo's for it)

It's a double-standard for those who so identify.

But I actually heard him promoting his book in at least three interviews, and he's quite clear about when he converted and what his background is. He also identifies himself as a PASTOR in his bio on the back of the book.

It's just an excuse to gripe. There is no hidden agenda. The books title and the bio of the author, identifying himself as a pastor, make it abundantly clear what the purpose of the book is. I found the style of the book quite annoying myself, but not deceptive.

Well I don't know of any skeptic books that could be accused of this "double standard" but I suspect there might be some. Perhaps Dan Barker's book might be construed to fall into that category (Losing Faith in Faith) - I dunno. But still, for a touted journalist, it wasn't a very journalistic approach and is why I think people object to it a bit more strongly.

Ulrich

I think it should be pretty obvious that when a book jacket describes its author as a "former skeptic", or "former Christian", it means that the author fit that description (i.e was a former skeptic) at the time the book was written. Otherwise they would have printed something even more sensational like: "Read the interviews that changed a hardcore skeptic into a true believer!"

Bottom line-- The book is not very convincing to anyone remotely objective.

It doesn't really make any difference, Strobel failed to make the case for christ, just as he failed to make the case for faith in his follow-up book. He could have interviewed ten thousand apologists for all the good it would have done him. Simply put, there is no case.