Freethought & Rationalism Archive

2tadpoles · 02-12-2002, 06:27 AM

Has anybody here read this book? A friend of mind says that this book gives "proof" that Christianity is all true. I will be honest and say that, although I'm very opinionated about religion, I'm not very well read. I just know that Christianity (along with 99% of other religions) sounds like complete bullshit to me and always has.

So if anyone's read this book, are the arguments in it good ones or not?

MortalWombat · 02-12-2002, 07:07 AM

See Earl Doherty's book, Challenging the Verdict, A Cross-Examination of Lee Strobel�s The Case For Christ.

Excerpts can be found here:

<a href="http://www.magi.com/~oblio/jesus/CTVExcerptsIntro.htm" target="_blank">http://www.magi.com/~oblio/jesus/CTVExcerptsIntro.htm</a>

stryder2112 · 02-12-2002, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogsmoocher:
<strong>So if anyone's read this book, are the arguments in it good ones or not?</strong>

The book is total crap. There are a number of critiques at Internet Infidel <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/apologetics.html#strobel" target="_blank">here</a>.

Stryder

[ February 12, 2002: Message edited by: stryder2112 ]</p>

David Bowden · 02-12-2002, 08:21 AM

I'll second (or 'third') MortalWombat and stryder's comments.

Lee Strobel gives new meaning to the term 'disingenuous.' Under close examination, his slickly presented 'case' falls apart, and I for one cannot believe that he is unaware of the way he twists things - regarding this, see the articles mentioned above.

Strobel has written another book, "The Case for Faith," which is more of the same - pro-Xtian experts answer loaded questions and the resulting interviews are stitched together, without any serious look at skeptical objections to the 'case' being made - unless you count the skewed reporting of his interview with an Alzheimers-suffering Charles Templeton.

When you understand why the one book fails, you won't want to waste your time on the other.

...Speaking as one who *did* waste his time reading both of them...

-Wanderer

lpetrich · 02-12-2002, 01:33 PM

Also, like many born-agains, Lee Strobel claims that he had once been a skeptic; however, we seldom see much independent documentation for such claims, and Dennis McKinsey had claimed in his Biblical Errancy newsletter that in most cases, such people were indifferent to religion. For example, do any of these born-agains brag about how they once believed that JC's Virgin Birth was a ripoff of pagan mythology? They usually don't mention any such details.

However, checking in <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/index.shtml" target="_blank">our magazine page</a> revealed the link to DMcK site to be broken; his content is no longer being hosted by AOL.

DeceivedOne · 02-12-2002, 01:59 PM

lpetrich: "For example, do any of these born-agains brag about how they once believed that JC's Virgin Birth was a ripoff of pagan mythology? They usually don't mention any such details."

This comment caught my interest, because I have a teacher right now named Dr. Rigsby who was a heavy liberal critic, and upon his interaction with the book of Kings he switched over to Christianity. He didn't say the reasons that motivated his switching over, but I think that a lot of guys like Lee Strobel may be getting popular and then getting rebutted, while professors that seem to know their stuff get little publicity (whether from being non-popular or just not caring to get their faces recognized) and who can truely say that they have crossed lines into the Christian camp. I also notice that people seem more reluctant to challenge C.S. Lewis's switch-over than to challenge Lee Strobel or Josh McDowell - apparently atheists find C.S. Lewis to be more sincere and genuine about it. But then again I hear that C.S. Lewis regarded the Old Testament as mythical. But at any rate, I would say that suggesting that no hard-core atheist ever switches over to theism, or Christianity in particular, might be a bit premature.

Toto · 02-12-2002, 02:15 PM

3 rebuttals to C.S. Lewis here:

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/apologetics.html#lewis" target="_blank">Infidels Library Apologetics section on Lewis</a>

What exactly in the book of Kings would make someone "switch over to Christianity" from being a liberal critic? And what is a liberal critic? Is he afraid to push his ideas because he's afraid someone could shoot them down?

DeceivedOne · 02-12-2002, 03:53 PM

no, fear was a non-issue. there was no pressure for my teacher to defend his views; rather, the mention of his switchover was a tangent issue that was not the center of discussion.

by liberal critic I mean the position of interpreting bible material with the presupposition that it was a man-made religion, rather than a God-inspired religion. Liberal critics hold to propositions like Jesus' virgin birth was a rip-off of pagan mythology, as stated earlier by lpetrich. The fundamentalist, by contrast, sees the virgin birth as a real event.

As for C.S. Lewis, I noticed an interesting thing about Tattersal's rebuttal to "Miracles." The advertisement below the link claimed that his rebuttal shows that miracles are improbable, regardless of the debate of supernaturalism vs. naturalism. But the actual rebuttal merely gives a brief argument against miracles that is hardy comprehensive of the issue, and he completely ignores Lewis's criteria for validation of miracles by "appropriateness," which was in my opinion the most positive and insightful part of his entire book. In my opinion Lewis is weak in his arguments against naturalism in this book, and its strength is in the issue regarding miracles themselves. I believe I read a rebuttal against Tattersal's rebuttal on this very site, ironically. Regardless, maybe I was misleading and I have been taken to say that C.S. Lewis' position has not been challenged. I intended to say that C.S. Lewis is not regularly challenged on the claim that he was a sincere atheist prior to his conversion.
The "Fool" rebuttal of "Mere Christianity" does challenge C.S. Lewis on his being serious in his atheism. However, their criteria for being a serious atheist is unrealistic. They criticize his unwillingness to jump into the historical or textual difficulties regarding Christianity, as though one has to address every subject matter, be it philosophy, biblical textual criticism, science, historicity, and change his position in every area in order to "truely" transition from atheism to Christianity. However, Lewis was apparently less interested in historical criticism and more interested in philosophical issues, and on these considerations were compelled over from atheism to Christianity. So I find this challenge against Lewis's atheism to be weak.
Another criticism of "the Fool" was against the "liar, lunatic, Lord" point, criticizing it as being inexhaustive and an ineffectual argument for Christianity. However, I saw an atheist defend Lewis on this point, pointing out that Lewis's purpose was not to make an apologetic argument, but simply to attack the tendency for people to simply dismiss Jesus as a "good teacher." Lewis, rather, wanted to force the confrontation that Jesus's statements need to either be acknowledge as true, or be dismissed as false. Evidently some atheists are actually compelled to stick up for C.S. Lewis for whatever reason. So I am not convinced that he belongs in the category of faking atheism and critical skepticism to Christianity, as Strobel is challenged as doing.
The other review of "Mere Christianity" mainly attacked Lewis for sloppy argumentation. And I think that sometimes he is. However, I think Lewis's writings generally reflect an interest in experimenting with ideas and sharing them, be it to Christians or atheists, rather than being a rigorous logician that refutes freethinkers (I felt he failed when he tried this in "Miracles" in refuting naturalism). C.S. Lewis remains high in my level of respect for him.

britinusa · 02-13-2002, 05:29 AM

I haven't read it but I did read his next book, The Case For Faith.
Strobel is described as a tough investigator, formerly a crime reporter for the Chicago Tribune.
I wonder if he was as biased and/or sloppy during his days at the Tribune.

2tadpoles · 02-13-2002, 06:13 AM

Thanks for the replies, folks. I told my friend that I wasn't going to waste my time reading the book, and she accused me of being closed-minded. I have to admit I am closed-minded, but that is not my reason for not reading it. Y'all have said that the arguments are sloppily written, and my free time is precious to me.

My friend said that she looked at the links I sent her, so she doesn't get why I won't read the book. I told her that if she has some links to support her position, I'll look at them.... but I don't want to spend hours reading her stupid book (I didn't say it like that). She's Lutheran, by the way. @@ We're not close friends or anything, and don't know each other all that well. I have a feeling this religious discussion might put a kink in our friendship going any further, but she's kind of annoying, anyway.

02-12-2002, 06:27 AM	#1
2tadpoles Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: next door to H.P. Lovecraft Posts: 565	The Case For Christ Has anybody here read this book? A friend of mind says that this book gives "proof" that Christianity is all true. I will be honest and say that, although I'm very opinionated about religion, I'm not very well read. I just know that Christianity (along with 99% of other religions) sounds like complete bullshit to me and always has. So if anyone's read this book, are the arguments in it good ones or not?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-12-2002, 07:07 AM	#2
MortalWombat Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: St Louis area Posts: 3,458	See Earl Doherty's book, Challenging the Verdict, A Cross-Examination of Lee Strobel�s The Case For Christ. Excerpts can be found here: <a href="http://www.magi.com/~oblio/jesus/CTVExcerptsIntro.htm" target="_blank">http://www.magi.com/~oblio/jesus/CTVExcerptsIntro.htm</a>

02-12-2002, 08:21 AM	#4
David Bowden Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Everywhere I go. Yes, even there. Posts: 607	I'll second (or 'third') MortalWombat and stryder's comments. Lee Strobel gives new meaning to the term 'disingenuous.' Under close examination, his slickly presented 'case' falls apart, and I for one cannot believe that he is unaware of the way he twists things - regarding this, see the articles mentioned above. Strobel has written another book, "The Case for Faith," which is more of the same - pro-Xtian experts answer loaded questions and the resulting interviews are stitched together, without any serious look at skeptical objections to the 'case' being made - unless you count the skewed reporting of his interview with an Alzheimers-suffering Charles Templeton. When you understand why the one book fails, you won't want to waste your time on the other. ...Speaking as one who did waste his time reading both of them... -Wanderer

02-12-2002, 01:33 PM	#5
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Also, like many born-agains, Lee Strobel claims that he had once been a skeptic; however, we seldom see much independent documentation for such claims, and Dennis McKinsey had claimed in his Biblical Errancy newsletter that in most cases, such people were indifferent to religion. For example, do any of these born-agains brag about how they once believed that JC's Virgin Birth was a ripoff of pagan mythology? They usually don't mention any such details. However, checking in <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/index.shtml" target="_blank">our magazine page</a> revealed the link to DMcK site to be broken; his content is no longer being hosted by AOL.

02-12-2002, 01:59 PM	#6
DeceivedOne Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Posts: 23	lpetrich: "For example, do any of these born-agains brag about how they once believed that JC's Virgin Birth was a ripoff of pagan mythology? They usually don't mention any such details." This comment caught my interest, because I have a teacher right now named Dr. Rigsby who was a heavy liberal critic, and upon his interaction with the book of Kings he switched over to Christianity. He didn't say the reasons that motivated his switching over, but I think that a lot of guys like Lee Strobel may be getting popular and then getting rebutted, while professors that seem to know their stuff get little publicity (whether from being non-popular or just not caring to get their faces recognized) and who can truely say that they have crossed lines into the Christian camp. I also notice that people seem more reluctant to challenge C.S. Lewis's switch-over than to challenge Lee Strobel or Josh McDowell - apparently atheists find C.S. Lewis to be more sincere and genuine about it. But then again I hear that C.S. Lewis regarded the Old Testament as mythical. But at any rate, I would say that suggesting that no hard-core atheist ever switches over to theism, or Christianity in particular, might be a bit premature.

02-12-2002, 02:15 PM	#7
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	3 rebuttals to C.S. Lewis here: <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/apologetics.html#lewis" target="_blank">Infidels Library Apologetics section on Lewis</a> What exactly in the book of Kings would make someone "switch over to Christianity" from being a liberal critic? And what is a liberal critic? Is he afraid to push his ideas because he's afraid someone could shoot them down?

02-12-2002, 03:53 PM	#8
DeceivedOne Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Posts: 23	no, fear was a non-issue. there was no pressure for my teacher to defend his views; rather, the mention of his switchover was a tangent issue that was not the center of discussion. by liberal critic I mean the position of interpreting bible material with the presupposition that it was a man-made religion, rather than a God-inspired religion. Liberal critics hold to propositions like Jesus' virgin birth was a rip-off of pagan mythology, as stated earlier by lpetrich. The fundamentalist, by contrast, sees the virgin birth as a real event. As for C.S. Lewis, I noticed an interesting thing about Tattersal's rebuttal to "Miracles." The advertisement below the link claimed that his rebuttal shows that miracles are improbable, regardless of the debate of supernaturalism vs. naturalism. But the actual rebuttal merely gives a brief argument against miracles that is hardy comprehensive of the issue, and he completely ignores Lewis's criteria for validation of miracles by "appropriateness," which was in my opinion the most positive and insightful part of his entire book. In my opinion Lewis is weak in his arguments against naturalism in this book, and its strength is in the issue regarding miracles themselves. I believe I read a rebuttal against Tattersal's rebuttal on this very site, ironically. Regardless, maybe I was misleading and I have been taken to say that C.S. Lewis' position has not been challenged. I intended to say that C.S. Lewis is not regularly challenged on the claim that he was a sincere atheist prior to his conversion. The "Fool" rebuttal of "Mere Christianity" does challenge C.S. Lewis on his being serious in his atheism. However, their criteria for being a serious atheist is unrealistic. They criticize his unwillingness to jump into the historical or textual difficulties regarding Christianity, as though one has to address every subject matter, be it philosophy, biblical textual criticism, science, historicity, and change his position in every area in order to "truely" transition from atheism to Christianity. However, Lewis was apparently less interested in historical criticism and more interested in philosophical issues, and on these considerations were compelled over from atheism to Christianity. So I find this challenge against Lewis's atheism to be weak. Another criticism of "the Fool" was against the "liar, lunatic, Lord" point, criticizing it as being inexhaustive and an ineffectual argument for Christianity. However, I saw an atheist defend Lewis on this point, pointing out that Lewis's purpose was not to make an apologetic argument, but simply to attack the tendency for people to simply dismiss Jesus as a "good teacher." Lewis, rather, wanted to force the confrontation that Jesus's statements need to either be acknowledge as true, or be dismissed as false. Evidently some atheists are actually compelled to stick up for C.S. Lewis for whatever reason. So I am not convinced that he belongs in the category of faking atheism and critical skepticism to Christianity, as Strobel is challenged as doing. The other review of "Mere Christianity" mainly attacked Lewis for sloppy argumentation. And I think that sometimes he is. However, I think Lewis's writings generally reflect an interest in experimenting with ideas and sharing them, be it to Christians or atheists, rather than being a rigorous logician that refutes freethinkers (I felt he failed when he tried this in "Miracles" in refuting naturalism). C.S. Lewis remains high in my level of respect for him.

02-13-2002, 05:29 AM	#9
britinusa Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: State College, PA Posts: 283	I haven't read it but I did read his next book, The Case For Faith. Strobel is described as a tough investigator, formerly a crime reporter for the Chicago Tribune. I wonder if he was as biased and/or sloppy during his days at the Tribune.

02-13-2002, 06:13 AM	#10
2tadpoles Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: next door to H.P. Lovecraft Posts: 565	Thanks for the replies, folks. I told my friend that I wasn't going to waste my time reading the book, and she accused me of being closed-minded. I have to admit I am closed-minded, but that is not my reason for not reading it. Y'all have said that the arguments are sloppily written, and my free time is precious to me. My friend said that she looked at the links I sent her, so she doesn't get why I won't read the book. I told her that if she has some links to support her position, I'll look at them.... but I don't want to spend hours reading her stupid book (I didn't say it like that). She's Lutheran, by the way. @@ We're not close friends or anything, and don't know each other all that well. I have a feeling this religious discussion might put a kink in our friendship going any further, but she's kind of annoying, anyway.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.