Lee Strobel's
The Case for Faith aims to answer the "toughest objections to Christianity" through interviews with well-known Christian apologists. In the introduction, Strobel lists what he calls Christianity's "Big Eight Conundrums"—including many of the questions that Secular Web author Paul Doland continually asked himself when he was still a Christian. Though Strobel generally does a good job of explaining the objections, the more Doland contemplated Strobel's interviewees' responses, the less satisfying he found those responses to be. This point-by-point critique aims to explain why Doland found each of these responses to be weak at best or preposterous at worst, and he was consequently forced to conclude that Strobel may have actually produced a case
against faith. This latest edition includes extensive revisions to the section of Objection 2 concerning the rationality of belief in miracles.
Commentary on Paul Doland's Critique of Strobel's Case for Faith (n.d.) by Avue (Off Site)
While Paul Doland's critique of Lee Strobel's The Case for Faith shows a decent understanding of current issues within the Christian Church and the socio-religious issues surrounding the Church, he does not show a good understanding of Christianity itself. He shows this, for example, in his discussions of God as heavenly father, original sin, and salvation.
No Better than Strobel: A Reply to God and Science's Case for Faith (2020)
In his earlier Secular Web critique of Lee Strobel's The Case for Faith, Paul Doland concluded that by raising tough questions for Christianity but failing to adequately respond to them, Strobel (and his interviewees) inadvertently ending up producing a strong case against faith. A rejoinder to Doland's critique was subsequently published on the God and Science website. In this response to that rejoinder, Doland defends his original conclusion that neither The Case for Faith in particular, nor Christianity in general, provide believable and coherent answers to the sorts of questions that Strobel originally raised. Nor, for that matter, does the attempt by the God and Science website to rehabilitate Strobel's answers to Christianity's toughest questions.
In his earlier Secular Web critique of Lee Strobel's
The Case for Faith, Paul Doland concluded that by raising tough questions for Christianity but failing to adequately respond to them, Strobel (and his interviewees) inadvertently ending up producing a strong case
against faith. A rejoinder to Doland's critique was subsequently published on the God and Science website. In this response to that rejoinder, Doland defends his original conclusion that neither
The Case for Faith in particular, nor Christianity in general, provide believable and coherent answers to the sorts of questions that Strobel originally raised. Nor, for that matter, does the attempt by the God and Science website to rehabilitate Strobel's answers to Christianity's toughest questions.
In this chapter-by-chapter critique of Lee Strobel's
The Case for a Creator, Paul Doland comments on the general direction of the book before analyzing Strobel's interviews with his various experts on specific topics. Topics include the origin of life, evolution, the relationship between science and religion, the origin of the universe, the alleged fine-tuning of the universe, whether there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, intelligent design, information theory, the origin and nature of consciousness, and whether consciousness can survive the death of the brain. Particularly noteworthy is Strobel's silence when his experts make conflicting claims (e.g., Wells and Dembski on evolution).
"Christianity and theism disproved via the Lee Strobel logic methodology."
Amazon
In the face of modern critical scholarship, which is steadily eroding the historical reliability of the Gospels and their presentation of Jesus, conservative writers have been making valiant attempts to reestablish confidence in the Christian record and doctrine. The most prominent of these, in popular exposure and commercial success, has been Lee Strobel, in his […]
Amazon
Description Lee Strobel arguably is now the leading apologist in America for evangelical, fundamentalist, benighted forms of Christianity. Although not an authority himself in any of the fields in which he defends his faith, he has produced a series of best-selling The Case For… books in which he consults alleged experts to obtain “evidence” and […]
Free Advertising Isn’t the Point Jeffery Jay Lowder August 2, 2000 Related documents: “The Rest of the Story” (2002) by Jeffery Jay Lowder Lowder’s review of Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ. On July 13, 2000, I happened to be flipping through radio stations when I stumbled upon a talk radio show with a […]
In this short online book Vito Lear presents a primer intended to outline the questions, issues, and evidence that concretely illustrate that Christian apologists to date have failed to make a credible case for the truth of Christianity, let alone met their burden to demonstrate the truth of the extraordinary claim that Christianity has the answer to life, the universe, and everything. Lear's concise inquiry focuses on three core issues: Are the fundamental claims of Christianity consistent with reason and morality? Is Christianity's sacred text, the Bible, historically reliable? And since its advent, has Christianity overall made the world a better place, or a worse one? Lear argues that these questions should be widely asked, but are rarely considered by the general population in the predominately Christian culture of the United States.
Is abortion morally wrong from a theological standpoint? Christians of the pro-life persuasion certainly believe so, arguing that it constitutes the murder of an innocent human life. In this essay, Adam Taylor examines the various arguments leveled against abortion by prominent Christian apologetics like Normal Geisler and Paul Copan, showing that their arguments fail to justify their apologetic conclusions. Taylor goes on to explore how the very Bible that they appeal to for justification of their opposition may in fact provide any number of reasons why abortion cannot, from a Christian standpoint, be reasonably opposed.
Christian apologists often claim to have "strong" evidence for Jesus' resurrection—but compared to what? The arguments of legal apologists are a far cry from those found in actual courtrooms, for a court will compare the case at hand against previous cases (or precedent) to determine the strength of the evidence for a claim. But in case law the physical facts rule prevents the consideration of claims of supernatural events, so no such precedent exists. In this essay Robert Miller nevertheless compares the kind of evidence that apologists offer for the resurrection of Jesus against the evidence appealed to by Spiritualists and Mormons for their claims, as well as against the sort of "corroborating" evidence used to prop up urban legends. Miller concludes that when it comes to evidentiary factors like public demonstration, hearsay, multiple attestation, and early recordation, the evidence appealed to by Spiritualists—as poor as it is—is still far superior to that appealed to for Jesus' resurrection.
Christian apologists have published dozens of books and articles during the last four centuries claiming that they can prove the resurrection of Jesus using legal standards of evidence. Retired attorney Robert G. Miller sought an attorney who would argue in support of the Resurrection in a format closer to a real adversarial process in court, but could not find a single lawyer who would even discuss the possibility of facing an actual opponent. In this unopposed brief, Miller thus explains three independent reasons why apologists cannot prove Jesus' resurrection by legal principles, and then goes on to critique legal apologists' standard arguments for the Resurrection. Miller seeks someone willing to respond to this brief.
A month prior, retired lawyer Robert G. Miller challenged the Dean of the Regent University School of Law, or any legal apologist willing to take his place, to participate in a genuine adversarial debate with him emulating typical legal procedures, to be facilitated by Internet Infidels online. Since legal apologists regularly claim to be able to demonstrate the resurrection of Jesus from the dead using legal argumentation, Miller's aim was to put this assertion to the test. Sadly, however, despite efforts to reach out to various legal professionals directly, to date no legal apologist has agreed to Miller's challenge. In this update, Miller informs readers of the next steps that he is mulling over in light of legal apologists' failure to show up.
Within evangelical circles, legal apologetics denotes attempts to defend the Christian faith using legal arguments that would ostensibly "prove" certain central tenets of Christianity by the standards of the American legal system. Like other forms of apologetics, however, it is rife with buzzwords and relies on no identifiable criteria by which these tenets might be "proven" by established legal standards. Legal apologists also tend to respond to the arguments of fictional opponents to their "cases" for core Christian doctrines rather than engage real-world legal opponents. Since this has a more propagandistic than truth-seeking function, in this essay retired lawyer Robert G. Miller challenges the Dean of the Regent University School of Law—or any legal apologist for that matter—to accept his invitation to agree to initiate a real online debate with him by September 29, 2023 using long-standing legal standards to "prove" the central Christian doctrine that Jesus rose from the dead.
In "Courtroom Apologetics: You Call
Them Eyewitnesses?" G. P. Denken critiques a genre of popular evangelical apologetics that he labels "courtroom" apologetics. Courtroom apologists are recognizable by the way that they season their arguments with courtroom jargon and analogies. Denken highlights three apologists who make their cases by relying heavily on the four "eyewitness" accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Though the apologetic authors seek verdicts from their jury of readers in favor of Christianity, Denken offers a rebuttal case in their imaginary trial. He discusses how these apologists have not only misidentified the Gospel authors, but ignored how their proposed authors could not have been eyewitnesses to many famous scenes in the canonical Gospels.
In this article John MacDonald examines the possible lie by Jesus in John 7:8-10. The article begins by providing an analysis of the context of lying and deception in the ancient world. Given this background, it moves on to examine (mainly) the insights of Tyler Smith, Adele Reinhartz, Dennis MacDonald, and Hugo Méndez/Candida Moss about the Fourth Gospel and deception. Here John MacDonald explores the thesis that John's Jesus does in fact lie, and that this lie is meant to be understood by the inner-circle reader. Jesus lying to his brothers is the method by which he is able to go up and preach to the crowd; the lie leads to belief or makes belief possible.
In
The Case Against Miracles, John Loftus continues his counterapologetic project by focusing on miracle claims. Although ostensibly a multicontributor response to Lee Strobel's work, it passes over the point-by-point response format and instead provides a range of arguments that miracle claims should be met with incredulity. David Corner argues that apologists cannot even meet the basic criteria of showing that an alleged miracle has occurred, that it cannot be explained by natural causes, and that it is not simply a natural anomaly to established facts. Matt McCormick argues that the performance of miracles is inconsistent with God's traditional divine attributes. John Loftus argues that alleged miracles must be demonstrably impossible on naturalistic grounds while simultaneously meeting a high bar of evidence that they actually occurred. Darren Slade notes a major shortcoming in Craig S. Keener's overt enthusiasm for recording miracle stories without being able to verify them independently. Slade recommends that miracle investigators instead employ forensic and law enforcement methods like Criteria-Based Content Analysis and the ADVOKATE criteria for assessing eyewitness testimony. Other pieces argue that since the New Testament suggested an imminent return of Christ, the absence of Christ's return is evidence for the prophetic failure of the text; that the Bible is not an accurate source of history; and that specific miraculous claims within the biblical text contradict scientific discoveries. Loftus' penultimate chapter primarily serves as a response to Michael Licona's recent apologetic monograph on the resurrection of Jesus.
Added Review of The Case against Miracles (2020) by Gregory Michna to the Argument from Miracles, Resurrection, and Christian Apologetics and Apologists pages in the Modern Documents section of the Secular Web Library. In The Case Against Miracles, John Loftus continues his counterapologetic project by focusing on miracle claims. Although ostensibly a multicontributor response to […]
Give the Gift of Secularism. We have been molding minds for a quarter century. You made this possible. Thank you! Help us continue to undo the damage wrought by millenia of dogma by pitching in to keep the Secular Web online today. Added a substantially revised edition of The Case Against Faith: A Critical Look […]
Added No Better than Strobel: A Reply to God and Science’s Case for Faith (2020) by Paul Doland to the Christian Apologetics and Apologists, Christian Worldview, Arguments for the Existence of God: Reviews/Critiques, Faith and Reason, Argument from Miracles, Creationism, and Logical Argument from Evil pages in the Modern Documents section of the Secular Web […]
Who We Are: How to Help Us: Secular Web Content: Requests: Who are the Internet Infidels? (For contact information: click here) Honorary President: Brett Lemoine Presidents Emeritus: Jeffery Jay Lowder, James Still, Amanda Chesworth, Jeff Lucas, Jim Lippard, Clark Adams, Ray W. Johnson Advisory Board: Richard Carrier, Tim Madigan, James Still Board of Directors: Executive Director & Editor-in-Chief: Keith Augustine Systems Administrator: Ray W. Johnson Social Media Manager: Edouard Tahmizian Volunteers whose help is greatly appreciated: […]
The key premise of the fine-tuning argument for the existence of God is the alleged improbability of the physical constants taking on values that fall within the narrow life-friendly range. In this paper Aron Lucas examines whether this improbability alone is enough to ground a successful theistic argument from design. He concludes that the fine-tuning proponent is impaled on the horns of a trilemma: he can either reject the argument for having a false premise, reject it for being circular, or accept it at the cost of rejecting the moral argument for the existence of God.
In these slides for his opening statement in his debate with Michael Licona on July 1, 2012 at Antioch Temecula Church in Temecula, California, Robert Greg Cavin presents one of the strongest cases against the resurrection of Jesus ever presented, decisively refuting arguments for the Resurrection by prominent Christian apologists Timothy McGrew, Lydia McGrew, Richard Swinburne, William Lane Craig, Stephen T. Davis, Gary Habermas, Michael Licona, Norman Geisler, Josh McDowell, and Lee Strobel. Cavin makes three main contentions: (1) the prior probability of a supernatural resurrection of Jesus by God is so astronomically low that it has virtually no plausibility; (2) theorizing such a resurrection to explain the empty tomb and postmortem appearances of Jesus is ad hoc and devoid of nearly any explanatory power and scope; and (3) a far superior alternative theory can account for the empty tomb and postmortem appearances. In defending these three contentions, Cavin refutes sixteen myths perpetuated by Christians apologists about critics' objections to the Resurrection.
Komarnitsky critiques the efforts of Christian apologists such as Dr. N. T. Wright, J. P. Holding, and Lee Strobel, to support the historicity of Jesus' alleged resurrection, and then offers his own explanation for the empty tomb and post-Resurrection appearances traditions.
"The only way that Craig can criticize the account I have given is by arguing that his theory, that Jesus was raised from the dead, is to be preferred because it is simpler than proposing a theory to account for the empty tomb and proposing an independent theory to account for the post-mortem appearances of Jesus. The 'simplicity' of Craig's theory is only skin deep. My account of Craig's 'four facts' involves well-known and well-documented cultural phenomena, whereas his account proposes a God which intervenes in human affairs, for which I have yet to see any convincing evidence."
Hemant Mehta, known as the "Friendly Atheist" and the man who "sold his soul on e-Bay," is a well-known defender of the atheist stance who has written at least one best-selling book. Mehta recently persuaded Christian apologist Lee Strobel to answer some questions posed by his atheist friends. Strobel, in turn, asked his Christian theist friends to submit questions for atheists to answer. Seven of Strobel's friends complied. Whittenberger offers his answers to the questions posed by Strobel's Christian theist friends.
(2009) Author Website Kenneth W. Daniels (1968-), former evangelical missionary with Wycliffe Bible Translators, received his BS in computer science and engineering from LeTourneau University, Longview, Texas, and a one-year certificate in biblical studies from Columbia Biblical Seminary (now Columbia International University), Columbia, SC. He currently resides with his wife and three children in suburban […]
In his latest book,
There is a God, well-known philosopher and former-atheist Antony Flew lays out the four major arguments which convinced him that God exists. In this review, Nick Covington deals both with Flew's arguments and with Flew's criticisms of the "new atheists."
"Science should not be a political tool, and nature is neither an excuse nor a license to thieve the life and liberty of fellow humans here in the 21st century nor anytime henceforth."
Review of Reasonable Faith (2007) Chris Hallquist Review: William Lane Craig. 1994. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books. 350 pp. Overview Introduction Chapter 1: Faith and Reason: How Do I Know Christianity is True? Chapter 2: Man: The Absurdity of Life Without God Chapter 3: God: The Existence of God Chapter […]
(2006) Introduction Kyle J. Gerkin’s critique of Lee Strobel’s The Case for Faith has a great deal to recommend it. It is not my intention to defend Strobel’s apologetics and I have not even read any of his books. Rather, as a historian specializing in the history of science and religion, as well as being […]
