Strobel's a lawyer, now?

[Keith&Co.]

A few of the people at work had kids in the same scout troop my kids were in. One of them is aware that i'm nowhere nearly as Christain as she is, and asked me in passing if i'd ever read the Case for Christ. I admitted that i hadn't, without going into what i knew about the book.

She informs me that it's written by a lawyer. And that he evaluates the evidence for Jesus the Christ as if he was in a court trial. "It's very well done!"

"Well, i should hope so. We don't hire lawyers to get to the truth of a question, we hire lawyers because they promise to win our side of an argument. So if it's in a book, then the author can present all his evidence, ignore any countering-evidence, and tell the jury what conclusion they should come to without anyone offering a quibble."

"OH!" she said, "he DOES offer some of the evidence the atheists would claim."

"I see. So the defense gets to offer his client's testimony, and decides what evidence the prosecutor would offer, AND decides when the prosecutor would shout 'Objection!' and finally gets to decide if the Judge said 'I'll allow it' or 'Overruled.' Wow. Under those conditions, My Cousin Vinny could get Scarface acquitted."

She stared at me. "Who is scarface?"

"What i'm saying is that a decent lawyer could get a Jewish jury to let Hitler off, if the Judge and the prosecutor and the witnesses were all cardboard cutouts he moved around the room. And Strobel isn't a decent lawyer. He's a journalist, so i doubt he'd make sure that all the evidence he presented met the standards of courtroom requirements. Or at least, i wouldn't trust him to."

"But....it's JESUS!"

"And if you want to think so, more power to you," I said. "Just....don't try to get any atheist relatives to read the book."

 

[Perspicuo]

:laughing-smiley-014

 

[Brian63]

Strobel is a former atheist and his Case for Christ book is SUPREMELY popular among those witnessing to us skeptics, so it probably would be helpful to read it at some point still. You could also read the rebuttal book that Jesus mythicist Earl Doherty wrote, Challenging the Verdict.

http://www.amazon.com/Challenging-V...8&qid=1426350725&sr=1-6&keywords=earl+doherty

You could challenge her to read that also, if she is going to challenge you to read Strobel's book. Sounds like an even exchange.

Brian

 

[Keith&Co.]

Strobel is a former atheist and his Case for Christ book is SUPREMELY popular among those witnessing to us skeptics, so it probably would be helpful to read it at some point still. You could also read the rebuttal book that Jesus mythicist Earl Doherty wrote, Challenging the Verdict.

http://www.amazon.com/Challenging-V...8&qid=1426350725&sr=1-6&keywords=earl+doherty

You could challenge her to read that also, if she is going to challenge you to read Strobel's book. Sounds like an even exchange.

Brian

Eh. I'll just tell her to read the critical reviews on Amazon.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I really like Steve Shives' "An Atheist reads" series. Here is a 16 video, chapter-by-chapter, review of Strobel's A Case For Christ: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8B722E1FA8681B70

 

[ideologyhunter]

I thought Strobel was a journalist. In any case, his arguments are less persuasive than C. S. Lewis's. If you're a knowledgeable, well-read skeptic, no, you won't much meat on this carcass, and you certainly won't find that Strobel has cleverly dodged any of the criticisms of the Bible as a primitive, self-conflicted collection of writings. Booyah.

 

[James Brown]

When I deconverted, Strobel's Case for Faith was handed to me by a pastor as a way of convincing me to give up my sinful ways. I could see why a large number of Christians see it as persuasive. It's far more accessible to modern readers than, say, C.S. Lewis, whose language and British conventions are becoming more and more archaic to American readers as time goes by. Strobel also doesn't have the whole outline nonsense that Josh McDowell uses in Evidence That Demands a Verdict that makes people think they're reading a really, really long high school term paper.

And of course, it doesn't hurt that Strobel portrays himself as a "usetabe" atheist to give himself more street cred among the faithful.

But right away I could see problems with The Case for Faith. He "interviews" a single atheist, a frail elderly man suffering from Alzheimer's, who sobs about how much he loves Jesus. This is meant to be your "typical" atheist--someone who wants to believe but won't so that she can commit the sin of her choice guilt-free, but of course she will have deep regrets at the end of her life. Strobel then "interviews" several Christians, asking them "tough" questions and accepting their answers completely. Even when the Christian "experts" contradict each other over theological points, Strobel's pattern is, "If you can respond to a criticism, then the criticism is nullified."

I wrote a 31-page response to The Case for Faith pointing out the problems with that book. Looking at my rebuttal now, it's rather amateurish, but the main concepts still hold up, I think.

 

[Atheos]

I really like Steve Shives' "An Atheist reads" series. Here is a 16 video, chapter-by-chapter, review of Strobel's A Case For Christ: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8B722E1FA8681B70

Thanks for the link. I just completed watching the series and was quite impressed with Shives' treatment. I actually had read the book and discovered it to be little else besides a confirmation of my (by then) skeptical worldview, as many of the counter-arguments presented by Shives were already known to me. However, the blatant dishonesty on the part of Strobel in presenting the facade that this was hard-nosed journalistic investigation had never really made that big of an impression on me until Shives pointed it out again and again. After listening to his take on all that I realized just how truly dishonest Strobel is. He's definitely made a killing selling the book though, can't argue with that success.

 

[Tinker Grey]

You're quite welcome. I always look forward to the next series. By contrast, you could watch his treatment of Lewis. While he doesn't find the arguments convincing (surprise!), he does admire his writing. I single this one out to note that he isn't simply trashing the writers.

 

[Atheos]

Agreed, and I feel the same way. There are many theists whom I respect greatly. Strobel isn't one of them. Neither is WLC. Hamm is another buffoon. Peas in a con-artist pod, the lot of 'em.

 

[Kosh]

A few of the people at work had kids in the same scout troop my kids were in. One of them is aware that i'm nowhere nearly as Christain as she is, and asked me in passing if i'd ever read the Case for Christ. I admitted that i hadn't, without going into what i knew about the book.

Could have been worse, Keith.

When my son told his Scoutmaster he didn't believe in God (when forced to attend services at an outing), it became a big hoopla. Due to all the Atheists vs Boy Scouts stuff.

Turns out they think you can't be good (and part of Scouts) unless you have religion.

After my son told him he was buddhist, they shut up. Turns out they don't realize that Buddhists don't believe in a supernatural god.

He made Eagle Scout. Very proud of him, and glad for the great skills/leadership he gained in Scouts, but they need to pull their heads out of the Dark Ages.

 

[Underseer]

A few of the people at work had kids in the same scout troop my kids were in. One of them is aware that i'm nowhere nearly as Christain as she is, and asked me in passing if i'd ever read the Case for Christ. I admitted that i hadn't, without going into what i knew about the book.

Could have been worse, Keith.

When my son told his Scoutmaster he didn't believe in God (when forced to attend services at an outing), it became a big hoopla. Due to all the Atheists vs Boy Scouts stuff.

Turns out they think you can't be good (and part of Scouts) unless you have religion.

After my son told him he was buddhist, they shut up. Turns out they don't realize that Buddhists don't believe in a supernatural god.

He made Eagle Scout. Very proud of him, and glad for the great skills/leadership he gained in Scouts, but they need to pull their heads out of the Dark Ages.

Why would your son stay in an organization that hates him for being atheist?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Why would your son stay in an organization that hates him for being atheist?

Canoes, community, camping, cooking burgers in coffee cans, casting footprints in plaster, songs, pinewood derby, pinewood regatta...

The entire time i was a den leader, they never asked about my religious beliefs. They asked how many kids i could fit in my car.

My kids also enjoyed standing in the den or the troop when the leaders started discussing what horrible people atheists are. It was useful, too, after they found out that the troop leader clearly knew dick about atheists, they automatically questioned his statements about gays and Mormons.

 

[Underseer]

Why would your son stay in an organization that hates him for being atheist?

Canoes, community, camping, cooking burgers in coffee cans, casting footprints in plaster, songs, pinewood derby, pinewood regatta...

The entire time i was a den leader, they never asked about my religious beliefs. They asked how many kids i could fit in my car.

My kids also enjoyed standing in the den or the troop when the leaders started discussing what horrible people atheists are. It was useful, too, after they found out that the troop leader clearly knew dick about atheists, they automatically questioned his statements about gays and Mormons.

Canoeing is fun, therefore it's OK to join an organization that hates you?

That logic is a bit bizarre.

If you ask me, it would be best to find a way to do canoeing without the evil.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Canoeing is fun, therefore it's OK to join an organization that hates you?

I don't remember that you asked why it was okay to join scouts?