i'm reading the case for christ

By diana on Aug 15, 2010 | In the atheist files

at daddy's request. thought i'd ramble about it for a while today....

I've already commented extensively upon the first two chapters of this book, which provide a crucial foundation for Strobel's argument. As my comments were aimed at Daddy, I posted them on his Facebook wall, then decided I wanted to track my thoughts and get feedback--preferably pointing out the weakness of my arguments--so I copied them, along with relevant links, to a thread at the Secular Cafe. (In retrospect, I probably should have copied them to FRDB instead, as I think that board has far more active, well-educated and articulate theists, but I rarely post to that board anymore.)

You may be wondering why, if I seek negative feedback for my personal comments on The Case For Christ, I didn't take the comments to a theist board--say, Christian Forums or The Preacher's Files. I have a couple of good reasons: first, I avoid such boards now in that I have no interest in challenging the faith of people who have not approached (or condescended to) me first. It's been my repeated experience that any expression of doubt on such boards is regularly perceived as "Christian bashing," regardless of one's tone (and yes, I can be nasty; I can also be most tactful and respectful, but neither is exempt from what seems to be a common Christian tendency to see themselves as martyrs, which gets old...but quick).

I also have no desire to be analyzed; I just want my observations analyzed. Again, I've been through this countless times on theist boards, where the readers don't like what I'm saying, so they do anything they can to discredit the witness (so to speak).

And frankly, most of these boards are overwhelmingly populated by the dangerously unlettered. If this makes me sound elitist, well...so be it. I have little patience with the same non-arguments and assertions I've heard all my life, attractive but vague expressions which have no real meaning (like "let Christ into your heart," or "God transcends time"), quasi-arguments from people who have little knowledge of history or logic but who somehow think that because they have a brain they know how to use it, and poor writing in general.*

* Amazingly, I have the most patience with poor writing, as in poor grammar, spelling, and missing paragraph breaks, than any of the other ones. After three years of teaching English, I learned to note the poor writing skills but to see the ideas the student expresses, which can redeem a poorly written paper a great deal.

And for those of you who believe theologyweb is the answer, I have engaged with James Patrick Holding (aka, Robert Turkel), and found him not only dishonest, but wanting in basic civilities beyond any of the nastiness I experienced on other Christian boards--if that gives you any idea. If there's anything that appalls me more than his behavior, it's the unchecked adoration his supposedly Christian fans heap upon him.

Anyhow, I'm still reading The Case For Christ. I said at the end of my comments last time that I would refrain from any further response unless Daddy requests it. However, I feel compelled to point out some of the tactics Strobel is using in this book.

In case you haven't read it, Strobel presents the case for Christ as though he is defending a witness in the courtroom. He is a journalist by trade and has covered several trials. He has some gripping experiences to share. He seems to feel that, if Christ can be similarly defended, he should be believed.

I've already addressed the paucity of this approach on Daddy's page and the link to the thread where I collected my responses, so I shan't go back into it now.

In the course of his investigation, Strobel interviews several scholars. Before we "meet" the scholar, Strobel gives his resume and paints a picture of the scholar's, well, humanity. This is good, because he establishes the ethos of his subject. That is, we have reason to believe that the scholar is credentialed and honest, so we have reason to believe him (and believe by proxy, Strobel himself).

This is a difficult skill to teach students, by the way--the absolute necessity of establishing oneself as a person to be taken seriously. One of the easiest ways to establish ethos is basically providing the resume of the person we're asked to take seriously. However, this in and of itself is not sufficient. In order to maintain credibility, one must quote authorities within context, do one's own research, and avoid contradicting oneself, skills Strobel has demonstrated to a lesser degree (again...if you're interested in details, read the thread I linked to on Secular Cafe).

After Strobel has firmly established the scholar's credentials and interviewed him, he asks one final question: How has your work in this field affected your faith? Invariably, of course, they say it has strengthened their faith. This is a subtle tactic, which makes it pretty powerful.

As I mentioned in my comments to Daddy (but which does bear repeating), this book is like a fishing lure: It isn't designed to catch fish--just fishermen. Being translated, few if any theists have any notion of why athiests sincerely do not believe in their god. Most if not all of their beliefs regarding atheists are derived from what their preachers or various apologists have told them we believe. Further, this indoctrination is pernicious; I've discovered time and time again that even when I point out that I, as an atheist, do not reject the idea of God for the reasons they think I do, they are convinced that I am lying. Essentially, they fall back on the completely nutty notion that their preacher knows more about my thought processes than I do, and/or that I have reason to lie to them about my reasoning.

Thus, Strobel is wisely catering to this assumption. Not only does he ask questions and make objections (as a self-identified skeptic) which misrepresent the actual arguments atheists make (but which closely approximate what Christians think we think), but by the end of each chapter, he manages to imply that, if one only study enough, one will believe. This is a very nuanced attack on the fact that so many atheists are no longer Christian because they believed their faith could stand up to scrutiny, were not afraid to delve into atheistic books which pointed out the weaknesses of the apologetics they'd heard all their lives, and most importantly, they read the Bible. He wishes to imply that no matter how much we've studied language and history (and I'm more lettered than most in these subjects), we just haven't studied enough (if we are still atheists).

I don't see myself quitting the study of religions and belief any time soon. However, the more research I do, the more horrified I am at what I once believed. Maybe it'll turn around in a few more years, but I rather doubt it.

I've read two books by men who were formerly atheist: Mere Christianity (C.S. Lewis) and this one. In both cases, I believe they were atheist. I cannot read minds, and if they say they didn't believe, then I accept that. But I don't see evidence of reasoned atheism; instead, I see evidence of default atheism. That is, based upon their arguments and what it took to bring them to Christianity, I don't get the impression that they were ever atheists due to research and reason; rather, they just didn't really look into it and/or think about it.

It may sound as though I'm saying "they were atheist but not really," but that isn't what I mean at all. I've known many atheists who were that by default. That is, they never had much, if any, religious training in their lives, and rejected the notion of God as primitive and mythical. I've known many of these in the atheist community who aren't interested in discussing the details of Christianity or the logical arguments for or against the existence of God. They just...don't believe and never have. Period. C.S. Lewis and Lee Strobel seem to fall into these categories.

If Lee was an intellectual objector--that is, if he had come to his atheism based upon research and argument instead of noting a few arguments for atheism which confirmed his default position (which he more or less admits)--this would have been a very different book, if it had ever been a book at all.

I say that because it's possible he might have still been convinced to become Christian, but it would have taken more rigorous questions and research to convince him.

So anyway...I'd like to talk about the extrabiblical sources regarding Jesus, as they are probably considered by most Christians as a very strong point in favor of their claims. I've done a lot of work on these, and find them fascinating.

In the next post. Stand by for more. :)

d
Comment from: Betty Dickey McWhiney [Visitor]
Betty Dickey McWhiney

I do believe my son has this book. If not, I will order it.
I am so shocked by what I had once believed.
Whenever I think I am free,I hear those brainwashing “scripture” comments in my head. As illogical as they are, they still haunt me. I do believe this is why I feel so overwhelmed when I am studying.
I could sell someone on the bible because it is so indoctrinated in me.
Please overlook the poor writing. LOL

08/16/10 @ 11:42
Comment from: Edward T. Babinski [Visitor]
Edward T. Babinski

Hi d, Well spoken. But I take it as a positive sign that so many Christian apologists feel the need to stress that their beliefs are based on intelligence and rationality rather than on “the power of Christ, the fear of the devil, the fear of angering God, the fear of hell, the enticement of heaven,” etc. So at least most debates these days consist of people saying to each other, “you’re uninformed, you’re stupid, you’re irrational,” rather than, “you’re damned,” though I’m sure the latter still gets bandied about, just not as often as in ages past.

Oh, and J. P. Holding jpholding believes that his callous insulting replies are a form of divinely sanctioned “riposte.” He thinks he’s heard it all. And in his mind’s eye I’m sure he has. He knows the Bible is crystal clear, at least his interpretations of it, compared with those of rival inerrantists, etc.

Also, after you’ve read and analyzed Strobel for yourself, I think you’ll enjoy Robert M. Price’s take on the book, The Case Against the Case for Christ.

I am also irked that only freethinkers have composed point by point rebuttals to works of Christian apologetics like Strobel’s. No moderate or liberal Christians take such inerrantist works seriously enough to do so. Of course moderates and liberals already “know” how divinely inspired the Bible is, cover to cover, without having to prove it, they just “know.”


08/18/10 @ 14:53
Comment from: diana [Member]

Hi, Ed! I’m honored to have you visit my modest corner of the web. Welcome!

I am curious what Price has written (I’ve also been told that Richard wrote a response to the book). I’ll check into it once I’ve finished reading it for myself (which will probably include the occasional commentary on what Strobel is missing/ignoring, etc).

And yeah…holding pretty much told me that he thinks he’s a soldier of Christ, or somesuch, and is therefore justified in behaving like a petulant child. I probably mentioned something about “turn the other cheek,” and I know–as a subtle hint–that I posted Galatians 5:22-23 as my signature on that board. He thinks it doesn’t apply to him, of course.

And for the record, I agree. You can tell a Christian by how closely they live according to what they say they believe. By that rule, he is no Christian.

d

08/18/10 @ 17:24


Form is loading...

« extrabiblical sources attesting to the existence of jesusnumber spoofing, qwest, and the fcc »