Skip to main content

My Problem with the works of Lee Strobel

By Ben Love ~

Okay, so, I have recently "come out," if you will, about being an atheist. This has been shocking to many of my friends because for so long I was heavily involved with evangelical Christianity. I have other blogs on here about my journey from belief to disbelief, which you can read if you want, or not if you don't want [shrugs], but what I want to talk about here is a pattern of messages I have received in response.

To date, 13 different people have recommended to me that I check out the work of Lee Strobel, proclaiming that by doing so I will see the error of my ways.

Let me state emphatically, once and for all, that I have done so, and done so exhaustively. During the course my research, I read everything Lee Strobel wrote, some of it more than once.

I know my Christian friends will consider this the height of sacrilege, but since they feel so free to force him on me, I shall force my views of him right back. The fact is, Lee is a very clever man, and his books are amazing writing, but his work disqualifies itself.

Let me explain.

The books of Lee Strobel present themselves as fair representations of an open-minded attempt to weigh the evidence for and against the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the validity of Christianity's claims, and the case for faith. The truth is that these books are anything but. Lee Strobel is a man who conducted his own research in the late 70s and early 80s and who, after concluding his research, became a Christian. Contrary to what most people think, however, these books are not an account of that research. These were written much later, after the fact, after Lee had already formed a bias on these matters. So what really happened here is that Lee Strobel had already decided what kind of books he wanted to write, what the message would be, what the conclusions would be, and what their final bias would be. He then went out and interviewed experts to support his pre-established bias.

Notice that Lee Strobel did not interview atheists, non-Christians, or experts who supported a differing stance (well, to be fair, out of the 50+ interviewees in his books, maybe 2 or 3 are not Christians, but this is hardly a fair weighing of facts). He hand-picked those well-known scholars who he knew ahead of time would support the message he was already determined to convey. And then, during the interviews, he asks questions which seem, on the surface, to be genuinely fair-minded, but which upon closer inspection, are leading questions, questions cleverly designed to lead the conversation toward a pre-determined conclusion without seeming to do so.

There were other questions Lee could have asked, ones that didn't lead the interview. There were other scholars and experts Lee could have interviewed, ones with just as many impressive credentials but who come to very different conclusions about these matters. But he didn't waste his time on them because he already knew they would not substantiate his aim. Thus, we must observe the following: anyone can gather a room full of like-minded individuals who can pontificatingly support his stance with convincing assertions, but this is hardly critical thinking. It's not even responsible reporting (Strobel, who for years was a reporter with the Chicago Tribune, should know better---he does know better). What it actually is, pure and simple, is propaganda designed to strengthen your faith. And that's fine, but when he masquerades this as open-minded, critical thinking which then, amazingly enough, reaches the same conclusions he has, honest people who want the truth are swayed in the direction of his bias. That is the very definition of propaganda.

Thus, to the fair-minded inquisitor of truth, the books of Lee Strobel are best to be avoided. They are useful only for strengthening faith if that is what you already possess, but if it is unbiased truth you seek, there are better tools at your disposal.

I don't expect Christians to support me on this, but sometimes you can see things differently from the outside than you can on the inside. And yes, you can make the case that you see things differently on the inside than you do on the outside, but don't forget, I was on the inside for ten years. I've seen the view from both vantage points now, and I know which one is truly objective and which one is circular, that is, confirming itself with it's own confirmations.

Anyone could make this claim: "Bigfoot exists because Bigfoot wrote me a letter telling me he exists, and I have experts who have examined this letter and determined that Bigfoot really did write it (yes, true, there are other experts who examined the letter and thought it was totally bogus, but I won't tell you about them)."

But how many can make this claim: "I wanted so bad to believe in Bigfoot; I even did for a little while...but when I was honest with myself, I really had no way of knowing that Bigfoot actually did write this letter. The likeliest scenario, based on what I know about the observable world and the regularity of history, is that someone probably wrote this letter themselves, claiming to be Bigfoot. Even though it hurts to admit this, I really have no true justification to believe in Bigfoot."

Truth is not what you want, truth is what is, and you must go where the evidence leads, otherwise all you're really doing is padding your own comfortable ass.


Popular posts from this blog

So Just How Dumb Were Jesus’ Disciples? The Resurrection, Part VII.

By Robert Conner ~ T he first mention of Jesus’ resurrection comes from a letter written by Paul of Tarsus. Paul appears to have had no interest whatsoever in the “historical” Jesus: “even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, we know him so no longer.” ( 2 Corinthians 5:16 ) Paul’s surviving letters never once mention any of Jesus’ many exorcisms and healings, the raising of Lazarus, or Jesus’ virgin birth, and barely allude to Jesus’ teaching. For Paul, Jesus only gets interesting after he’s dead, but even here Paul’s attention to detail is sketchy at best. For instance, Paul says Jesus “was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” ( 1 Corinthians 15:4 ), but there are no scriptures that foretell the Jewish Messiah would at long last appear only to die at the hands of Gentiles, much less that the Messiah would then be raised from the dead after three days. After his miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus—an event Paul never mentions in his lette

Are You an Atheist Success Story?

By Avangelism Project ~ F acts don’t spread. Stories do. It’s how (good) marketing works, it’s how elections (unfortunately) are won and lost, and it’s how (all) religion spreads. Proselytization isn’t accomplished with better arguments. It’s accomplished with better stories and it’s time we atheists catch up. It’s not like atheists don’t love a good story. Head over to the atheist reddit and take a look if you don’t believe me. We’re all over stories painting religion in a bad light. Nothing wrong with that, but we ignore the value of a story or a testimonial when we’re dealing with Christians. We can’t be so proud to argue the semantics of whether atheism is a belief or deconversion is actually proselytization. When we become more interested in defining our terms than in affecting people, we’ve relegated ourselves to irrelevance preferring to be smug in our minority, but semantically correct, nonbelief. Results Determine Reality The thing is when we opt to bury our


By David Andrew Dugle ~   S ettle down now children, here's the story from the Book of David called The Parable of the Bent Cross. In the land Southeast of Eden –  Eden, Minnesota that is – between two rivers called the Big Miami and the Little Miami, in the name of Saint Gertrude there was once built a church. Here next to it was also built a fine parochial school. The congregation thrived and after a multitude of years, a new, bigger church was erected, well made with clean straight lines and a high steeple topped with a tall, thin cross of gold. The faithful felt proud, but now very low was their money. Their Sunday offerings and school fees did not suffice. Anon, they decided to raise money in an unclean way. One fine summer day the faithful erected tents in the chariot lot between the two buildings. In the tents they set up all manner of games – ring toss, bingo, little mechanical racing horses and roulette wheels – then all who lived in the land between the two rivers we

Christian TV presenter reads out Star Wars plot as story of salvation

An email prankster tricked the host of a Christian TV show into reading out the plots of The Fresh Prince of Bel Air and Star Wars in the belief they were stories of personal salvation. The unsuspecting host read out most of the opening rap to The Fresh Prince, a 1990s US sitcom starring Will Smith , apparently unaware that it was not a genuine testimony of faith. The prankster had slightly adapted the lyrics but the references to a misspent youth playing basketball in West Philadelphia would have been instantly familiar to most viewers. The lines read out by the DJ included: "One day a couple of guys who were up to no good starting making trouble in my living area. I ended up getting into a fight, which terrified my mother." The presenter on Genesis TV , a British Christian channel, eventually realised that he was being pranked and cut the story short – only to move on to another spoof email based on the plot of the Star Wars films. It began: &quo

On Living Virtuously

By Webmdave ~  A s a Christian, living virtuously meant living in a manner that pleased God. Pleasing god (or living virtuously) was explained as: Praying for forgiveness for sins  Accepting Christ as Savior  Frequently reading the Bible  Memorizing Bible verses Being baptized (subject to church rules)  Attending church services  Partaking of the Lord’s Supper  Tithing  Resisting temptations to lie, steal, smoke, drink, party, have lustful thoughts, have sex (outside of marriage) masturbate, etc.  Boldly sharing the Gospel of Salvation with unbelievers The list of virtuous values and expectations grew over time. Once the initial foundational values were safely under the belt, “more virtues'' were introduced. Newer introductions included (among others) harsh condemnation of “worldly” music, homosexuality and abortion Eventually the list of values grew ponderous, and these ideals were not just personal for us Christians. These virtues were used to condemn and disrespect fro

I can fix ignorance; I can't fix stupid!

By Bob O ~ I 'm an atheist and a 52-year veteran of public education. I need not tell anyone the problems associated with having to "duck" the "Which church do you belong to?" with my students and their parents. Once told by a parent that they would rather have a queer for their sons' teacher than an atheist! Spent HOURS going to the restroom right when prayers were performed: before assemblies, sports banquets, "Christmas Programs", awards assemblies, etc... Told everyone that I had a bladder problem. And "yes" it was a copout to many of you, but the old adage (yes, it's religious) accept what you can't change, change that which you can and accept the strength to know the difference! No need arguing that which you will never change. Enough of that. What I'd like to impart is my simple family chemistry. My wife is a Baptist - raised in a Baptist Orphanage (whole stories there) and is a believer. She did not know my religi