Like Strobel's The Case for Christ, each chapter of the book deals with a different issue in an interview with a different "expert". The Case for Faith is written specifically for people who on their way to Jesus "are faced with intellectual barriers standing squarely in their path" (from the back of the book summary).
Overall, The Case for Faith was a much more enjoyable read than The Case for Christ. It serves as an interesting example of how Christian apologetics deal with different theological issues. I found it a fun (though frustrating) read. I would recommend it if someone was looking for an example of popular apologetics, but not for anyone looking for a serious look at philosophy of religion or theology. Most of the arguments are either what you would expect to hear from students in a first year philosophy course, or worse.
A quick look at each chapter:
Objection #1: Suffering Disproves God (interviewee: Peter John Kreeft)
Of course, one of the first issues the book seeks to deal with is the issue of suffering. The chapter can be summed up as follows: Free will leads to evil (what about natural disasters?), and the experience of evil often leads people to a strengthened faith. Therefore evil isn't such a bad thing, since it brings people closer to God! One could question why an omniscient being can't come up with a slightly better way of doing things, and this brings up all sorts of questions about what the interaction between free will and human psychology is (why do people become more faithful after experiencing suffering? Due to some psychological fact about humans. Why couldn't God change human psychology so that the experience of eating ice cream brought us closer to him? This no more takes away our freedom than the way things currently are.)
The best part of the chapter, or perhaps the book, occurs on page 47. I will quote it in full so I can't be accused of taking it out of context (I assume it will be hard to believe that this quote occurs in the book):
"Are there any other ways in which you believe evil works against atheism?" [Strobel] asked.Wow. This is an amazing quote. Kreeft should get some kind of an award for this. I've tried counting the number of errors/misconceptions present in this passage, but sometimes something is so far from making any sense that it isn't possible to sort out the tangled mess of assumptions being used. Here is my attempt at a short (not exhaustive) list of all of the major errors/misconceptions (if you are bored, try finding more and writing them in a comment).
"Yes, there are," [Kreeft] replied. "If there is no Creator and therefore no moment of creation, then everything is the result of evolution. If there was no beginning or first cause, then the universe must have always existed. That means the universe has been evolving for an infinite amount of time-and, by now, everything should already be perfect. There would have been plenty of time for evolution to have finished and evil to have been vanquished. But there still is evil and suffering and imperfection-and that proves the atheist wrong about the universe."
- Atheism does not imply that the universe has existed in its present form for eternity. There is simply no reason to think that if there is not a god, the universe must have existed forever.
- Even if the universe did exist forever, biological evolution is not progressive. Species tend to evolve to fit their environment, not to become "perfect". Even if a species is a perfect fit for their evironment, when that environment changes, so will they.
- Even if the universe existed forever AND evolution was progressive, there is no reason to think the end result would be perfection. The function could asymptote off at some point due to a physical restraint (i.e. there may be no physical way that organisms could evolve to not be completely prone to cancer). There is also the issue of "arms races" between species, which could go on forever, and whenever one species is ahead of the other, members of the other species suffer.
- Finally, even if the universe existed forever, evolution was progressive, and there were no physical restraints keeping organisms from reaching perfection, the universe could be cyclic. That is, it could be the case that every 20 billion years or so, the universe goes through a "big crunch", and begins in a new big bang event. There would be an eternal universe, but only a finite time for organisms to evolve.
This chapter is not as interesting as the first. It can be summarized simply as: No, miracles don't contradict science, because God can do anything. That's fine with me (is this objection really supposed to be a serious one, or is this chapter just filler?). If you assume an omnipotent being that can do anything, including break natural laws, then miracles aren't too big of a problem. The problem is providing evidence that shows the assumption is warranted.
Objection #3: Evolution Explains Life, So God Isn't Needed (interviewee: Walter L. Bradley)
Oh boy. Creationism time. This chapter isn't too fun - it is just a rehash of intelligent design propaganda without anything new. I assume that the next book, The Case for a Creator, will deal with this in depth. Since I will likely be reviewing that book next, I'll leave this stuff until then.
Objection #4: God Isn't Worthy of Worship If He Kills Innocent Children (interviewee: Norman L. Geisler)
This chapter brings us back to some fun stuff. The bible describes (in numerous instances) God killing or ordering the killing of many children. Some instances: the great flood, the curse of Egypt, genocide of the Amalekites, destruction of the Canaanites, bears mauling 42 kids for calling Elisha a baldhead, etc.
This chapter deals with the genocides in the following way:
1. Children aren't innocent, because they have original sin.
2. Children who die while young get to go to heaven, so it's a good thing if they die (but don't you go kill them unless God tells you to!)
3. Children growing up in these corrupt societies (God was ordering their destruction because they were corrupt) will grow up to be corrupt, so it's really best if they die (what happened to free will?).
Somehow, I doubt many people find this sort of reasoning convincing.
Better yet is the way it deals with the story of Elisha and the bears. It is claimed that the people mauled to death were "youths", which probably means young adults. They also probably had violent intentions. Therefore, obviously, it is justifiable that God sent down bears to maul them.
Objection #5: It's Offensive to Claim Jesus Is the Only Way to God (interviewee: Ravi Zacharias)
This seems to be another filler chapter. Summary: There is no way for a faith to include everyone, and it isn't offensive if it's the truth.
Objection #6: A Loving God Would Never Torture People in Hell (interviewee: J.P. Moreland)
Basically, it is claimed that God doesn't torture people in hell. At least, not actively. Hell is actually just separation from God, and this is extremely painful. But the big claim is this: everyone chooses to be separated from God. The audacious claim is made that actually, all atheists know deep down that there is a god. God gave us just enough evidence to let us know he exists but not so much that it isn't possible to claim he doesn't, so atheists have a way out. Atheists actually all disbelieve for other underlying reasons (i.e. they are being rebellious, don't want it to be true, or have a bad relationship with their father). Quite simply, no satisfactory rebuttal of the objection presented in this chapter was given.
Objection #7: Church History is Littered with Oppression and Violence (interviewee: John Woodbridge)
This chapter is about what you would expect. The evils done by Christianity were done by misguided people, and Christianity leads people to do many good things. It's just a No True Scotsman fallacy coupled with cherry-picking the good things Christians have done or do.
Objection #8: I Still Have Doubts, So I Can't Be Christian (interviewee: Lynn Anderson)
It is claimed that it is natural to have doubts, but this is okay. This chapter doesn't really have any argumentation, it is just trying to give Christians a "stick-with-it" attitude towards their faith.
That's all. As I said, it is an interesting example of Christian apologetics. However, it seems all of the issues are either not dealt with very well, or not very serious objections to begin with.
