Some of the interviews are pretty good, and all of them have something of value, for those who are looking for it. I doubt most of the interviewees would call themselves "fundamentalists," as one reviewer describes them; certainly not Catholic philosopher, Peter Kreeft! Kreeft is generally good on the Problem of Pain, though some of his solutions may seem a bit post hoc to those who do not share Christian assumptions. Sometimes the honest bewilderment of Job seems preferable to clever philosophical answers. Not that Kreeft's answers are merely clever; it's a tough question, and there is a lot to what he says. William Craig is, as always, sharp (on miracles, here) informed about contrary positions, and accustomed to fielding questions in the environment of debates with top skeptics, not just Christian pep rallies, qualifies himself appropriately. Walter Bradley's discussion of the difficulty of life emerging from non-life was excellent. I only noticed one lapse. But it was a major one: he didn't mention the idea of molecular evolution, and Strobel didn't ask. I'm not sure that's a very good solution, and Bradley's arguments may largely answer it anyway, but not bringing the question up I found rather gauling. Ravi Zacharius did better than I expected on Jesus being the only way to God. But while Zacharius gave good general theological answers, and he seems to know Western philosophy fairly well, I didn't see much evidence of deep and sympathetic knowledge of non-Christian religions.

The chapter on church history was, in my opinion, weaker than it should have been, though for a different reason. John Woodbridge may be an excellent historian, but he doesn't appear to be an apologist. He relates the conventional version of what happened, rather than putting events in philosophical and spiritual context. For example, he mentions the Crusades without explaining the background of Muslim conquests or the reality of Turkic rule, the makeup of the "Christian" troops sent to the Middle East, or contextual facts such as that Pope Innocent's promise of salvation to fallen warriors was an echo of the Muslim promise, half a millenia earlier, that "the way to Paradise is lit by the flash of swords!" The "Christianity" of the era, in other words, had itself become partly Muslim.

I found Geisler quite disappointing. His argument that God was being nice when he ordered genocide on the Palestinians was unsatisfactory, to put it mildly. Better to say you don't understand, and admit perplexity, than to give lame explanations like that. At least say "maybe" or "the way I see it." (Richard Wurmbrand, a Christian pastor who was tortured by the communists, writes briefly on the subject with more authority, and empathy. See In God's Underground.) Then Geisler claimed that the Fall of man was responsible for animal suffering. Strobel didn't even ask, "What about the millions of fossils of animals we find in layers of rock untroubled by any footprint of man? Were the effects of the Fall retroactive?" The question glares from the text like a flare. These lapses were unfortunate, because other things Geisler said could be helpful, if the whole were packaged a little more carefully, and critiqued more thoroughly.

While this book is entitled "The Case For Faith," in fact it does not mention a lot of the best evidence for the Christian faith, and is largely defensive in nature. (Answering objections as much as giving positive arguments.) While I disagree with some arguments, I think it may be helpful to many people. As other readers said, it is a generally good introduction to the subject.

51 of 60 found the following review helpful:

Solid, convincing answers to the toughest questions  Oct 06, 2000

This excellent resource provides persuasive answers to the "Big 8" objections to Christianity. As a former skeptic myself, I consider this book to be the very best of its type in terms of readability, cogent analysis, and honest engagement with the most difficult issues involving Christianity. Like the author's previous best-seller, "The Case for Christ," this book is sure to garner a huge number of strong supporters as well as a small group of vociferous critics. That's because some people simply won't like the author's conclusions and will do anything to discourage people from reading the book. However, read the negative reviews yourself and you'll see their logical holes or their blatant misunderstanding of the author's points. Incredibly, one reviewer accuses the author of not disclosing he's a minister -- when that very fact is emblazoned across the back of the book! So the credibility belongs to the author, and anyone who is sincerely seeking answers to their tough questions about faith will find this book to be thorough, engaging, and potentially life-changing!

22 of 25 found the following review helpful:

An answer to many difficult questions...  Mar 16, 2004

The Case for Faith is a must-read for those who want to believe in the promise of Christianity yet feel hindered by nagging doubts. This book looks at 8 major issues that keep many people from truly accepting Christ. As a major skeptic, I read this book and found that the scholars interviewed within the pages offered convincing arguments as to why we should believe. Like many others, I had a hard time believing that a loving God could exist when there is so much pain and suffering in the world; that is one of eight issues explored within the book. Strobel does not rely on his own ponderings to answer these fundamental questions to the validity of Christianity; rather, he interviews scholars and scientists, all of whom give thoroughly researched answers, not vague dogmatic assertions.

36 of 43 found the following review helpful:

Philosophically Strong, Scientifically Weak  Jan 24, 2005
By Z. Holmboe "Biologist and Christian"
It cannot be overstated what Lee Strobel has done for apologetics. He is truly talented and articulate. I think that his lack of fear in tackling big Christian issues is noble. This book, like "The Case for Christ", is an enjoyable and faith-building read.

That said, I would like to make my one contention. Namely, as an individual with his master's degree, and a major in biology, I cannot help but say that Strobel's chapter on evolution is misleading at best. The issue is not about that one chapter, but the fact that his lack of forwardness may encourage honestly investigating "seekers" to discredit all his work.

First, he says that if evolution exists, it undermines God. Says who? He does not support this statement, but assumes it, as many uneducated about biology do. Strobel is willing to accept many non-literal interpretations of the bible (see his chapter on hell), but he is not willing to state that perhaps Genesis was written in a non-literal way.

Second, he says that any thinking person has to admit that evolution occurs, "at least somewhat". But, if evolution occurs, and it undermines God, then why is he writing this book?

Third, he talks nothing about evolution, but, rather, the origin of the first living thing. A misunderstanding about evolution is that it claims to answer where the first living thing came from. Evolution describes a pattern of change in organisms over time. It does not say where the first organism originated. There are scientists who study that, and Strobel does confront those scientists well.

The reality is, there is virtually universal consensus among biologists that evolution occurs; and among those people are Christians who see evolution as no threat to their faith whatsoever. Many would even argue that, once take slightly non-literally, Genesis takes on a surprisingly accurate description of exactly what scientists of all types are elucidating about our universe, and, as such reinforces the validity of the bible.

It seems, in this chapter, as though he is catering to a vocal demographic of Christians who wish their faith to be the result of neglected evidence, as opposed to supporting evidence. It goes without saying that there is plenty of supportive evidence as to believing in Christ, and, as such, it is disappointing to make such a flimsy argument here.

The biggest problem is not the lack of supportive evidence against evolution; it is that it undermines one's confidence in the rest of his work. The major problem is that he is in a position where people are using him to find their faith. If he becomes partial in the evidence he considers, then those reading him will begin to discount all his work, based on a few flaws, even if most of it is sound.

I am not willing to remain silent as he alienates well-educated people from Christ because he doesn't want to upset those pre-existing Christians who wish to deny the overwhelming evidence for evolution. He should not be writing things so poorly supported that people have to question the overall support of the evidence for Christ.

I would like to reiterate that I do find his work to be generally well supported, and think that he is doing great work. I simply could not leave it unsaid that this chapter could be seen as an apologetic weakness that encouraged greater skepticism in his work.

See all 253 customer reviews on Amazon.com