Book Club Questions for The Case for Faith

1.Strobel opens by recounting an interview with Charles Templeton — once Billy Graham's evangelistic partner, who eventually abandoned the Christian faith. What reason did Templeton give for his departure, and what did his emotional response in that interview reveal to Strobel about the staying power of these doubts?

2.Strobel distinguishes between 'doubt as a symptom of a rebellious will' and 'doubt as an honest intellectual struggle.' Do you think that distinction is valid? Which kind of doubt do you most often experience — or observe in people around you?

3.The book is structured around eight 'rocks of doubt.' Before reading further, which of the eight objections listed in the introduction do you find most personally troubling or most frequently raised by people you know?

1.Kreeft distinguishes between three types of evil: moral evil (caused by human choices), natural evil (earthquakes, disease), and what he calls the 'evil of loss.' How does each type challenge the existence of a good God differently, and do you find his distinctions helpful or overly academic?

2.Kreeft argues that free will is the key to understanding moral evil — that a world with genuine freedom will inevitably include the possibility of great harm. Do you find that answer satisfying? What does it leave unexplained?

3.One of Kreeft's central points is that God can bring good out of suffering without causing the suffering. He points to the cross as the supreme example. How does the cross specifically address the problem of evil — not just philosophically, but personally?

1.Craig argues that the objection 'miracles are impossible' often smuggles in a philosophical assumption — namely, naturalism (the belief that nature is all there is) — and then presents it as a scientific conclusion. Can you explain that distinction in your own words? Why does it matter?

2.David Hume's famous argument against miracles holds that the uniform experience of nature always outweighs any testimony for a miraculous exception. Craig counters that this argument is circular. What is the circularity Hume falls into, and do you find Craig's rebuttal persuasive?

3.Craig points out that science describes how the natural world normally operates — but that a miracle, by definition, is God acting in an unusual way within His own creation. Does that distinction help you think about the relationship between science and faith? Where does it still feel uncomfortable?

1.Bradley is an engineer and materials scientist, not a theologian. Why does Strobel choose a scientist rather than a philosopher or pastor to address this objection? What does that choice say about how Strobel thinks this question should be engaged?

2.Bradley distinguishes between the question of biological evolution (how existing life changes over time) and the question of the origin of life (how the first living cell arose from non-living matter). Why is that distinction crucial for this objection? Which question does Darwinian evolution actually address?

3.Bradley discusses the staggering complexity of DNA and the information it encodes, arguing that undirected chemical processes cannot account for the origin of biological information. Do you find that argument compelling? What would a skeptic say in response?

1.What specific Old Testament passages does Strobel identify as most troubling — both to himself and to the skeptics he has encountered? Which of those passages do you find most difficult to read with a clear conscience?

2.Geisler argues that God, as the Author of life, has the sovereign right to determine when and how life ends — and that this is categorically different from a human being taking a life arbitrarily. Do you find that distinction morally satisfying, or does it feel like it proves too much (i.e., it could be used to justify anything attributed to God)?

3.Geisler discusses the Canaanite conquest, arguing that God's commands must be understood in the context of centuries of patient warning, extreme moral corruption, and the preservation of the messianic line through Israel. How does that historical context change (or fail to change) your moral response to the text?

1.Zacharias opens by noting that every major world religion makes exclusive truth claims — not just Christianity. How does that observation reframe the charge of Christian 'arrogance,' and what does it tell us about the nature of religious truth claims in general?

2.Strobel presses Zacharias on the logical coherence of religious pluralism — the view that all paths lead to God. Zacharias argues that pluralism is itself an exclusive claim (i.e., 'anyone who says their path is the only way is wrong'). Unpack that argument. Do you find it convincing?

3.Zacharias draws on his own background — growing up in India surrounded by Hinduism, Islam, and other traditions — to argue that the differences between world religions are real and significant, not merely superficial variations on a common theme. What are two or three substantive differences between Christianity and another major religion that cannot simply be harmonized away?

1.Moreland argues that hell is not primarily a place of physical torture that God inflicts on people, but rather the end result of a person's own freely chosen trajectory away from God — a condition of utter God-forsakenness that is, in a sense, what people have been choosing all along. How does that reframing change the emotional and moral weight of the doctrine for you?

2.Strobel pushes Moreland on the 'eternal' aspect of hell — why would finite sins deserve infinite punishment? Moreland's response involves the nature of the self, the ongoing choices of the damned, and the infinitely weighty nature of rejecting an infinite God. Which part of his answer do you find most and least persuasive?

3.Moreland discusses annihilationism (the view that the unsaved are simply extinguished after judgment) as a possible alternative to traditional eternal conscious torment. What are the strongest biblical and theological arguments for and against annihilationism?

1.Woodbridge does not minimize the church's historical atrocities — he names them plainly. Why is intellectual honesty about the church's failures important for apologetics? What happens when Christians either dismiss or over-explain these sins?

2.Strobel and Woodbridge distinguish between Christianity as a system of beliefs and truth claims, and 'Christendom' as the historically mixed cultural and political institution. Why is that distinction logically important? Does a person's sinful behavior in the name of Christ disprove Christ's claims?

3.Woodbridge points out that the abolition of slavery, the founding of hospitals and universities, the development of human rights concepts, and the emergence of modern science were all significantly shaped by Christian conviction. How does that positive historical record interact with the record of atrocity, and how should we hold both together honestly?

1.Strobel profiles people who describe faith not as something they argued their way into, but as something that grew (or collapsed) through experience, community, and spiritual practice. How does that story sit alongside the more evidential, argumentative approach of the book's earlier chapters? Are they in tension?

2.Alister McGrath shares his own journey from atheism to Christian faith, noting that intellectual arguments were necessary but not sufficient — something else had to happen. What does he identify as the additional factors, and do you recognize any of them in your own story?

3.Psalm 22 opens with the cry, 'My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?' — a cry Jesus Himself repeated from the cross. What does it mean that the experience of divine absence is not just permitted but actually embedded in the Psalms and in Christ's own experience?

1.Strobel's conclusion is personal — he reflects on his own experience of moving from intellectual persuasion to life-transforming commitment. What does he identify as the gap between believing the arguments and actually trusting Christ? Have you experienced that gap yourself?

2.Strobel uses the analogy of a jury reaching a verdict: at some point, the deliberation must end and a decision must be made, even without absolute certainty. How does that analogy resonate with how you think about faith? What would 'rendering a verdict' look like for you right now?

3.The story of Thomas in John 20 functions as a bookend for the book — a man who demanded evidence, received it, and responded with the most exalted confession in the Gospels: 'My Lord and my God.' What does Thomas's story say about the legitimacy of doubt as a path to deeper faith, rather than a barrier to it?

1.Looking back across all eight objections, which one had the greatest personal impact on you — either because it addressed a doubt you'd carried for a long time, or because it opened a question you hadn't fully considered before? What made it land so powerfully?

2.Has your understanding of the relationship between faith and doubt changed through this study? Before you started, how would you have described that relationship — and how would you describe it now?

3.Strobel's method throughout the book is to go to the best thinkers on each question — Kreeft, Craig, Zacharias, Moreland, Woodbridge, and others. Whose interview was most persuasive or most illuminating for you, and why?