The Case for Christ

This is one of a few interesting stories about an atheist with investigative or legal skills deciding to prove that the Bible is fake. A book with the same theme, which has been around over 40 years, is "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" by Josh McDowell, of which this movie reminds me. Overall this movie is inspiring. For a low budget production there are a few remarkables: the quality is high, the acting is good, the cast is impressive, and the final product doesn't beat the audience on the head. If you're not atheist you will most likely enjoy this one. If you are atheist, and you decide to watch, I hope you focus on the evidence presented and disregard some of the emotional tugging. In any case, I recommend it.

The protagonist of this movie briefly mentions the Jonestown massacre, which is ironic considering he's the one who ends up drinking the proverbial Kool-Aid. The Case for Christ follows the hero as he transitions from a quote-unquote investigative reporter to a Christian pastor — not a big loss to the former profession, since Lee Strobel (Mike Vogel) appears to have graduated from the Geraldo school of journalism, pornstache included. Accordingly, the results of his investigation are as disappointing as the contents of Al Capone's vault. For reasons not worth recounting, Lee’s wife Leslie (Erika Christensen) decides to accept Christ into her heart; the atheist Lee reacts to the news as if she’d just confessed having a lover (indeed, at one point he even accuses her of “cheating on him with Jesus”). Following his mentor's advice, Lee sets out to prove that the Resurrection never happened and thereby discredit Christianity. The rest of the film is an illustration that for those who believe in God, no explanation is necessary, and for those who do not believe, no explanation is possible. I would add that for those watching The Case for Christ, no explanation is provided. In essence, the titular case for Christ is made up of a mixture of ipse dixit, proof by assertion, ad hoc hypothesis, and cherry picking. At no time does Strobel question any of this, and the reason is simple: if he did, the entire house of cards would fall faster than Kabul to the Taliban. “When is enough evidence enough evidence?” someone asks Strobel; the answer, which the film conveniently evades, is: when it comes to anecdotal evidence, never. Worst of all, the real-life Strobel's beliefs are as inconsistent and questionable as his journalism; he is so secretly ashamed of his conversion that, in addition to this film and the book on which it is based, there is a documentary, all with the sole purpose of publicly justifying his decision, which after all is absolutely nobody's business but his own. It’s safe to conclude that just as Strobel blatantly lies to his audience, so does he lies to himself (unless his so-called faith is nothing more than a scam to relieve fools of their money, which seems more likely than anything else).