Rating: 
Summary: An okay introduction
Review: Its been a couple of years since I read ATHEISM: THE CASE AGAINST GOD (ATCAG). It made a great impression on my philosophical development. At first, I thought the book was systematic and thorough, leaving no stone unturned. Several days ago I saw it while at a bookstore and read a few passages. Smith is extremely dogmatic defining words in a manner that has a polarizing effect. 'Reason' and 'faith' (the f-word) are good examples. Reason is the god-word. It's all encompassing and infallible. 'Faith' is defined as being irrational. Smith constructs strawman after strawman and topples them with the greatest ease. The tone reads as though its pointless. Why bother even dismissing something so obviously false? I'm an atheist, but have encountered better articles. I also have a bit of a problem with Smith referring to Ayn Rand and Nathaneil Branden as though their experts on the subject. The book's epistemology (theory of knowledge) is "objectivist" throughout. A theist can attack Smith's 18th century philosophy (mad dog empiricsm) and make a decent case for why ATCAG fails. Now to address a previous review... The anthropocentric principle is not really taken seriously by any philosophers today. In a radio interview Smith even reccomends Dawkins' wonderful book THE BLINDWATCHMAKER as thorough case against the teleology argument. The anthropocentric argument misunderstands statistics. Its also inexcusably arbitrary. Why must it be the anthropocentric argument? That's speciest (obviously). Why not the entomological argument (that is, insects.)? After all, insects are the most successful organism known. The late Carl Sagan mockingly offered the ligthic (spelling is probably wrong), which is rocks. The universe seems well "designed" to turn out rocks. There was an article not long ago in REASON magazine (Smih used to write for it, coincidentially). It addresses the anthropocentric principle in an article called, "God is in the details" or something like that. Two years ago I would have probably given this book five stars. Other decent arguments agains God can be found in Russell's classic WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN and Michael Martin's ATHEISM: A PHILOSOPHICAL JUSTIFICATION.
Rating:
Summary: NEVER PROVIDES EVIDENCE AGAINST GOD
Review: All George H.Smith does is define Atheism, as that which has no knowledge of God, He does not claim that Atheist need TO KNOW THAT GOD EXIST. At any rate, his use of term Atheism, fits the definition of Agnosticism perfectly. The second thing that Smith does is that he does not present any arguments against God. He simply finds the telological, cosmological, and other arguments not sufficent. Then he says once he has done that, you can call yourself an Atheist. In response to the arguments the author presents to the reader to options to the existence of God. 1. That of an eternal universe. 2. Or the infinte regression of Bertrand Russell. If you can debunk these two explanations, then Smith's book will crumble. On page 241 he makes this statement in regards of dismissing the First Cause argument: "A casual primary, on the other hand, is the metaphysical basis for the concept of casuality. IT DOES NOT REQUIRE EXPLANATION, BECAUSE IT MAKES EXPLANATION POSSIBLE...Existence, the casual primary, is presupposed by all casual processes." What is casual primary? In all my years in studying philosophy, Iv'e never heard of such a term. It would be quite interesting if we were to replace the word "casual primary" with the word "God".... A rose by another name if you ask me. The next chapter I has problems with was Chapter 12. "the sins of Christianity." How can you have Sin (or absolute morals) in a Atheistic worldview? You need an infinte refreence point to determine what is right and wrond, in the absolute sense. The other interesting chapter is "revelation", chapter 7. which attacks the Bible uses of types. In the Book of Hebrews it uses the type of Issac and Abrham in regards to Jesus' and the Father. I see no problem in this. The next thing that he does in the chapter 12(pp.317-19) about Jesus' presenting "new morals". Those spoken in Matthew 5. Jesus' here never said that he was presenting anything contrary to the Old Testament. Nor, did he present anything new. Smith thinks that because he has found such ethics in the Old Testament, make "Jesus did not devaite from traditionaly Judaism as much as the Gospel wrtiers would simetimes like us to believe (p.319)." The point here is that they WEREN'T. The Jews of Jesus' day were misusing the Old testament, and making voi the word of God by their tradition, and He was correcting them. I think Smith is going to have to find better evidence against Jesus' then this. It comes from his own lack of understanding the Bible. Robert
Rating: 
Summary: A Logical Arguement against God.
Review: Before reading this book I was an agnostic-atheist. But after reading I have reaffirmed my total stance as an athiest. It's logical distruction of faith, leaves me in reaffrimation that someone else but me has the same thoughts. I applaud George H. Smith for making a book so direct. I only wish more people would read this book and discover it's truths.
Rating: 
Summary: A true lightweight
Review: It is unfortunate that I was forced to rate this book at least one star. If I had my way, I would not have given it any stars at all. If you want sophmoric drivel, then this book is for you. The section on the argument from Design was one of the weakest I have ever read (and I have read quite a few). Smith did not even bother to engage the Anthropic Principle in his book. Since it was published in '79, even some mentioning of it would not seem too much to ask. However, there is nothing on the AP at all. This tells me one of two things: either Smith is ignorant of the AP (in which he CERTAINLY should not be writing a critique of the design argument) or the AP makes him a bit nervous & fidgety. In either case, Smith's intellectual impotence shines thru this omission. If Smith proves nothing else in this book, he proves without a shadow of a doubt that he does not understand the argument from Design. His section on the first cause argument is not much better. Is it too much to ask that Smith have SOME scientific knowledge in these matters? If so, why is he even writing the book in the first place? The book is also written in an angry tone. Evidently, some theist(s) at one time or another must have really stepped on his toes. That is all fine and well, but it does not excuse such a condescending tone. This is a lousy book & it will be a long time before Smith gains the status of amateur philosopher (if ever).
Rating:
Summary: Well-argumented but slightly shrill
Review: While Smith has clearly thought through his arguments against theism, he is handicapped to a certain extent by his over-emotionalism. It is clear in many passages that the author has a personal bone to pick with "believers" (and Christians in particular). I agree with him on just about all points but this sort of emotionalism is bound to sabotage his credibility regardless of whether he's right or wrong. Like any good philosopher he needs to step back and regard the issue a bit less stridently. One thing he needs to accept is the fact that logic is not going to work as a weapon against religious dogma. The "faithful" are not interested in fact, logic, the scientific method, or anything else. All they want is reassurance, sad as that may be. Anything less than complete validation will not be accepted. This, of course, should not discourage anyone from the pursuit of truth. But, if someone has an emotional need to believe the sky is purple and pigs can fly there is really nothing anyone can say that will change their mind.
Rating: 
Summary: A fantastic introduction to the reasoning behind atheism.
Review: I really enjoyed this book. I have the highest respect for George H. Smith because of his respect for reason and logic and his courage to say the things he believes. He can be harsh and a bit unfair to theists at times, which is why I am not giving the book 5 stars, but it is still an excellent choice for anyone interested in the subject of atheism.
Rating:
Summary: An excellent introduction to atheism
Review: Although not the best philosophical defense of atheism, and not nearly as comprehensive and universal as, say, Michael Martin's magnum opus, Smith's book serves as an excellent introduction to an atheistic epistemology. Smith's arguments are clear, concise and, for the most part, persuasive. I can't help but notice that most people who reject the book -- one example is the individual who reviewed this book on 1/19/00 -- do not offer any good, sound reasons for their rejection; the above mentioned reviewer, for instance, dismissed a certain dialouge-form argument in "The Skepticism of Faith" as fallacious, simply because it IS a dialogue! The fact is, Smith's book makes many people feel uncomfortable, and justly so. Although it cannot be construed as a comprehensive defense of atheism -- Smith's arguments are based off of his empirical philsophy, which can only be called neo-Objectivist -- Smith's book serves as an excellent starting point from which to study atheological philosophy. ~DH
Rating:
Summary: Intellectual and spiritual bankruptcy
Review: If both the reader from Texas and the reader from Ireland were to read page 88 of this book in the chapter 'The God of Christianity', they will see that Smith actually asserts: "Given the attempts to define god, we may now state - with certainty - that God does not exist". Smith makes these conclusions without any appeals to faith, but based upon fallacious and shallow, naïve arguments. Any conclusion that "we may now state - with certainty - that God does not exist" or "the existence of God is impossible" are clearly words from a fundamentalist nutter - especially as Smith claims that 'faith' is not necessary for such claims. (Who said you need to be religious to be a fundamentalist nut? Smith fits the bill better than any Christian). Smith strangely assumes that the descriptions "omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent" are contradictory because 'suffering' exists in Creation. But Smith is taking a very shallow perspective on the issue and is ignoring Christians' belief that God is 'Love'. Smith either cannot comprehend, or has never experienced the true nature of love. Love, (or an 'Infinite Love' in the case of God), cannot manipulate the beloved - in this case, the cosmos. Therefore logically, just as God cannot create square circles, God also cannot prevent 'pain' from being a consequence of self-giving love. Indeed, God's omnipotence is understood by the Christian faith as God's capacity to enter into love with all its costs. (The divine 'self-giving' is central to the Christian faith - re: the sacrifice of Christ). But of course, Smith goes no deeper into the nature of spirituality or theism, as much as he would go deep into thoughts about the existence of Santa Claus. So what of Smith's conclusion that "We may NOW state - with certainty - that God does not exist"? In a word, FALLACY! The whole of this book is a fallacy. Believe in it at the cost of complete intellectual and spiritual bankruptcy.
Rating:
Summary: A good book for ideologists and superstitious people.
Review: This is a good book for describing Atheistic superstition and emotional ideologies. In his first chapter 'The Scope of Atheism', Smith describes the difference between implicit and explicit atheism, and then concludes that "atheism is not a belief". However, atheism is most certainly a belief because atheists do not possess an infallible knowledge of everything. Atheism exclusively rules out any kind of belief in a supernatural agent or an intelligent Source, therefore, by definition, atheists believe that natural causes can account for the whole of reality - including the nature of the infinite, the ultimate source of the material world, consciousness, and the sustaining reality of being. Smith's argument is flawed and fallacious because he fails to acknowledge the fact that atheists' belief is necessarily shifted onto materialism. Smith asserts that faith is "irrational" and that any appeals to faith are "unacceptable". Theists are now in the position to insist that Smith carries the logical burden of these assertions to its full conclusion. Is it true that God does not exist and that an intelligent agent was NOT the cause of the material Universe? Is it true that our existence was not intentional? Is it true that the Universe has no inherent meaning? Are Smith's conclusions that "We may state, with certainty, that God does not exist", true? According to Smith's own criteria, all of these statements are "unacceptable" and "irrational". Due to the fact that human beings do not possess an infallible knowledge of everything, such assertions must necessarily be grounded in faith. A mathematically ordered Universe which happened to become aware of itself, and which gave rise to friendship, love and spiritual creativity is not a good sign that the Universe is purposeless and that our existence was not intentional. Indeed, the fact that something exists, rather than nothing at all, is also not a good sign that the Infinite is inherently meaningless. In his chapter 'Reason Verses Faith', Smith says: "Scratch the surface of a Christian, and you find an agnostic." But Smith has got it the wrong way round. The difference between theists and atheists is that theists wholeheartedly acknowledge the necessity of faith. With regard to theistic faith, if the source of the material Universe possessed intelligence which exists beyond the framework of science, then how can theists be expected to "prove" His existence? 'Faith' is the key - for every human being alive. The truth is that if you scratch the surface of an atheist who denies 'belief' (such as Smith), then you find an agnostic. If the atheist persists in denying the necessity of 'belief' (such as Smith), then I'm afraid you find an irrational human being. In his Chapter 'The Skepticism of Faith", Smith equates belief in God with belief in Santa Claus, and claims that you cannot dis-prove the existence of Santa Claus equally as much as you cannot dis-prove the existence of God. If Smith truly sees 'Santa Claus' on an equal level to the existence of the Infinite and deep spiritual fulfilment, then Smith has neatly exhibited how defective and shallow his perspective on theism and reality actually is. Smith fails to appreciate the fact that the Bible is a totally different type of book to a scientific literal text book, and he approaches every passage literally and concludes that the text is "irrational". His appreciation and knowledge about any kind of spirituality, depth, or theistic faith is completely defective, and his conclusions are frankly illogical. Any arguments which Smith sets against Christianity, he targets the most extreme, fundamentalist and un-worldy Christians you could imagine. If Smith sincerely believes that all theists and Christians are as portrayed, then it merely reveals Smith's narrow minded and ideological outlook on reality. Throughout the Chapters which contain a dialogue between a skeptic and an 'antiskeptic', Smith always rigs the dialogue so that the antiskeptic always ends up losing the argument. This method of deriding an opposing belief reveals spinelessness and pre-meditated fallacies. In short, the very heart and grounding of Smith's case against God is flawed and deeply fallacious. Smith's 'Atheism' is ideological and emotional to the core, but what makes it all the more incredible and disgraceful, is Smith's outright denial of the necessity of faith. And people say that Atheism is freedom from dogma? When are adherents of Smith going to open their eyes?
Rating:
Summary: An excellent and comprehensive introduction to atheism
Review: Smith's book is a must read for anyone interested in atheism. It covers all the major atheist arguments in a clear and accessable manner. There is nothing essentially 'new' in it, but it's about the best collection of arguements for atheism about. In chapter on the Cosmological arguements, however, Smith seems at times to lack knowelege of some scientific principles and discoveries that could bolster his case even further. But as the book was written in 1979, this can probably be excused. Let me correct some misrepresentations made by a previous reviewer. On page 17 Smith does not 'assert that "the existence of God impossible."'. He merely states :"Critical atheism also assumes stronger forms, such as, 'God does not exist' or, 'The existence of God impossible.' This is a statement of fact in regards to the definition of critical atheism. Furthermore, on page 61 Smith actually says: "If the concept of God contains contradictory attributes, we may state - with certainty - that God does not exist." This is a sound logical statement, as the form of contradiction to which Smith is refering would be illogical.
| 
