Rating: 
Summary: ATHEISM
Review: ATHEISM IS OKAY. EACH PERSON HAS A RIGHT TO BELIEVE IN WHATEVER HE/SHE WANTS TO BELIEVE. RELIGION IS A WAY OF LIFE. HAVING NO RELIGION IS ANOTHER WAY OF LIFE. AS LONG AS NOBODY IMPOSES HIS/HER BELIEF TO OTHERS, IT IS FINE. IF YOU DO NOT LIKE ATHEISM DO NOT READ THIS BOOK. I READ THIS BOOK BECAUSE I WANT TO UNDERSTAND HOW OTHERS LOOK AT THE UNIVERSE. THIS BOOK GAVE ME A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF HOW ATHEISTS LOOK AT TEH UNIVERSE. IT IS NOT MY WAY BUT VERY HELPFUL UNDERSTANDING THOSE PEOPLE. THIS BOOK WAS NOT OFFENSIVE AT ALL, BUT JUST INFORMATIVE. OUR DEAR FRIEND BOB WALLACE REFERED TO ATHEISM AS A CAUSE OF NAZISM. AS IN CHRISTIANITY NATION MANY ARE NOT INFORMED THE FACT THAT "NAZISM WAS CAUSED BY DEVOTED CHRISTIANS. AUSCHWITZ FACILITIES WERE BUILT BY CATHOLIC CHURCH." HERE I REPRESENT 200 MILLION INNOCENT VICTIMS OF CHRISTIANS' ARROGANCE. PROPAGANDA OFTEN COMES IN YOUR BRAIN UNCONCIOUSLY. IN CHRISTIANITY NATIONS ABOVE FACT IS OFTEN CONCEALED. READING ARTICLES FROM VARIOUS SOURCES IS EXTREMELY HELPFUL TO UNDERSTAND THE TRUTH. THIS BOOK CAN BE ONE THAT NEEDS READING TO UNDERSTAND THE ONE OF THE VIEWS ON GOD.
Rating: 
Summary: Best defense of atheism around, but still flawed.
Review: I see from some of the reviews on this page that not all of George H. Smith's defenders have taken to heart his advice in _Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies_ that there _is_ such a thing as a "rational theist" and that the presumption of rationality should guide exchanges between theists and atheists. I happen to agree with Smith on this point and happily acknowledge that there is also such a thing as a "rational atheist." In that spirit, since I am myself a "rational theist," I shall point out some difficulties in Smith's approach in this volume -- which is, I must say, probably the best defense of atheism currently extant. There is, first of all, Smith's acceptance of the laws of logic (identity, contradiction, and causality). His characterization of these is quite apt and his discussion of them is on the whole very good; they are indeed axiomatic and strictly indubitable. What he does not discuss, just as Ayn Rand did not discuss it, is that sheer disbelief in contradictions is quite insufficient as a foundation of _reason_. What reason seeks is something more than mere noncontradiction; it seeks positive coherence, which is a much stronger condition. And as Brand Blanshard has argued in e.g. _The Nature of Thought_ and _Reason and Analysis_, _all_ thought proceeds on the postulate that the universe is intelligible in this stronger sense. In this sense, the postulate of intelligibility is also the absolute presupposition of some sort of Idealism, though we cannot pause here to spell out just why. Now, the very possibility of explanation, that is, the positive intelligibility of the world, even in a weaker sense than full coherence, entails a much closer relationship between mind and reality than is admitted in (what seems to be) Smith's view of the world. If his materialism denies such a relationship, then it denies also the reliability of rational explanation (as opposed to Rand's merely "noncontradictory identification," a kindergarten-level understanding of "reason" that, strictly construed, commits her to some form of logical atomism). On the other hand, if his "materialism" is really the sort of Searleian "physicalism" that regards mind as a high-level property of matter, then it is implicitly a form of Idealism anyway, and theism lies just around the corner. (For if mind emerges "automatically" from certain arrangements of mass/energy, then _any_ bit of matter is at least potentially part of mind -- and mind was "there" to begin with, not merely a property that "emerges" later. I could, for example, exchange any electron in my brain for any other, could I not?) Does that get us all the way to theism? No, but I won't pursue the remainder of the argument here. Suffice it to say that, in insisting that the theist "define" God, the definition Smith overlooks is the very one that many religious people would defend: that God is the "Absolute Mind" in the thought of which our universe is the object -- in Whom, that is, we "live and move and have our being." But while ostensibly taking Christianity as his foil, Smith attacks views of God that really come from Aristotle (sometimes by way of Aquinas). The relation of these views to the theology of his target is questionable, to say the least. While I am not myself a Christian, I am at least aware that many theologically informed Protestants would reject the implicitly medieval-Roman-Catholic view of God on which Smith's argumentative fire is mainly concentrated. One last point will have to suffice. On pp. 76-87 Smith discusses the problem of evil under the heading "God and Goodness." But he implicitly takes as his foil a view of "God and Goodness" that Christianity would not defend in the first place. Again, though not a Christian myself, I am well aware of the New Testament teaching on this point. Paul does not contend that every single event which occurs in the universe is good for every single sentient being involved. On the contrary, he contends that "all things work together [instrumentally] for the [ultimate] good [not of everyone, but] of those who love God." That nothing in any way harmful should ever befall anyone at all is a view of God's "goodness" which is quite alien to the New Testament. Even Jesus himself says only that those who "seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness" will find that "all these things [i.e. material well-being] will be added" as well. Indeed, the Christian view is that the purpose of the universe itself is, not the well-being of man, but the glory of God. But if Smith has come to grips with this view in his discussion of the problem of evil, I have failed to locate his remarks on it. He is, however, quite good in his attacks on certain feeble, sophomoric, and irrationalist versions of theism. What he seems not to realize is that many theists would happily join him in these attacks.
Rating: 
Summary: There's more to theism than fundamentalism.
Review: The only thing this book succeeds in undermining is religious fundamentalism. Now there's a shock. Fundamentalism is the most intellectually bankrupt 'philosophy' around, and is as easy to shoot down as tin cans to a marksman, so unsurprisingly, Smith has an easy ride. 'God' by definition must be the broadest and deepest entity there can be. Therefore, it is somewhat illogical to slap regulations, narrow attributes and dogma to such an Entity. This is exactly what the fundamentalists do, and this is exactly what Smith shoots down. The shallow level of Smith's argument becomes apparent as soon as you read that he compares belief in God with belief in Santa Claus, that he denies the necessity of human faith, and that he concludes that the existence of God is "impossible". These conclusions are no less guilty of narrow mindedness and fundamentalism than the extreme religious folk, and that is where these anti-God books fall down. Smith's argument is a fallacy, because undermining fundamentalism does not equate to undermining God. Can atheists answer the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing at all?" No. Atheists have no belief in God, but if atheists deny possessing ANY kind of belief, then they are claiming to have an infallible knowledge of everything. The fact remains that an atheist must necessarily possess some kind of 'belief', otherwise they are an agnostic. Smith claims that all Christians are "dishonest agnostics". This is blatantly false because Christians fully accept the necessity of 'belief'. In truth, atheists who deny the necessity of belief are the real dishonest agnostics. A better title for this book would have been : "Atheism: A Fundamentalist Belief System Which comes Nowhere Near Undermining the Existence of God."
Rating: 
Summary: Correction
Review: A reviewer below, who seems to think the Bible says God has a human shape (white male, in fact), has missed something else too. "(2) Why must earth be flat? (3) Why must earth be fixed at the CENTER of the universe?" These are questions that theists supposedly can't answer. Well, theists don't have to answer them, since the Bible doesn't teach either one of these things. These beliefs came from Aristotle, whose philosophy infected the doctrine of the medieval Roman church. Galileo was tried, not for disagreeing with the Bible, but for disagreeing with the inherited beliefs of a non-Christian Greek philosopher. George H. Smith doesn't know this either, so the reviewer can be forgiven for not learning it from this book. (And I doubt the priests in "Roman-occupied" Brasil are terribly forthcoming about it either!) The reviewer's other comments are not really worth answering. But I thought this little historical tidbit might be of interest to some.
Rating:
Summary: There are better books
Review: Smith has unfortunately been heavily influenced by the nearly insane pseudo-philosopher Ayn Rand. This automatically makes many of his arguments suspect. Rand suffered from Narcissistic Personality Disorder, which means she split everything into an 'all-good' and an 'all-bad.' In her case, she placed 'reason' as 'all-good' and 'faith' as 'all-bad.' And under faith (as in 'all-bad'), she dumped _all_ religion (even though her understanding of it was embarrassingly bad). Smith, following her lead, does the same thing: all religion is supposedly 'faith-based,' inherently opposed to reason, and therefore bad. This is overly simplistic; it ignores millennia of Eastern and Western contemplative traditions that are anything but 'faith-based.' He also refuses to admit that the officially atheistic philosophies of the 20th Century -- Communism and Nazism -- have been responsible for the deaths of 200 million people. He also spends exactly _one_ sentence on his materialism and his faith-based belief (snicker) that matter creates life, consciousness and self-consciousness.(He also completely ignores the fact that materialism, which is associated with atheism, is also associated with leftism. . .and again we're back to Nazism and Communism.) He utterly ignores philosophical Idealism. In many ways he writes like Rand; he appeals to the emotions to get people in the tent and then pitches his 'rational' beliefs to them. . .which turn out, upon closer inspection, to be not very rational at all. There are many other, better books about the arguments for and against the existence of God and the truth or falsity of religion. Many of them are used in college. That is something this one will never be.
Rating: 
Summary: George Smith is God!
Review: As anyone can see by the number of passionate reviews, this book is extremely thought-provoking. As books of this caliber tend to do, it causes you to love it or shove it. With much erudition, Smith convincely demonstrates that all arguments for the existence of "a god or gods" are irrational and dubious at best. He also tackles a variety of other related issues such as ethics. It seems that many of the negative reviewers were not able to grasp Smith's point that "God cannot exist." This proposition is not founded upon faith as one reviewer has suggested, but from the premise that since all arguments for god's existence are contradictory and irrational, it naturally follows that a self-contradictory being cannot exist. In order to make the step to prove god's existence, the idea of god itself must first be shown to be coherent, which he demonstrated not to be the case. This book should be read by everyone, regardless of one's classification as a believer, atheist, or agnostic. It's rigorous logic and sound reasoning is difficult to refute and could very well serve as an intro to logic and critical thinking. To end this diatribe, I shall paraphrase one of Smith's example: Everything in nature is limited by whatever characteristics it possesses. Acorns don't grow into elephants (if it did it would cease to be an acorn in any meaningful way). But God is a "super"-natural being and not limited by nature. He can't have attributes and still be supernatural. If god has characteristics, then god must be "this" as opposed to "that" and therefore limited. Since god is a "super"-natural being, he cannot be limited, and therefore can have no determinate characteristics, and a god with no attributes or characteristics is equivalent to nothing at all! (How would you know a god one if you ran into one!)
Rating:
Summary: Everything sounds.
Review: Storm from Gainsville, FL reviewed as "An Aristotelian looking at a swinging stone sees "a constrained fall." A Newtonian looking at the same phenomenon sees a pendulum. These paradigms are in many ways incommensurable, since the members of each group interpret the same data in such completely different ways." This reviewer misses that both the Aristotelian and the Newtonian come up with the IDENTICAL EQUATIONS OF MOTION. Thus each group DO NOT interpret the same data in different way. This example manifests that natural languages (the languages we speak) are highly influenced by the observer's view point while artificial language (mathematics) is never influenced by observer's view point. All natural languages are influenced by the opinion of the individual. Hence, it is nonsense to talk about 'if god exists' in natural languages. Mathematics does not allow two different interpretations on one phenomena, while natural languages allow hundreds of different interpretations. For those educated in mathematics, everything in this book makes perfect sense. This book does not make sense only for those uneducated in mathematics.
Rating:
Summary: Pretty decent overall book
Review: Overall this is a good introduction to the fallacies inherent in many theistic belief systems. If you wish to educate yourself on some of these arguments, this would be a good place to start. As far as some of the reviews, they are laughable. The gentleman making the claim that the authors "belief" does not follow his standard is making the oldest "mistake" (not really a mistake., more of an intentional misinterpretation) in the book when it comes to evaluating how we know things. The author is attempting to come up with a standard methodology for evaluating existential claims, not claims for how we know things. But the reviewr assumes they are the same, when they are not, and that one methodology should be applicable to the other. Can you say strawman? If the reviwer wants to attack the authors paradigm for evaluating beliefs, perhaps he should start by telling us why those 3 rules are in error in a practical sense, instead of resorting to near-solipism. This is typical of those who desire to pretend that all claims are equally unfounded, hence their particular mythology should be accepted as true. Of course, this means that my assertion that we should all believe in Pinky, the Giant Carrot God should be taken equally with your assertion that the Sun will rise tomorrow.
Rating:
Summary: This book explains it.
Review: This book gives you the answers to the kind of questions theists cannot answer but atheists can answer. (1) Why did something called 'god' create white people closest to god (Mr.J is white man) coloured people below and monkeys below coloured people? (2) Why must earth be flat? (3) Why must earth be fixed at the CENTER of the universe? (4) Why must 'god' have the shape of human? (5) Why must 'god' have gender? (6) Why must 'god' speak human language? (7) Do you know everything possessing a certain shape cannot be perfect? Once it has a fixed shape it possesses both advantages and disadvantages. (8) Who said 'humanbeings' is higher than other spieces of living beings? (9) Why do theists keep verbally and physically attacking scientists? Why don't theists explain and discuss with atheists rather than attacking scientists? (10) Why do theists like to use "this is god's will" or "this is against god's will" rather than explaining in clearer language? (11) Why are theists all dropped out in math classes? (12) Do theists know that bias and prejudice are the cause of wars? Do theists know how many tragedies and holocaust were caused by theism? (13) Holy bible mentions that Mr. J never revenge. When someone hit his right cheek, he will show his left cheek. Do theists actually do the same thing? Why do theists need to possess weapons? What's for? (14) If theists really believe that there is 'heaven' and it is a beautiful place, why not go there right now? Theists could never answer above questions. This book will show the direction for the answer.
Rating:
Summary: A pretense of knowledge
Review: Thomas Kuhn has argued that adherents to scientific paradigms can be treated be treated as "language groups." People from different paradigms have difficulty talking to each other because they see the world in radically different ways. An Aristotelian looking at a swinging stone sees "a constrained fall." A Newtonian looking at the same phenomenon sees a pendulum. These paradigms are in many ways incommensurable, since the members of each group interpret the same data in such completely different ways. In the same way, theists & atheists "see" the world in dramatically different terms. Therefore, it may be unfair to criticize Smith's book from a theistic perspective. Instead, I will evaluate him in terms of his own assumptions. And so, we look for Smith's standard. He writes: "To qualify as knowledge ... a belief must be justified; it must warrant acceptance by rational standards. If a belief meets the requirements of these standards, it is a rational belief; if a belief cannot meet the requirements - but is adopted nonetheless - it is an irrational belief. ...For the present discussion, we may indicate three minimum requirements that must be fulfilled before any belief can claim the status of knowledge: (a) a belief must be based on evidence; (b) a belief must be internally consistent...; (c) a belief cannot contradict previously validated knowledge with which it is to be integrated. If a belief fails to meet any or all of these criteria, it cannot properly be designated as knowledge." Smith's criteria appear to be fairly common sense - at first glance. A more rigorous approach, however, is required. Smith is stating a belief about the proper standard of justification: that beliefs should be based on evidence. However, Smith's belief is not based on evidence, nor can it be based on evidence. Facts are not self-interpreting; they require an evaluative framework. But it is precisely Smith's evaluative framework which is up for evaluation. So his argument would beg the question. Worse, no amount of evidence would ever suffice to say "you need evidence to justify a belief." Epistemological claims simply cannot be proven in that fashion. So, Smith's belief fails by the first prong of his standard. And the second prong of his standard forbids self-contradiction. So he actually fails two of his three standards. In fact, I suspect the only reason that his standard doesn't fail all three of its own criteria is that this claim is the epistemological starting point of his framework. Smith's criteria, I should note, are not idiosyncratic. Numerous philosophers adopt standards with a similar flavor. The above criticism, however, invalidates all empiricist philosophies from positivism to Epicureanism to Objectivism. All of Smith's arguments against the existence of God are unsound, since they are all built on a shaky foundation.
| 
