Atheism: The Case Against God

Rating:
Summary: interesting
Review: Smith presents and interesting and often compelling case against God. However, none of his ideas are new. Instead, they are simply rewordings of his predecessors like Kant et al. Nonetheless, it does present an interesting case that causes Christians to think. However, as a Christian, it does nothing to deter my well-reasoned belief in God.

Rating:
Summary: Atheism
Review: I had a chat with an atheist recently about the existence of God, and he said "If God really exists, then He wouldn't hide Himself. He would do something like write 'Worship Me' in the stars, so that everyone would believe in him."

My answer was that if a Spiritual, powerful Being were to exist eternally, necessarily and ABSOLUTELY, then He would be in a very modest position. If such a Being exists, then it would be very unlikely that He would choose to get up to such light-hearted pranks in the sky. It would be more likely that He would possess a deeper nature - a deeper spiritual nature for man to search for.

Smith's work here appears to be very powerful and impressive on a first read. But if one reads deeper into it, the book lacks heart and backbone. What lies at the heart of Atheism? Where is its spirit? If Smith's book is anything to go on, (and according to the 5 star reviews here it is one of the best books available on Atheism), the heart of Atheism consists of fallacies, scepticism and doubt.

It is true that due to the existence of a mathematically ordered Universe, and the existence of consciousness, love and human spirituality, the theistic hypothesis is far better than the materialistic hypothesis, because the theistic hypothesis makes the existence of a cosmos such as ours more probable than the materialistic one. But as a previous reviewer stated, to the theist, God is more than a mere piece of armchair theorising. God is the spiritual heart of our very existence and our being.

And if that's not worth searching for, then I don't know what is.

Rating:
Summary: philosophical mumbo jumbo
Review: I ordered this book believing from what I heard that Smith must indeed be a great philosopher for the atheistic position. Was I ever wrong. The book is a bunch of fallacies. To take one glaring example out of many, lets look at his argument that the universe is all there is. Smith begins with the argument that there is no need to postulate the existance of God, since the universe itself is existance. He claims that this is a primary axiom. After all, if the universe is all there is, why is there need to invoke the existance of God? If this is so then the universe must be eternal. Nothing ever comes into or out of existance. This is plainly false. If the universe is all there is, then everything in it must be eternal. No death, no change ever. Everyone knows this is false. The universe cannot be the "primary axiom." What is primary must be eternal and unchanging. Only God fits the bill. Smith then argues that nothing can be true, if it is outside our observation. He has an imaginary arguement with a skeptic who denies the evidence of his senses to show that the senses should be trusted or we cannot know the truth at all. But as many philosophers know, the senses can be unreliable. For example a stick looks bent in the water, but in reality it isnt so. To trust the senses completely is stupid, to say the least. We gather data by our senses and then we make inferences and deductions from this data. Here is where Smith ends up short. He correctly notes that there is existance. But then he writes that the universe is all there is and so why claim there is an existance (God) to create another existance ( the universe)? He states that it is unneedful to do so. There cannot be two existances, so why postulate the existance of God. At first, the argument seems irrefutable. But on closer inspection it doesnt stand up. To claim that the universe is all there is, is to claim that the universe is eternal, which it is not in any way. The universe cannot be the primary axiom. If the universe were indeed eternal then Smith would have an irrefutable argument. But it is not as anyone can plainly see. Things change all the time. Since the universe changes, there must be something unchanging and eternal and this is God. To claim that the universe can be eternal and changing is absurd. Either there is an eternal being or there is not. Yet Smith claims this eternal being is the universe. What many scientists and atheists cannot believe by the strictest logic now in the existance of God, may one day be proven beyond all doubt. After trillions of aeons and perhaps more of scientific research and speculation, unbelievers will come to the end of an incredibly long path and guess who will be standing there? You guessed it, God and the theologians. They will have taken a long and torturous route to find what they so long denied. I wonder what there arguments will be then against God? Maybe they should be like Smiths skeptic and deny the evidence of their senses. Smiths book is not to be recommended. It is full of fallacies. If one wants a book that at least has a more cogent and stronger position, although still a false one, I would advise reading On the nature of the universe by Lucretius.

Rating:
Summary: Defends atheism in a cogent and tenable manner
Review: Anyone with an avid interest in religious discourse will have no problem exceeding the 1,000-word limit when they endeavor to praise the author for his well-written book "Atheism: The Case Against God". In my brief time sifting through various works pertaining to religious skepticism and apologetics, no book has ever struck me as being so well thought out and so easy to digest as George Smith's book "Atheism: The Case Against God". The restriction on the length of my review of this book (imposed by Amazon.com at a 1, 000 words)does not allow me to delineate all the positive particulars this book has to offer. Regrettably, I can only emphasize what aspects of this book distinguish it from other works of a similar nature. One of the most attractive features that I found in Smith's book was his ability to convey complex philosophical dilemmas, that are germane to the realm of theism, without falling into the common practice - which most professional philosophers constantly do - of inundating his arguments with esoteric jargon. Any laymen can peruse through Smith's work without having to open a philosophical dictionary every five minutes. While Smith does put forth his charges against religious belief in a manner that is fairly easy to grasp, he does not sacrifice substantive content, therefore an individual who is more seasoned in the subject of philosophy and theology will not find "Atheism: The Case Against God" lacking by any means. This ability to reach both the philosophical hobbyist and the academician speaks much of Smith's talent as a writer as it does of him as a philosopher. Outside this book's easily discernable assertions, another noteworthy characteristic of Smith's piece is its originality. In reading other works relating to non-theistic argumentation, I began to see the same routine of arguing for atheism, which consisted of providing a summation of a particular theistic argument, and then find certain fallacies or misrepresentations that the argument may have. Whether the argument happened to be cosmological, teleological, ontological, or moralistic the same technique was employed to engage all of them. Though this is a very effective means of addressing an argument, it is one that has been used ad nauseam. So for an individual who has been exposed to a great deal of such kinds of work, it is refreshing to see this more innovative approach to the whole theistic/atheistic controversy. If one had to describe Smith's approach in one word that word would have to be "fundamental". As stated earlier, other philosophical works that address the theistic position get bogged down in the various details of theistic argumentation, without striking at the root or presupposition that such arguments are built on. Smith's technique on the other hand address what is at the heart of these arguments. What is at the root of most theistic arguments for the belief in a God? According to Smith this is not the proper question to ask. The proper question to ask is what is presupposition of any argument period. The answer to this question is the ability to decipher truth from falsehood.. Yet verification, as Smith so deftly explains to his audience, rests on the use of certain standards, which gauge the reality of any given proposition. Since we exist within a universe our standards must be derived from our perception of the universe. Given this idea, if anything is posited, which exists outside the universe (i.e. God or any form of supernatural entity), the argument is futile. In fact, as Mr. Smith rightly claims, it is not an argument at all. The universe, in the words of Ayn Rand are the "causal primary". One cannot talk about causation (i.e. cosmological arguments), design (i.e. teleological arguments), or moralistic arguments unless one is speaking within a proper context, which in this case is the universe itself. To do otherwise is to regress into a state of incoherence. For example, it is ultimately absurd to talk about a cause to the universe, if we derive the concept of cause from our observation of the universe. To talk about a concept, such as causal relationships, outside the context from which the concept was realized (i.e. the universe) is to divorce it from its context. Thus the theist has rendered his argument ineffective. To paraphrase Mr. Smith "to talk about a cause to the universe is like talking about a bird's flight with no atmosphere." In one crushing argumentative blow after another, with the physical universe as a necessary axiom, Mr. Smith annihilates most of traditional theistic rhetoric, without even delving into the individual fallacies, which are inherent in all of them. Only two words are necessary to describe his approach - "SHEER BRILLIANCE!!!" The theist is left with very few options. He either can retract all his assertions an admit that there is no rational basis for the belief in God or he can attack the very foundation of reason (the physical universe) - thus precluding his right to employ argument. Either way, George Smith backs the Christian apologist and proponents of the supernatural into such a tight corner, that it is virtually impossible for them to escape A theist who has read other critiques on theism and agrees with them, may believe that he has some recourse in faith. However Mr. Smith has addressed this issue and shown it as an invalid method for attaining the truth. Clearly Mr. Smith in his book "Atheism: The Case Against God" leaves theists with no options. He has show theism, and especially the Christian manifestation of it, for what it truly is - a misological stance on life. Mr. Smith undermines the old Christian adage that all truth can be found if on believes in God, and instead edifies David's Brooks position that "to explain the unknown by the known is logical procedure, but to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." This book is a must read for anyone pondering the claims of theism seriously.

Rating:
Summary: OKAY LET'S GET IT STRAIGHT.
Review: The central core argument of Smith's book is that the final conclusion as to whether theism ought to be accepted as true or false, must be guided by reason, logic and rational grounds. What is Smith's conclusion? It is that the beliefs and views held by theists are illogical and irrational because the theist cannot provide adequate proof for the existence of God. Smith's overall conclusion is that the existence of God is "impossible". The rational, logical mind must agree that the existence of God is "possible". Why? Because the atheist cannot provide adequate proof of the non-existence of God. Therefore, Smith's conclusion that the existence of God is "impossible" is irrational. If the conclusions and views of the author of this book are "irrational", then the basic grounding of 'Atheism: The Case Against God' is undermined.

Rating:
Summary: A Good introduction to Atheism.
Review: As a convert from Atheism to Christianity nine years ago, I read 'Atheism: The Case Against God' three years ago with interest and with an open mind. I re-read it earlier this year, and I understand Smith's views and attitudes exactly, and I am very sympathetic towards many remarks and attitudes made by atheist reviewers here.

Yet I feel deeply saddened that they, like I did until nine years ago, have mis-understood, (and missed), the underlying reality of what God is all about. Namely spirituality, and the fulfilment of the God shaped hole within the hearts of human beings. Many atheists treat God as a mere piece of armchair theorising, or spend their time and energy picking holes in religious philosophies and principles, or wait to obtain scientific, physical evidence for His existence before even entertaining the idea that God exists.

To me, one word sums up 95% of Smith's book - "fallacy". Many reviewers regard Smith's arguments to be strong, yet the arguments are grounded with deceptive logic and profound fallacies. Smith persuades the reader that his assessments reveal proof that all Christians are "agnostic"; that faith is "absurd"; that the existence of God is "impossible"; that the nature of the Christian God is "impossible"; that the Christian God is "unknowable"; that atheism provides the only rational and logical path; and that all Christians are "irrational".

All of these conclusions are emotional, subjective and deeply fallacious.

It is true that many humanists and atheists view the doctrine of 'God is Dead' as a great liberation for humanity - free from the great omnipotent being from whom there could be no escape. To many 'free-thinkers', the belief that God does not exist is like discovering real freedom for the first time - the gospel of the modern age, of man who has achieved technical mastery over nature, and who can fashion it to his own purposes.

The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche spread the 'good news gospel' that "God is Dead" in 1882, yet even before his death there were signs that this gospel was not all that it claimed to be. Nietzsche himself became insane; perhaps it was no mere coincidence that the modern apostle of human freedom did not achieve spiritual liberation and human fulfilment. Instead, he found mental disintegration and despair. Such despair was the true heritage of his gospel to the world.

To sum up my views on Atheism, I will quote philosopher and humanist Bertrand Russell, with an interesting reply from his daughter, who was a Christian...

Russell: "That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave;" ... "all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand."

His daughter wrote (after her father had died): "I would have liked to convince my father that I had found what he had been looking for, the ineffable something he had longed for all his life. I would have liked to persuade him that the search for God does not have to be in vain. But it was hopeless. He had known too many blind Christians, bleak moralists who sucked the joy from life and persecuted their opponents; he would never have been able to see the truth they were hiding."

Rating:
Summary: This is an excellent review of the atheistic position.
Review: If you've actually been encouraged to think critically about your religious beliefs (as opposed fearing what the benevolent dictator will do to you if you do) or you want to sharpen your philosophical claws, this is the book to read. Smith basic position is that unless you can demonstrate that there is a god, the rest of the Christian arguments are red herrings. I've read this book twice and plan to read it again and again. It's helped me formulate strong rebuttals against the type of arguments that Christians are prone to rely on in their unconvincing attempts to convince you that there actually is a god.

Rating:
Summary: Sense and Reason
Review: I've been an atheist all my life and George H. Smith most definitely strengthened my views for atheism. 'How could anyone possibly see religion as rational?' has always been my philosophy. After reading some reviews and points made by believers below, I need to admit that I would be a fool to say that I will be an athiest for the rest of my life.

If I were to say I would, I might be kidding myself. Spiritual fulfillment. What's that? We only get one chance at this life, and I'm not going to fool myself by saying there is definitely no meaning to my life.

Another reviewer said 'reason is the careful examination of facts, development of theories which explain those facts'. From what I've just been reading below I can detect reason. If there is something deeper to it all, I am not going to let bigoted people prevent me from finding it.

Smith's book is an excellent introduction to atheism, but what if there is something that makes even more sense than atheism? I'm starting to think there is. Maybe it all starts from here.

Rating:
Summary: Extremely good book-- a must-read for rational people
Review: Briefly, this book is a critical examination of the arguments put forth by religionists. Through a careful examination of the premises, arguments, and conclusions of the religionists' assertions, Smith proves that their arguments simply do not support the belief that there is a god.

Smith also put a look at the major differences between 'faith' (belief without evidence) and 'reason' (critical, logical, factual acceptance of reality). Faith is the basis of religion, and it is entirely irrational. Reason is the careful examination of facts, development of theories which explain those facts, and the organization of ideas into logical systems.

The (admittedly unscientific, but nontheless quite 'real') evidence in the postings here indicate that most religionists are keenly aware that their belief in magical dieties is misplaced, and that is why religionists everywhere work so hard to suppress and eradicate Atheism, I think. The postings by religionists have a nearly-hysterical tone to them and they seem to indicate a desparate [and somewhat laughable] attempt by religionists to attempt to win a logical argument by resorting to some writing that is analogous to chanting or praying.

Smith's book provides an insightful look at why religious societies are always poor, or generally backward (and why socieities prosper once they rid themselves of relioiosity): religion is madness; organized mental illness which retards and cripples a society, just as it mentally cripples individuals. Religious thinking is illogical, and the systems which preserve it must resort to brutal suppression of facts in order to survive.

This book is not only an excellent refutation of the god arguments put forth by religionists, it is also an excellent book illustrating the principles of logical argument.

This one's a KEEPER!

Rating:
Summary: Can we talk about the book?
Review: PLEASE WRITE A REVIEW ONLY IF YOU'VE READ THE BOOK!

It seems many reviewers haven't done their homework. At best I see one or two quotes from Smith's book which are generally secondary arguments and are chronically made out of context.

To defend the standpoint of the atheist, Smith need not answer the question "Is the universe eternal" or any of these other off-topic questions raised in earlier reviews. Please consult your local cosmologist for opinions on that subject matter.

Smith's argument is plain and simple. Forget everything you've learned on the subject of theism (to remove bias and address the issue objectively). Now let the theist propose his theory of God. Evaluate each line of argument posited by the theist. Smith identifies the logical flaws, inconsistencies, and unclear definitions in the theist's arguments. His conclusion is that if the theist can't convince you, using logic and evidence, of the existence of a God, then if you accept the existence of God, you are doing so irrationally. Atheism then stands as the rational alternative, equivalent to saying to the theist "You have not convinced me that 'God' exists." ATHEISM IS NOT A PROOF THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST. INSTEAD IT IS THE ASSERTION THAT THEISM DOES NOT PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.

Many of the reviewers of this book have missed this very critical and highly essential pillar of the book, and have instead chosen to attack less important issues or formulate overly-simplistic proofs of why God HAS to exist. Had they actually read the book, they would have found that many of these arguments are addressed.

This book will do you no good if you thumb through it and pick out a line or two from a page in the middle and then scoff at it. Like I said earlier, you have to eliminate all your bias on the subject and allow the theist a chance to persuade you to his beliefs. If he doesn't succeed at proving the existence of God, then welcome to atheism. Let Smith's book guide you through the theist's arguments and help you avoid the logical pitfalls and philosophical illusions contained therein.