Rating: 
Summary: The arguments appear strong, yet prove to be empty.
Review: I was so intrigued by the banter going on here that I just had to buy the book. (Does well for a marketing ploy - just write a book called "Why God doesn't exist" and you'll have a best-seller). While reading this book it struck me that the entire foundation of Smith's argument is based on rather lop-sided shaky grounds. One such underlying view is Smith's outright denial of faith. (Smith says: "All propositions of faith, regardless of their specific content, are irrational." ... "Insofar as faith is possible, it is irrational; insofar as faith is rational, it is impossible." ... "Faith is required only for those beliefs that cannot be defended.") Many reviewers have already picked up on the absurdity of this view and have acknowledged that faith is "part of the human condition." (I hasten to add that an earlier reviewer's comment that many of the reviews are "hysterical and incoherent" is overwhelmingly unjustified). Smith cannot deny that he possesses faith. He has faith that we are here by blind chance. He has faith that God does not exist. According to Smith's own criteria (that all propositions of faith are irrational), his beliefs are "impossible" and "irrational". Secondly, Smith holds that only people who have faith in God are in the position to "prove" what they believe. He says "If evidence is not forthcoming, if there are not sufficient grounds for accepting the proposition, it should not be believed." The atheist on the other hand, does not have to "prove" anything - including the non-existence of God. If Smith insists on adhering to such childish attitudes, then I have a "proposition" to make. To keep it objective, lets go with science. (If my proposition were my personal experiences of gaining inner-strength, a sense of completeness, spiritual fulfilment and positive experiences - all of which are sufficient "proof" to myself that God exists, then Smith would no doubt shun my propositions as being "irrational". So let's keep it objective). Firstly, I'll explain what science has got to tell us, then I'll cover Smith's muddled notion that people "cannot know God". We cannot escape the fact that whatever caused the Universe, it happened to give rise to a coherent, intelligible, mathematically ordered cosmos. The laws of nature are not only significant, but they are deeply profound. (The dictionary definition of 'profound' is "intellectually deep; learned; depth of place; knowledge; skill"). Physical particles conform to precise, coherent mathematical relationships and profound laws. If the nature of particles were really random and purposeless, then to kick a football (in a hypothetical situation) would be completely unpredictable. It may stick to your foot, or it may shoot sideways, or the ball might divide into a million pieces - with no way of preventing it. All matter in the Universe would be in a state of absolute chaos. But our cosmos posses natural laws with the potential for matter to give rise to something as unprecedented as the human brain! (which is the most complicated and wondrous piece of equipment known to man). And even more phenomenal - consciousness. A set of coherent ideas and probabilities would NOT have existed if nothing existed before the Universe. (How could they exist? If nothing existed before the Universe existed, then nothing would exist now). However, such a set of ideas and laws might have existed in the consciousness of a spiritual Creator. These immutable "laws of nature" form the very fabric of the material Universe, (they even form the fabric of an infinitely existing Universe - for people who naively ignore scientific evidence of the Big Bang). So my proposition to Smith is clear: If a cosmos such as ours is to exist at all, then it would require an ordering intelligent 'mathematician' to set up the physical correlation in the required way. If anyone proposes that a blind, purposeless force can give rise to such a cosmos, then their argument must be labelled as "irrational". Once it is objectively established that the existence of a higher intelligent being is massively probable (FAR MORE PROBABLE than His non-existence), it is the prerogative of the individual to spiritually SEARCH for Him and discover Him through FAITH. The Christian view of God is not that of an old man sitting on a cloud (in the way the sun is related to the earth). Rather God is as one with His creation, He transcends it yet is active within it. God is a spiritual Being who cannot fail to exist. He can be spiritually 'tapped' into through prayer and meditation, (The "Ground of all Being", the "Universal Consciousness", the "essence of God" are all different labels for the same thing). For Smith to categorically assert that a person "cannot know the Christian God" reveals a spiritual bankruptcy to the highest degree. The spiritual search is what it's all about. The entire foundation of Smith's book is based on empty grounds. It is important to be aware that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution has been revealed to fall short of explaining reality. Evolution exists - there is no doubt about that. (To say "I don't believe in evolution" is like saying "I don't believe in gravity"). However, Charles Darwin claimed that his theory of natural selection properly explains how a primordial 'soup' could give rise to human beings via completely natural processes alone. His theory therefore undermined the belief that humanity was born by the creative intentions of a divine Being. However, 150 years after Darwin's theory had been generally accepted as "truth" by the popular mind, the mechanisms of natural selection are now being revealed to be "unworthy of credit." Numerous books are available on the issue - 'Evolution, A Theory in Crisis' by Michael Denton, 'Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds' by Philip Johnson, and the unprecedented 'Not By Chance' by Lee M. Spetner are all worth reading. When the facts of human existence and spirituality are analysed deeply, atheism makes little sense at all.
Rating:
Summary: READ YOUR BIBLE FOR THE TRUTH!
Review: The Bible contains ALL ANSWERS FOR LIFE
Rating: 
Summary: "Atheism - the vice of a few intelligent people" (Voltaire)
Review: Well-written, with sound arguments and reasoning. It stands well enough on its own as an accomplished attack on theism, but also serves as an excellent primer for tackling even more detailed work by atheist philosphers (such as) Michael Martin or Theodore Drange. As is witnessed by all the hysterical and incoherent "reviews" already posted, Smith's book touches a nerve with the believers. To borrow the phrase of one such reviewer, when the rubber hits the road, and the theist is driving, look for reason and intellectual rigor to become roadkill. This book is a nice antidote to such god-talk. Buy it!
Rating: 
Summary: seems well argued but it is not
Review: Smith presents many arguments that appear to give a conclusive case against the existance of God. I must admit that the book appears to be convincing, however it does not stand up to skeptical scrutiny. In one passage of the book he states that God cannot possibly exist because reality is all that can be, there is no need of God. Smith argues that the a personal all good God cannot possibly exist. What then is left? Nature or reality. Atheists must admit that reality is eternal. If they do not, then they must admit that something comes from nothing. A complete idiocy. The eternal in itself does not change, but it can cause change. Hence, nature because it changes cannot be this eternal principle. Pantheism is false. Nature is not God. This eternal principle, has no beggining or end, thus it is infinite. Being infinite it is complete and therefore perfect. This is God. What Smith and his contemporaries seem to argue for is that reality is eternal and infinite, but this is not God. In other words they want reality denuded of certain qualities, such as personality, justice etc. Sorry, you cant have it both ways. The previous reviewers who rated this book so highly are not skeptical enough. Skepticism is a double edged sword that cuts through both sides of an argument. They show little if any knowledege and understanding of the arguments for God. This book is nothing more than an atheistic diatribe, without foundation. But apparently this is the best effort that atheists can do. No wonder a previous reviewer called the book dead on arrival. His arguments against God concerning the problem of evil also are fallacies. God is perfectly just. Apparently atheists seem to think justice implies a slap on the wrist. It does not. If we look at all the evil being committed on a daily basis and the incredible amount of suffering it causes at the expense of others and the profit of some. We can see why God created hell, especially when such people hate God forever, when they are unrepentant and continue to will evil. The book is good only because it presents the case against God, and one should look at the other side. Smiths book presents this side. But as the title implies, there is a case against God, but there is also a case for God. The case for God is far more convincing.
Rating:
Summary: Read the book, NOT the Reviews...
Review: For those interested in learning more about atheism: just buy the book. It's a solid recounting of arguments against theism. A great many of the reviews that follow are not reviews at all -- they are rebuttals. These "reviews" don't have anything to do with the quality of the actual book. They do not imply that Smith writes a shoddy version of the arguments for atheism; they simply tell you, by way of their own shoddy counterarguments, that Smith has written some sort of argument for atheism, a fact you could've easily gathered from the title. That the reviewers don't have any clue about the difference between a good argument and a bad argument is evident in the nature of their own arguments: they are generic and weak -- stock theistic responses to all of the usual atheistic arguments. These reviewers would give an identical and equally shoddy review to ANY book that addresses this particular subject matter from an atheistic point-of-view, NOT because the author is not a persuasive or compelling writer, but simply because they disagree with him. A review ought to establish whether a writer is good at what he does, not whether what he does is intolerable in-and-of-itself. Clearly Smith is an effective atheistic writer -- theists can't even see his books online without dashing off a few weak rebuttals to keep their fellow lambs from reading it. The fact of the matter is that the arguments against God are weighty and compelling and Smith presents a good introduction for those who are interested in thinking critically about the subject. I recommend the book: buy it, read it, and see for yourself how well the case for atheism stands up. If you don't want to read a book of atheistic philosophy, then don't buy a book of atheistic philosophy. You don't need a bunch of amateur apologists to tell you that a book called _Atheism: The Case Against God_ is going to put forth arguments about free-will and existence. Whether you like the conclusion or not, what matters is whether the arguments are well-articulated, and I think they are.
Rating:
Summary: Materialism.
Review: As ever the issue boils down to belief, no more no less. If someone chooses to believe that love and the existence of God is no deeper than the chemicals and nerve fibres of the brain, then one could take heed of Smith's arguments. If one is to believe there is a depth to life and to existence, then Smith's arguments will prove to be weak. We are not talking about Santa Claus here. We are talking about the Universal Source of our existence, and the sustaining reality of 'being'. Personally, I believe there is a depth to life, and after reading many books on contemporary cosmology, a spiritual dimension in the Universe makes more than good sense. There are things that go way deeper than the nerve fibres and chemicals of the brain, I cannot doubt that. In this sense I feel obliged to search deeper, and I would conclude that Smith's arguments ring "shallow".
Rating: 
Summary: Truth and Emotion
Review: Since few of the "reviews" of this book seem to examine the book itself, I find myself (likewise) freed of that constraint. Smith's work seems to examine god as a truth/untruth issue; several reviewers examine the issue in terms of emotions (my love exists/doesn't exist). From a rational viewpoint, the fact that one is wildly enraptured with a god has nothing to do with whether it exists or not. Children are simply bonkers over Santa Claus, but only an enthusiast would therefore state that Santa Claus exists. Obviously Santa exists in the child's head; the rationalist's question is: "Does he exist OUTSIDE the child's head?" For those of us who can't understand why so many people even care if god exists or not it is slightly amusing to see such emotion devoted to the esoteric issue (on both sides). Theists have to answer several issues beyond whether god exists if they expect us to get excited about the issue: Does god know it exists? Does god know it created things outside itself? Does god have any emotions (being without a nervous system)? Can god perceive (being without eyes, ears, nerves, brain, etc)? If god does know he created man, does he really care? And if god exists, does he get delight in the pain of his creatures (i.e. is god a sadist)? None of these issues has anything to do with whether god exists... but for those who claim an emotional relationship with god, they might consider that they are relating to something totally unlike themselves... perhaps something more akin to their other spiritual creature, the prince of darkness. I prefer (like Smith) to examine the issue of god as a purely speculative endeavor. Whether god exists or not is worth thinking about, but it is not worth getting very worked up about...
Rating:
Summary: An Englishman's view...
Review: Fascinating book this one. However, it struck me that there is something that Smith has completely missed, completely underestimated, and seems to be completely oblivious to. It is the one thing that can swat Smith's pitiful attempts to deride faith in one fell swoop! It is the one thing that really counts - THE SPIRITUAL HEART OF THE MATTER!! What on earth does Smith think Christians are embracing - thin air?? I'll illustrate Smith's shallow and naive view on theists and their belief in a spiritual, personal Being. Take a chap who loves his wife. Now I'm not talking about a shallow, empty love which is based on cosmetics and marrying rich women. I'm talking about real, deep, profound love with no barriers, no deceit and no pretentious hang-ups. Along comes Smith. "Hey guy!" he says. "Prove to me that you love your wife. "I can't" says the fella, "but I know the love is real!" "That's not good enough" says Smith. "You are obliged to prove what you say exists otherwise I will assume it doesn't exist at all!" Smith persists: "I can't see your love! I can't touch it! And more significantly neither can you!! You are a laughing stock!!" [i.e. this reflects the unseen God]. "You're claims that you love your wife are grossly irrational!!" The chap defends himself confidently: "My love for my wife exists Mister Smith! You can take my word for it!" Smith shouts up "Hey guy! You're wife needs a make-over and her hair is greasy!" [i.e. reflecting the dogmas and empty traditions of man-made religious frameworks]. "I know!" replies the chap. "But our love is still real! It exists!! And it's beautiful!!!" "Hey guy!" says Smith. "I heard your wife said something the other day that contradicted what she said the other week!" [i.e. the fallibility of The Bible]. "I know!" says the chap. "Her words may be fallible but THE LOVE THAT EXISTS BETWEEN US IS REAL!! Our love exists I'm telling you!" "No!!" cries Smith. "Based on my highly rational analysis and intelligent thought processes, I categorically deny that you love your wife!! Your love does not exist!!" "But mister Smith!" says the fella. "You've focused on the wrong things! You've completely missed what really counts! Mister Smith - YOU HAVE MISSED THE HEART OF THE MATTER!!!!" Smith claims that all Christians lack reason and rational views. What on earth is he talking about? Smith obviously hasn't investigated and studied the scientific facts of the world closely enough - in biology, cosmology, astronomy and evolution. What kind of force does Smith believe exists that can create conscious beings which can evolve to have the capacity to enjoy life, to have moral conscience and understanding, and to appreciate the whole of Creation? Where does Smith's faith lie? (Oh sorry, to have faith is to be "grossly irrational"!) Maybe Smith's faith lies in natural selection. If he were to invest in a couple of modern science books and seek the true heart of the matter, he might realise that the mechanisms of natural selection come nowhere near explaining the existence of rational sentient beings who enjoy listening to music, writing poetry, and who posses moral obligations to care for the weak and needy. (Hardly 'survival of the fittest'!). The gap that exists between apes and man is just as 'miraculous' and significant as the origin of life itself. (Read 'Darwin's Black Box' written by bio-chemist Michael J. Behe, and 'God, Chance and Necessity' written by Keith Ward. Behe explains objectively why the majority of science books are sheer rhetoric, and he explains why many scientists steadfastly refuse to admit the existence of God - namely because the noble pursuits of science would end up shooting itself in the foot!). Indeed, if natural selection were the only mechanisms involved in evolution, then our planet ought to be dominated by giant, poisonous weeds with no self-awareness or intrinsic value. (After all, how can inanimate atoms understand anything and have discussions about their Creator? How can physical particles have responsibility and moral conscience?) Unfortunately (for atheists), the natural facts of the world ironically point to something beyond themselves. Something Christians know as God. There is a saying "If the design and creation of the Universe, and the existence of nature had been caused by a freak accident with no intervention from God, then it would be the equivalent of a book printing factory exploding, and all the letters landing in a way that would create the entire works of Shakespeare." That is not an exaggeration! Now which option is more "divorced from reason"? An accident that came from nothing? Or an act of God? (Smith must bear in mind the fact that the laws of physics are a set of rational mathematical laws that all matter "accidentally" happens to obey). Mister Smith's argument of statistical probability is fallacious in the extreme. He says "the chance combination of atoms needed to form a simple rock is extremely unlikely, when contrasted with the billions of different possibilities open to these atoms." ... "Surely, therefore we must posit a rock-god." What Smith doesn't realise is that we are talking about unique combinations of atoms which form important states - like opening a bank safe! However, it would be like opening a bank safe after bank safe after bank safe and so on - one after another by complete fluke - for the inanimate energy of the primeival big bang to eventually (and accidentally) form planets, galaxies, the infinitesimal complexity of DNA, the unprecedented existence of thoughts, friendship, love, intrinsic value and the ability for sentient beings to communicate with their Creator. Maybe our friend Smith needs to think again before hurriedly concluding that Christians who believe in a Higher Intelligent Being are "divorced from reason". Mister George H. Smith - you're an intelligent man - a talented writer, I know it! You're a good man mister Smith. But please - start searching deeper!! PLEASE!!!
Rating:
Summary: An Englishman's view...
Review: Fascinating book this one. Smith claims that all Christians lack reason and rational views. What on earth is he talking about? Smith obviously hasn't investigated and studied the scientific facts of the world closely enough - in biology, cosmology, astronomy and evolution. What kind of force does Smith believe exists that can create conscious beings which can evolve to have the capacity to enjoy life, to have moral conscience and understanding, and to appreciate the whole of Creation? Where does Smith's faith lie? (Oh sorry, to have faith is to be "grossly irrational"!) Maybe Smith's faith lies in natural selection. If he were to invest in a couple of modern science books and seek the true heart of the matter, he might realise that the mechanisms of natural selection come nowhere near explaining the existence of rational sentient beings who enjoy listening to music, writing poetry, and who posses moral obligations to care for the weak and needy. (Hardly 'survival of the fittest'!). The gap that exists between apes and man is just as 'miraculous' and significant as the origin of life itself. (Read 'Darwin's Black Box' written by bio-chemist Michael J. Behe, and 'God, Chance and Necessity' written by Keith Ward. Behe explains objectively why the majority of science books are sheer rhetoric, and he explains why many scientists steadfastly refuse to admit the existence of God - namely because the noble pursuits of science would end up shooting itself in the foot!). Indeed, if natural selection were the only mechanisms involved in evolution, then our planet ought to be dominated by giant, poisonous weeds with no self-awareness or intrinsic value. (After all, how can inanimate atoms understand anything and have discussions about their Creator? How can physical particles have responsibility and moral conscience?) Unfortunately (for atheists), the natural facts of the world ironically point to something beyond themselves. Something Christians know as God. Keith Ward of the development of complex structures out of simple elements, in accordance with IN-BUILT PRINCIPLES OF INTERACTION." ... "The evolutionary account suggests an immense and patient wisdom and a purposive guidance UNDERLYING THE WHOLE PROCESS." There is a saying "If the design and creation of the Universe, and the existence of nature had been caused by a freak accident with no intervention from God, then it would be the equivalent of a book printing factory exploding, and all the letters landing in a way that would create the entire works of Shakespeare." That is not an exaggeration! Now which option is more "divorced from reason"? An accident that came from nothing? Or an act of God? (Smith must bear in mind the fact that the laws of physics are a set of rational mathematical laws that all matter "accidentally" happens to obey; the infinitesimal complexity of a DNA molecule is FAR MORE complex than that of a Boeing 747 on a smaller scale; (even giant, poisonous weeds would have DNA!) Bear in mind the whole of the evolutionary process can only begin once an complex combination of atoms exist which form DNA REPLICATION MOLECULES! The LEAST parts of this replication 'machine' is of the same order of complexity as THE HUMAN EYE!!! Remember this 'machine' cannot "evolve" - it forms the basis of evolution itself!!! Smith's argument of statistical probability is fallacious in the extreme. He says "the chance combination of atoms needed to form a simple rock is extremely unlikely, when contrasted with the billions of different possibilities open to these atoms." ... "Surely, therefore we must posit a rock-god." What Smith doesn't realise is that we are talking about unique combinations of atoms which form important states - like opening a bank safe! However, it would be like opening a bank safe after bank safe after bank safe and so on - one after another by complete fluke - for the inanimate energy of the primeival big bang to eventually (and accidentally) form planets, galaxies, DNA, thoughts, friendship, love, intrinsic value and the ability for sentient beings to communicate with their Creator. Maybe our friend Smith needs to think again before hurriedly concluding that Christians who believe in a Higher Intelligent Being are "divorced from reason". But that's all just cosmology and science. That's nothing compared to what Smith has really missed. There is something that Smith has completely missed, completely underestimated, and seems to be completely oblivious to. It is the one thing that can swat Smith's pitiful attempts to deride faith in one fell swoop! It is the one thing that really counts - THE SPIRITUAL HEART OF THE MATTER!! What on earth does Smith think Christians are embracing - thin air?? I'll illustrate Smith's shallow and naive view on theists and their belief in a spiritual, personal Being. Take a chap who loves his wife. Now I'm not talking about a shallow, empty love which is based on cosmetics and marrying rich women. I'm talking about real, deep, profound love with no barriers, no deceit and no pretentious hang-ups. Along comes Smith. "Hey guy!" he says. "Prove to me that you love your wife. "I can't" says the fella, "but I know the love is real!" "That's not good enough" says Smith. "You are obliged to prove what you say exists otherwise I will assume it doesn't touch it! And more significantly neither can you!! You are a laughing stock!!" [i.e. this reflects the unseen God]. "You're claims that you love your wife are grossly irrational!!" The chap defends take my word for it!" Smith shouts up "Hey guy! You're wife needs a make-over and her hair is greasy!" [i.e. reflecting the dogmas and empty traditions of man-made religious frameworks]. "I know!" replies the chap. "But our love is still real! It exists!! And it's beautiful!!!" "Hey guy!" says Smith. "I heard your wife said something the other day that contradicted what she said the other week!" [i.e. the fallibility of The Bible]. "I know!" says the chap. "Her words may be fallible but THE LOVE THAT EXISTS BETWEEN US IS REAL!! Our love exists I'm telling you!" "No!!" cries Smith. "Based on my highly rational analysis and intelligent thought processes, I categorically deny that you love your wife!! Your love does not exist!!" "But mister Smith!" says the fella. "You've focused on the wrong things! You've completely missed what really counts! Mister Smith - YOU HAVE MISSED THE HEART OF THE MATTER!!!!" So then mister George H. Smith - if only your spirit was as enlightened as your book is flawed. You're an intelligent man - a talented writer, I know it! You're a good man mister Smith. But please - start searching deeper!! PLEASE!!! (If anyone would like to e-mail me and discuss more about the matter, then please do so!!! I would love some feedback from different people! I have so much to say on the matter!
Rating:
Summary: WOW!
Review: looking at my email address, one would easily see that i am biased here. ok, i am a concrete atheist. After years and years of searching for words to put my ideas into, i came across Smiths Atheism : A Case Against God. Voila. it is all in these pages. Hats off to a book well written. i am speechless.
| 
