Rating: 
Summary: Excellent Book
Review: Smith does an excellent job of setting the foundation for his "Case Against God" and staying consistent throughout. He presents the premises fundamental to most, if not all, of the arguments for the existence of God and shows them to be rationally indefensible and in most cases self-contradictory. Within the limits set in the first few chapters, his assault is devastating. That's my take on it, but I'm sure most of the faithful would disagree. Not all of his arguments went off without a hitch though. He seemed a little thrown by Aquinas's variation on the first-cause argument, "the sustaining first cause" I think it was called. Putting God in the position of a cosmic maintenance man, I found it to be one of the more pathetic arguments presented, but Smith seemed to stumble through this one a little. It's such an odd argument that I think he gave it more serious attention than was warranted. The same could be said for much in this book. Repeatedly he grants certain arguments a pass on fundamental problems just for the sake of argument. I guess he wanted to make sure he was being thorough, which he definitely was. Of course, I doubt anyone has been or will be swayed by any of it. Most people who believe in God do so because they want to, need to, or feel pressured to do so. Psychology seems to play a more prominent role than any philosophical arguments, but I don't pretend to have any deep understanding of why people believe in God, nor do I mean to imply that there is anything wrong, psychologically or otherwise, with the faithful. It seems more a case of conditioning than anything else. This book is well-written and as well-organized and systematic in it's approach to the issue as one could hope for. Good reading for anyone interested.
Rating:
Summary: Dare you take this challenge?
Review: This is a devestating, systematic deconstruction and refutation of theistic thought. As one who was once part of the fundamentalist Christian church, my mind tends to always be one step ahead of points books like this make, so familiar am I with the absurd, irrational and illogical stubborness and denial based arguments that come from many mainstream patriachal theistic beliefs. This book addresses each argument theists can use to try and trump Smith, and the author uses logic and reason in such a way that the only things left for the theist to argue are along the lines of faith and the limits of human knowledge and potential to understand. To many of us, these last-ditch theistic arguments read more like get-out clauses, designed to appeal to that which is outside of logic and reasoning - a place where belief is rife but truth is absent. Smith breaks things down in a very readable way that can appeal to the academic as well as the lay-reader. For atheists (those of us who are without belief in the existence of God(s), rather then those who believe God doesn't exist - a common misunderstanding of the term) this is a wonderful life-affirming book. For theists, particularly those who appreciate the woeful inadequacy of resorting to faith to excuse themselves from intelligent, progressive dialogue, this represents a challenge that will inspire thought and reflection - perhaps a new concept to some. To those on the fence, new to this area of debate or just keen to increase their readership, I cannot recommend this book highly enough. It's a fantastic introduction to, and consolidation of, the marvellous warm humanistic world of the brave. Atheism.
Rating:
Summary: A Proud & Confident Defense of Reason
Review: Unlike many readers of "Atheism: The Case Against God", I came to this book somewhat later on in my freethought journey; It's been years since I've flirted with the idea that any organized religion or doctrine has anything to offer a person who is pursuing happiness and wisdom on earth. This book advances the precept that any human being whose standards are grounded in reason, logic, science, ethics and philosophy should steer as clear as possible from the Bible and Christian theology. All of these basic anchors to reality are anathema to the Christian requirements of faith without evidence, blind obedience to dogma, fear of horrible supernatural retribution if one's thoughts stray to the lustful or covetous, and never questioning even the most ludicrous or offensive of Biblical assertions, under penalty of an eternal barbecue in hell with you as the entree. Prior to reading this book, I spent years enthusiastically butting heads in debate with willing Christians, fighting the good fight of science over religion, reason over faith, evolution over creationism, picking apart the Bible's contradictions and errancy, and all the rest. Now, having finished Smith's book, I have for the first time in memory lost all interest in wasting my time arguing against the enemies of reason, and the proponents of anti-intellectualism! Now, THAT'S what I call a miracle! LOL. The book reminded me that whenever a Bible passage says something the believer doesn't agree with understand or care for, the euphemistically-named Christian tool of "interpretation" comes into play, whereby the passage is made to mean whatever that person wants it to mean. A perfect example amongst thousands of these, would be the fact that in the New Testament, Jesus repeatedly told his followers that he'd be coming back to earth within their own lifetimes, whereupon the kingdom of heaven would open up for them. Needless to say, his disciples packed their toothbrushes a bit early for their journey to heaven, because Jesus didn't return, and hasn't to this day. Today's Christians must "interpret" Jesus's absolute certainty regarding his imminent return to earth in the 1st century, and factor in a few thousand extra years, and then some, so as to keep the whole basis of Christianity: his return, alive. In another superlative section of the book, Smith demonstrates that no Christian is capable of explaining or describing what they even mean by "God" in any sort of coherant, consistent, descriptive, or meaningful sense. Instead, they must pretend to possess arcane knowledge of God which only people of "faith" are privy to, and if pressed further for a description will fall back to meaningless secondary personality traits like "love" and "goodness" which could just as well be used to describe a puppy, or such supernatural descriptors as "omnipotent", "omniscient", "eternal", etc., all of which collapse into a black hole of contradictions and irrationality when pursued a few layers down into the onion skin of true-believer obfuscation. For the first time I am 100% convinced that belief in the Christian God is utterly irrational, and indefensible, and I really owe it to way the trenchantly-presented argumentation in this book, consolidated and coalesced the extensive freethought readings I've been doing for the past years! Readers with a basic familiarity with philosophic terms and ideas will find this book accessible and full of thought-provoking information. I highly recommended it!
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: Demolishes virtually all arguments for the existence of god
Review: Next to the bible, no book presents as good an argument against god-belief than does "Atheism: The Case Against God." I first read this book in the late 1980s after I had a terrible experience as a born-again Christian. I knew for sure that much fraud, hypocrisy, and fanaticism existed in the Christian religion. I also had a gut feeling that many of its claims were highly suspect. Nevertheless, I felt compelled to remain a Christian because of its polemics. "Atheism" changed all that for me. Smith's arguments are clear and convincing. For example, on page 223 he says: "Since the Christian God is a mass of unintelligible characteristics, it is impossible--in principle--rationally to demonstrate its existence." Bravo! Smith is quite correct here, and it is easy to prove that he is: ask any believer--Christian or otherwise--to explain exactly what it is that he or she wants you to believe in. Ask them to be explicit and to give a definition of "God" that is understandable. I guarantee you that no Christian or Muslim or Jew will be able to supply this type of answer. If you disagree with me than try this tactic. You will win the debate every time. But, hey, the real point is not to win debates: the real goal of rational thinking is to accept truth and reject falsehoods especially pernicious falsehoods like religious belief. "Atheism: The Case Against God" is a good place to start for anyone wishing to break the shackles of theistic belief.
Rating:
Summary: Scholarly and Intellectual
Review: As a biology teacher, I hear a lot of nonsense from parents, administration, and teachers of other subjects about the scientific evidences for Creationism (lately called Intelligent Design). The reality is that evidence of God in the creation of the universe is nil and Creationism is a scientifically bankrupt idea. In this book George Smith authoritatively demonstrates that God is also moreover, a philosophically bankrupt idea as well. This book, although scholarly and intellectual, will leave Christians largely unconvinced as they are immune to logic and impervious to reason.
As a wonderful opening chapter, Smith defines what atheism is and how atheists differ from each other; Smith defines himself as a "critical athiest". He also sets the stage for his Case Against God by showing that the 'burden of proof' rests with the theists. Using remarkably clear logic, Smith demonstrates that the "idea" of God is completely unintelligible. A third of the book is devoted to making the word "God" a meaningless sound, devoid of any rational conceptualization. Smith next addresses the principal of faith. Once again, Smith demonstrates through reason, that faith has no place in rational thought; not to mention that faith is even more absurd when one cannot describe what others are supposed to have faith in. There is much more, and Smith ultimately shows through very clear thinking that the Case Against God is overwhelming. At the beginning of the book, Smith states that he has written this book to, "demonstrate that the belief in God is irrational to the point of absurdity". Amen!
On a more personal note, Smith shows that one should be very proud of being a critical atheist. For it is in our ability to reason that we are able to enrich ourselves as human beings.
Rating: 
Summary: Atheist versus Agnostic
Review: Actually, atheism *is* the belief that God does not exist. As per dictionary.com - "1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. 2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods." I believe the term you're looking for is agnostic(ism). "1.One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. 2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism. 3. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something."
Rating:
Summary: Reason versus faith. How do we acquire knowledge?
Review: How do we acquire knowledge? The only means we have is reason, because it is self correcting. Faith, on the other hand, is not a reliable means of acquiring knowledge because it provides no means of distinguishing truth from untruth.
If one believed in the demon theory of disease, one would be skeptical when Louis Pasteur's discovery of germs led to the hypothesis that killing them would cure disease. But if many physicians put this hypothesis to the test and found it to be true, then one would be obliged to change one's belief.
This is reason.
If one believed that God hand crafted every being, and then fossils were found in layers that tended to show that the theory of gradual evolution might be true, and if one dismissed this evidence, saying that God put the fossils there to test one's faith, this would abdicate reason.
This is faith.
Faith can make us paint ourselves into a corner. If evidence appears that shows us to be wrong. then we must justify our beliefs with outrageous explanations. Look at the traditional proofs for the existence of God: They collapse under their own weight.
Rationalists, too, believe wrong things, but they are willing to change their minds in the face of new evidence. This self correction is the only reliable way that humanity has to acquire new knowledge.
There may be a god or gods, but the test of reason requires evidence. Let it be brought forth.
Rating: 
Summary: yeah..
Review: http://www.tektonics.org/qt/smithg01.html - these guys have read this book (unlike some critics) and come up with some arguments against it, though since smith has now effectively proved atheism as the only viable option does it really matter anymore? in fact what does anything matter - whether god exists or not or christians/jews/muslims wish to believe in him or not? who cares? to quote the bible let us eat, drink & be merry for tomorrow we die..
Rating:
Summary: compelling.
Review: good writer. if you like, check out C.S. Lewis, he's amazing. also check this out
http://www.chicagosuntimes.com/output/religion/cst-nws-atheist10.html
|
