Customer Reviews

Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Heresy, Smith defines in his preface, is the rejection of the orthodox, and heresies are considered a threat to the established social order once the dogma of the institution (be it religious or otherwise) has become aligned with the power of the state or political force. The state, holding the reins of power, uses force, instead of persuasion, to enforce the orthodoxy. The Founding Fathers, most practicing Deists, itself a form of heretical thought, understood this and insisted on the separation of church and state, thus preventing the establishment of an official religion, preventing, they hoped, official heresies as well. Orthodoxy itself is not dangerous, only its alliance with political power. The central theme of Smith's book is the "crucial difference between the voluntary orthodoxy of organizations and the politicized orthodoxy of governments. "A free society, complete with orthodoxies and prejudices, is the best of all worlds for the heretic. Liberty permits the heretic to pit his beliefs against those of the orthodox majority." The paradox for the heretic is whether if and when his view becomes the dominant - to politicize the new orthodoxy or to permit liberty, which enabled the heretic to conquer ideologically, to possibly undermine the new orthodoxy?

Smith is unapologetically atheist; belief in God for Smith is simply unreasonable and irrational. Asked to prove the nonexistence of God, Smith's answer is simply that one cannot prove a negative and that the person who asserts the existence of something bears the burden of proof. He asserts that to believe in faith or to rely on faith is to "defy and abandon the judgment of one's mind. Faith conflicts with reason. It cannot give you knowledge; it can only delude you into believing that you know more than you really do. Faith is intellectually dishonest, and it should be rejected by every person of integrity.

The book is a loosely connected series of essays that discuss a variety of Christian and social heresies. He begins with his own philosophic journey to atheism. He is certainly a libertarian, and the essays on public education and the War on Drugs reflect that philosophy. But the reason I began this book was to discover his writing about Ayn Rand. He devotes two substantial chapters to her and the Objectivist philosophy.

Rand evokes fierce passions, both pro and con. "Accounts of Objectivism written by Rand's admirers are frequently eulogistic and uncritical, whereas accounts written by her antagonists are often hostile and what is worse, embarrassingly inaccurate." The situation has been made worse by her appointed heir to the throne, Leonard Peikoff, who has declared Objectivism to be a "closed" philosophy, i.e., no critical analysis will be tolerated; one must accept it as he says it is and that's that. Whether Objectivism will survive such narrow-mindedness remains to be seen. It's a classic case of the true believer "unwilling to criticize the deity. Thinking for oneself is hard work so true believers recite catechisms and denounce heretics instead." Typically, this was contrary to Rand's philosophy of individualism and critical, rational thinking where "truth or falsehood must be one's sole concern and the sole criterion of judgment -- not anyone's approval or disapproval."

This is an excellent collection of essays on atheism, Ayn Rand, and miscellaneous issues. Smith is an excellent writer. I only give the book a 9 because some of the articles lack references. His essays on Rand are good medicine for those dogmatic Randians who have never read any other works of philosophy, and think that Rand can do no wrong. A previous reviewer questioned the relevance of "Franz Fanon and John Locke at Stanford", but this essay is important in analyzing the drastic effects of political correctness on the campus.

While I enjoyed immensely George H. Smith's book, 'Atheism: The Case Against God,' this book doesn't live up to it's predecessor especially at such a high price.

Most of the essays are excellent: 'My Path to Atheism,' 'Philosophies of Toleration,' 'The Righteous Persecution of Drug Consumers,' and 'Children's Rights in Political Philosophy' are a great read and the last one really made me think.

However, there are some questionable essays; one wonders what interest anyone would have in reading 'Frantz Fanon and Jonh Locke at Stanford'. One thing I found annoying were constant spelling errors scattered throughout - was this book edited? Another thing I could not figure out was whether Smith was a libertarian or an anarchist - he certainly has no problem with the privitization of the justice system, yet on the back of his first book he is described as an advocate of the libertarian view.

If you have some extra cash to spend and want to add this to your collection, get it! If you haven't already bought 'Atheism: The Case Against God' or 'Atheism: A Philosophical Justification' buy those instead.

This is a loose collection of essays by Smith. They cover a variety of topics, like Smith's personal atheism, heresies over the years, and Objectivism. His critiques of Objectivism are well-written and, IMHO, spot-on.

I wish I could give the book five stars, but there doesn't seem to be much of an underlying theme, as the title suggests. I would've liked to have seen something where the chapters lead to an inevitable conclusion, as in A:TCAG.

Most anthologies of essays are like a loose pile of sand, but thematically, I thought this one hung together fairly well. The style varied from popular to almost bibliographical.

The Ayn Rand essays were informative, though I thought Smith bent over backwards a bit too far to shield Rand herself from the charge of fanaticism. (As is so often done with Marx.) The essays I liked the best were "My Path to Atheism," "Atheism and the Virtue of Reasonableness," (good advice for theists as well), and "Frantz Fanon and John Locke at Stanford," which I read as a stirring defense of free thought against the PC mind control so prevalent in our academic establishments. If everyone (including Smith himself)would follow his rules for debate in that second essay, we might be in for a lot of good, healthy debate!

As a Christian, I was perturbed, but not surprised (having seen it so often), to find someone as apparently well-informed as Smith badly misunderstand what orthodox Christians mean by faith. He repeated the old canard that "Faith conflicts with reason," and a great deal of his discussion was saddled with this profound and oft-repudiated error. Faith, he argued,
"cannot give you knowledge." It is "intellectually
dishonest, and should be rejected by every person of integrity." He backed up his mangled argument with the writings of some obscure theologian. But when understood as orthodox Christians understand it (as I argue in my book Jesus and the Religions of Man), it is truer to say that nothing besides faith can give knowledge. "Never, never doubt the efficacy of your mind," Smith advised. Yes, and that is (in the Christian sense) an act of faith. Beyond a reasonable and tested faith in reason, memory, the fives senses, and other people, faith in God is the highest form not of blind faith (an un-Christian concept), but of the clear-headed act of reason by which rational beings perceive what is real in their environment. If you think faith is a wild and uneccessary leap in the dark, you misunderstand the Christian religion, and the nature of knowledge in general.

Suffering from this misunderstanding, Smith blames Augustine for the Dark Ages; which I think is radically unfair. (Especially considering that Augustine, one of the greatest thinkers in world history, died in a city under siege of the invaders who really did usher in the Dark Ages.)

Smith also tries halfheartedly to argue that Jesus fit the "profile" of an abusive cult leader. This is nonsense. In fact, compare the more detailed list of traits common to cult leaders compiled by such skeptical psychologists as Marcia Fabin and Anthony Storr with the Gospels, and it appears that Jesus was at the opposite end of the spectrum from that sort of person. I have been studying world religion, gurus, Messiahs, and "Living Buddhas" for many years, and I have not found any who resembled Jesus.

Despite these criticisms, I enjoyed this book and found a lot of value in it. Smith is extremely well-read, and writes with a style that is usually clear and reasonable. I look forward to reading his general defense of atheism.

This loosely connected series of essays expands his earlier work, extending beyond Atheism to embrace various Christian and social 'heresies'. Beginning with his personal Path to Atheism, he provides the skeptic with methods of argument and several readings. He gives accounts of those Christian philosophers who wrote against atheists and heretics. Heretics, of course, have been subjected to the severest punishments in the Christian churches, for a soul lost is more serious than an unconverted heathen.

Smith's discussion of Deism is the highlight of this book. As a philosophy accepting a god without a structured religious organization, Deism was a major theme among critics of Christianity. Abolishment of church hierarchies, with their inevitable moral and monetary corruption, led many thinkers to leave Christianity in favour of a personal relationship with a deity. Many of the Founding Fathers of the United States adhered to this view, a product of the European Enlightenment of the 18th Century. Arising coincidentally with many philosophies of personal freedom, it was almost inevitable that a nation experimenting with democratic ideals would espouse it. Smith's essay on the writings of Deists is enlightening.

Smith's discussion of Ayn Rand's ideas came as a bit of a shock. It's difficult to find anyone, apart from a few feminists, in this era who knows who she was. Smith's account of her life includes a smattering of choice quotations, but the brevity of the entries demonstrates the paucity of adherents. There is an Ayn Rand Institute site on the 'Net, but seems hardly worth the bother.

The two essays on public education and the War on Drugs are heartfelt expressions of a true libertarian. Neither will add to Smith's popularity in a nation where 'Christian virtues' reign with such strength, but they're required reading for anyone who wishes to understand views other than the accepted 'norm'. Smith appears to forget that public education in the United States, even given its Puritan foundation, was furthered by a desire to free education from the thrall of an Established Church. The struggling economy of a growing nation would have led more children into hazardous and fatiguing work situations from which they would never recovered. Extending the years of compulsory education freed many children and opened job opportunities. The result put more women into the work force, ultimately leading to improving their role in society.

Smith confesses his lack of a formal education, but he's certainly managed a wealth of research to produce this book. Not a deep study of the challenges to established thinking, this book is a valid starting point for those seeking further knowledge of libertarian thinking.

God is not a delusion, but he can and should be a personal God. Today, you find churches set up in storefronts or out in the country in hovels by untrained "preachers" instead of the denominations of days gone by. There were the Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Church of God, Church of Christ, etc. Now, it is non-denominational, which means "anything goes." Thus, this scientist has decided that the world would be better off without religious intervention. The churches do help their members in crisis, but otherwise they are in the business of money.

With the advent of telelevangists, we saw their public downfalls usually because of sex, though others were making a killing by using the money for personal luxuries. When Jeff went to Chicago to attend the U of C, he encountered his first atheist. Coming from a small Tennessee town, growing up Methodist, it was a bad discovery to find that his Physics and Astronomy professors did not believe in God. Everyone knows that the University of Chicago is a radical school. The Big Bang theory was that we were put here randomly and there are other aliens out there somewhere more intelligent than we. No intervention, no creation by God, no Jesus, (apparently he was a false prophet); my long-ago favorite prophet, Jeremiah (the prophet of doom) would have fit in as their advisor as he saw only the bad happening in his surroundings and was not inspired by the premonitions of Isiah and the Old Testament leaders who prophysized the coming of the Son of God. Atheists believe in the devil, so the rest of us can find comfort in God in his many varieties. The Catholics believe in communicating by calling on the Virgin Mary. I'm not an atheist, but no virgin could have a child, even a miracle child. Old women can, but not young virgins, so I believe that the Catholics have false beliefs for some reason all their own.

John Wesley taught us that Protestants of all persuasions can find life easier and we can get along with our neighbors if we have some kind of faith in a higher being. E. T. where are you?

In Pittsburg, PA, there is a large statue of Mary (mother of Jesus) looking down as she hold the babe. I saw a similar statue at a Methodist church in Nashville of Christ; when you kneel and look up (as I did) you look right into his eyes. It was eerie and moving all at the same time. At Sewanee, we had Church Women United sessions with the marvelous peacocks honking at you, but no Jesus statue in existence. That is near Bell Buckle where the original Webb School is located.

Atheists are not simply deluded, but are instruments of the devil. Today I see those young men and women all dressed in black with tatoos and black eye makeup, which are the modern version of cult members who have run amok. They could lose control at any moment, as it is clear that they are on drugs and the bad influence of something or someone not of this earth. They are definitely a danger to today's society.

I believe Ayn Rand's writings are very destructive. And this isn't because of her highly un-original philosophy. No, the reason for this is the powerful grip the books has on her followers. In her books they find justification for behaving in a anti-social manner that is slowly destroying the fabric of the societies of the Western World. This egoism is supposedly derived from "reason". In the real world however there is no reason for people not to find fulfillment and meaning from helping others and caring for their family and friends. The accusation that "altruism", i.e. decency and goodness, leads to tyranny is nothing but products of a very paranoid mind. The craziest thing about this though is the fact that Ayn Rand has been raised to a saint-like status by her followers. No disagreement with her writings is ever accepted and if you disagree you are an evil communist/collectivist. To be a true individualist you must agree with everything she has ever written. Isn't this collectivism in a true sense? No, says her followers, those views are derived by reason and must therefore be share by all intelligent human beings. Pretty scary!! Note that Objectivism, like Marxism, Freudianism and Jungianism, is a closed system of thought in the sense that any critisism of the system is automatically seen as a symptom of unreason. This is what makes Objectivism a religion rather than a philosophy or scientific method. And this is also the reason for the fanatical behavior of her disciples. At best her books are useful self help guides, but this is also true of for example the Bible or the writings of Jung.