Customer Reviews

Atheism: The Case Against God (Skeptic's Bookshelf)

5 star:		(137)
4 star:		(50)
3 star:		(26)
2 star:		(18)
1 star:		(31)

 

 

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.

Though I consider myself a Christian, I do not support the Christian apologetic stance that our faith can be verified through reason, and George Smith's "Atheism: The Case Against God" gives ample reasons as to why. Faith should be, as Soren Kierkegaard envisioned it, a purely irrational leap.

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 and 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 shown theism, and especially the Christian manifestation of it, for what it truly is - a worldview rife with misology. Mr. Smith undermines the old Christian adage that all truth can be found if one 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.

In my opinion, this book provides a good introduction to atheism and related philosophical issues. The hostile-sounding title might put some people off, but Smith makes it clear in the first section of his book that the primary focus of the book is whether or not theistic claims should be accepted as true. If one can show that theistic belief if flawed (the case against god), then one supports atheism.

Smith then proceeds to do just that for the remainder of his book. He covers basic and important subjects such as god concepts, faith, morality, and common arguments for god. Smith argues that no rational person can accept theism as true and he discusses the philosophical problems of many theistic arguments. Smith writes in a non-technical style, and this may be why the book is popular. I think Smith's book could serve as a good starting point for approaching more thorough and technical books on atheism.

Smith spends much of the book analyzing Christianity, and I would have preferred it if he spent more time looking at theism in general. Throughout the book, he describes major flaws in Christianity, and after awhile it appears as though he's just whipping a dead horse. Of course, it's a dead horse that many people insist on riding, so I suppose that critiquing it from several perspectives may help to convince some of the riders that they're not going anywhere on that beast.

If you are a philosophical layperson who wants to learn more about atheism, then this is the book you should read.

Now, if I may digress, it appears that some of the reviews posted before mine do not really review the book at all. Instead, they provide theistic arguments that supposedly refute the arguments that Smith makes in his book. It is interesting to note that the theistic arguments offered below are actually covered in Smith's book, where he shows them to be flawed. It makes me wonder if some of those reviewers actually read or understood the book.

Mr. Smith does an excellent job making the case for atheism in an easy-to-read book. He seems to be extremely well read on the subject of the existence of God (as evidenced by his many quotations and cites). He does a great job of presenting almost every atheistic argument conceivable and as well as providing theistic responses to almost every argument and then refuting them. I found myself thinking counter-arguments only to find them answered in the next paragraph. Mr. Smith's logic is sound and objections to it are practically non-existent. Although the book does get a little dry when Smith begins to talk about ethics, overall the reading is interesting and fascinating. The book does seem to end in on an odd note (he just stops writing after critizing the ethics of Jesus) and a conclusion would provide a fitting end to his very well-structured work. If you belong to any theistic religion, after reading this work be prepared to seriously rethink your beliefs--this book could very well change your life.

Smith does a fine job in adding to the resources available to those who are unwilling to accept superstitions as reality. His writing style is concise and occasionally breezy without ever losing its dignity. My copy of The Case Against God has been useful many times for sharpening my understanding of theist mental laxity and the rigors required of skepticism.

A note on definitions: an atheist is one who lacks belief in gods, nothing more. "Strong atheism" asserts that it is possible to disprove the existence of any alleged deity, given enough information. "Weak atheism" asserts that it is not possible to disprove the existence of gods, but that there is no credible reason to believe. NEITHER SORT OF ATHEISM IS A "FAITH". As a point of fact, monotheists such as Christians, Muslims and Jews are themselves atheists of a sort, since they lack belief in any of the hundreds of other deities that are claimed to exist. There is no more reason to accept the claims of Jehovah than those of Vishnu or Zeus.

I would suggest that every person with an interest in the subject of theism read Smith's book. I would further suggest that each theist ask themselves these questions: "what reliable, objective evidence have I obtained to demonstrate the credibility of the supernatural claims of my deity?" and - "why is similar evidence supporting the supernatural claims of other deities not credible?"

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.

I first read Atheism:The Case Against God back in 1986 at the age of thirteen. At the time the book proved to be the most important piece of literature in my life & led to my "detoxing" from the drug-like reliance on a belief in a god that so many confused masses still subscribe to.

I found then as today that Mr. Smith's writing style & arguments were both concise & accessible to the "common man" as well as those already well versed in the arguments for a non-belief in a deity(although he also succesfully argues in his book that the burden of proof lies with the believer & NOT the atheist). I would whole-heartedly recommend this book; not only to those who are questioning or are not afraid to question their belief system but also to those who have already embraced reason in their lives as it most certainly will arm you with very persuasive arguments and rhetorts based on logic to counter the emotion-based sermons that "believers" are so willing to share with us. A great book to share with teens.

Smith's book is a must read for anyone interested in atheism. It covers all the major atheist arguments in a clear and accessable manner. There is nothing essentially 'new' in it, but it's about the best collection of arguements for atheism about. In chapter on the Cosmological arguements, however, Smith seems at times to lack knowelege of some scientific principles and discoveries that could bolster his case even further. But as the book was written in 1979, this can probably be excused.

Let me correct some misrepresentations made by a previous reviewer. On page 17 Smith does not 'assert that "the existence of God impossible."'. He merely states :"Critical atheism also assumes stronger forms, such as, 'God does not exist' or, 'The existence of God impossible.' This is a statement of fact in regards to the definition of critical atheism.

Furthermore, on page 61 Smith actually says: "If the concept of God contains contradictory attributes, we may state - with certainty - that God does not exist." This is a sound logical statement, as the form of contradiction to which Smith is refering would be illogical.

The logic of the arguments presented throughout this book is impeccable. It is truly an important contribution to any debate on religion and the existence of a god or gods. For people wishing to intellectually engage with the debate about the existence of god this book is a fantastic primer that would help you make more sense of other works such as Sam Harris's PEN-Award-winning "The End of Faith". However, as the title of my review says there are a few notes of caution.

First, there is more than a little assumed knowledge. The philosophical distinction between metaphysics and epistemology is vital to understanding some of the early chapters. And, despite Smith's efforts to distinguish these terms, as a non-philosopher I found it tough going. A better example of how complex philosophy can be kept clear, acurate, and understandable can be found in Richard Carrier's (2005) "Sense and Goodness without God". Knowledge is also assumed by Smith about the meaning of the term "skepticism". Smith talks of skepticism in the David Hume sense, and, had I not read Bertrand Russell's "History of Western Philosophy" some years earlier I'm sure I would have struggled with more sections of the book than I did. My second caution about this book is its emphasis on Christian theology. Although there is a brutal demolition of grounds for belief in any god, this book only tackles the specific secondary beliefs of one of the world's major religions in any depth.

"Atheism: the Case Against God" was first published in 1979, nevertheless it still remains relevant more than a quarter of a century later. It covers hundreds of years of debate within one reasonably compact book. In a short section, toward the end of the book, Smith eviscerates arguments that design in nature proves the existence of the one God of the major world religions. "Intelligent design" is the latest craze among theistic creationists, and it is evident from Smith's book that this argument is both recycled and baseless.

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!)