Atheism Case Against God [Paperback]

 

 

Create your own review

"How can...and evil?"
Essence and nature are synonymous. Essence goes hand in hand with existence and the existence of essences can not be denied without contradiction. Regarding consciousness, this reviewer begs the question by assuming consciousness is not a purely natural, material phenomenon. All one can do is simply see that it exists and accept it; they can not attach any theistic presuppositions to it. Regarding justice and evil, this reviwer assumes God decides what is just and moral but this leads back to the divine command/divine privilge approach to ethics I talked about earlier and showed to be problematic. There is no need to repeat myself here.

"In short...as well."
Obvious Christian presuppositionalist rhetoric. First of all, Smith is not depending on Christianity for anything. He simply starts with logical axioms and proceeds with his epistemic and metaphysical investigations from there. By claiming that Smith can not make knowledge claims without allegedly depending on Christianity for logical laws, the reviewer could be criticized for begging the question about the origin of logical laws. In fact, I am not even sure they had an origin. A theist may say they did with God, but by saying this, he implicitly affirms the truth of the law of identity even when there was only God and I have explained this further in my review elsewhere.

This Christian presuppositionalist labeled Smith a dogmatist yet he was a dogmatist himself. I would be tempted to call that hypocrisy but that would imply Smith actually is a dogmatist in the way the reviewer accused him of, but as is evident, these accuations totally fail. One final point is that throughout his reviw, this reviwer uses the word omniscience as meaning to know everything. Smith shows in his book that this characteristic of having unverified, automatic knowledge is unintelligible and plunges us into agnosticism. Anyway, the omnimax God has been shown by philosophers to be incoherent. Something that is incoherent has no place in a discourse where intelligible things are being spoken of.

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.

"There is...finite standards."
Here we get a hint of Christian presuppositionalism. Simply put, logic and ethics are contingent on God; he decides what they are. First, let's examine logical laws. Smith pointed out that these were the law of identity, the law of the excluded middle and the law of non-contradiction. If the law of identity and it's two corrolaries are contingent on God, then that means that are not necessarily true and that he can reverse them. In other words, he can make the capital of Saskatchean Regina and not Regina at the same time. However this is absurd. At this point, I will be accused of having my own presuppositions and that I can not condemn the Christian presuppostitionalist for having his. However, this accusation would be foolish; how can the law of identity and its two correlaries be reversed? The answer is they can't. The Christian by saying God existed before logical laws simply affirms the truth of the logical laws: Before the universe existed, God was god and not something else (identity); God was creating and therefore not also not creating at the same instance (law of non-contradiction). Of course the theist can say that they do not apply to God since these laws only make sense with several things and it can't when there's only God. However, Christians have their God as omniscient and hence he knew what he was going to create. He had concepts and ideas of people and other things that he was about to create; hence he was distinguishable and seperate from the upcoming universe and his thoughts of it. Therefore, the Christian by claiming God is omniscient, shoots himself in the foot when trying to claim the law of identity did not apply to God pre-creation.
Regarding ethics, Christians like to claim there are morally objective judgements that are true or false. This reviewer would have us believe that humans must obey these rules but God does not have to. In others words this approach to ethics is a combination of divine command and divine privilege. Christians grant that humans are agents and have free will and this is why we are subject to moral praise and moral condemnation for our actions. Since Christians also believe that we are made in God's image and likeness (Genesis), that means God is an agent with free will as well. So since humans are subject to moral rules based on being agents with free will, God must be as well since he is an agent with free will. Christians claim that humans can not say something is right or wrong just because they say so and yet this is exactly what they say God can do thereby making morals applying to all humans. Christians are basically saying that some free moral agents have to obey while other free agents do not. They reserve a special privilege for God; might makes right. They deny this might is right theory for humans yet reserve it for God. The inconsistency is too blatant to ignore; but this reviewer and other Christians have somehow found a way. Actually, they see the inconsistency but ignore it. Tsk tsk tsk.

"If there...of appeal."
So because the theist has a book about a God, and he defines God as being all perfect and all absolute, that means that anything out of the bible is automatically true? Sorry but that doesn't fly. This type of linguistic trickery did not work with the ontological argument and does not work here.

"The atheist...of appeal."
What is the atheist's absolute? They are the laws of logic which were discussed previously. But as is proven, logical laws are axiomatic and can not be reversed. It's not that the atheist won't allow anything to surpass this standard. It's that he does not have the ability. These logical laws are necessarily true and can not be consistently denied. To deny them is to affirm them. Christian presuppositionalists need to realize this and stop their whining because whining is of no philosophical help.

"The ultimate...'against reason.'"
Given that the logical laws are axiomatic and necessarily true, is it any wonder that Smith is committed to them. The fact is, he has no choice. They are basic, obvious facts of reality. Just because finite creatures like humans discover their truth and make note of it in their discourse, it does not make the laws fallible and increase the likelihood of them being overturned. No matter how intelligent a person is, they can not overturn an axiom.

"Smith is...atheistic dogmatism"
Sure. It'll be a nice break from this reviewer's Christian dogmatism.

"We obviously...are intelligible" (61);
Oh my gosh, will you look at this dogmatism. Smith is actually saying that we can not accept something uncritically and that we must examine it. This line is deliberately thrown in by the reviwer in a feeble attempt to paint Smith as dogmatic. It's a good thing he didn't submit the following sentence because the reviewer would be exposed for a kook. Smith said in the next sentence that we must know what we are talking about when engaged in a philosophical discussion because we do not learn anything when we are told a 'blark' exists if we do not know what a blark is.

more to come...

Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review

› See all 206 customer reviews on Amazon.ca

 

2.0 out of 5 stars Not very strong
I recently re-read Atheism: The Case Against God by George Smith after glancing at some of the reviews posted on Amazon. Read more

Published on April 24 2005

4.0 out of 5 stars My review of the book and a note on my other reviews
Mt 1st review you see has 4/4 in the title but IT'S NOT my rating. 4/4 means part 4 of 4. Before voting on any part of my review, PLEASE READ THE OTHER PARTS and grade them as a... Read more

Published on Jun 16 2004 by Drew J

5.0 out of 5 stars A response
Aren't we wasting our breath here? As has been said in other reviews, in the face of the 'the Infinite', all conclusive logic and intellectual scopes necessarily break down. Read more

Published on May 16 2004

2.0 out of 5 stars boring
books like this are too shallow. They hold as much weight against Gods existence as a religious fundamentalist holds for Gods existence. Read more

Published on May 15 2004

4.0 out of 5 stars My review of Banderbe on sept 2001 (1/4)
This is a long review of mine so you will see it in 4 parts:

"The most...as well"
I disagree that this book is flawed as badly as you say.

"We find... Read more

Published on May 8 2004 by Drew J

4.0 out of 5 stars My review of Banderbe on Sept 2001 (3/4)
"According to...man's knowledge" (89);
What does he mean when he says all of existence? Read more

Published on May 8 2004 by Drew J

5.0 out of 5 stars Sensible and Rational Arguments
Demolishes all the standard arguments for God, with an especially devastating disassembling of the rationale for Christianity. Read more

Published on May 7 2004 by Mark H. Drought

3.0 out of 5 stars A solid defense of atheism
This book provides a clear and logical critique of theism. However, I doubt that it will convince believers simply because it does not address "spirituality", which in... Read more

Published on May 3 2004 by undefined

4.0 out of 5 stars Atheism is one answer to the Q:"Why"? Theism is another
Belief-systems such as Christianity, Catholicism, and all our world religions have arisen because of human hope. Read more

Published on April 25 2004

4.0 out of 5 stars A very relieving read...
I think sometimes we just have to ask ourselves, "why?"-- why do we so many of us follow such rediculous ideas as christianity or catholocism? Read more

Published on April 25 2004

Search Customer Reviews
Only search this product's reviews

› See all 206 customer reviews on Amazon.ca

Search Listmania!