Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith

Atheism: The Case Against God Reviews

• 
  Onyango Makagutu

  Every rational person should read this book. It comes close to being the second book after the bible to justify atheism
• 
  Artiom Karsiuk

  This book is a mindfuck and a half.
  Having gotten that out of the way, let me explain why. You know how LEGO toys have these convenient age ranges/suggestions on their boxes? This book should most definitely have an IQ sticker on it saying "120 or above". You see, I used to consider myself a bright guy. I did. Not an intellectual by any stretch of the imagination, but, let's say, nine times out of ten I could tell clay and toffee apart. But this book was meant for a far more educated or, to put it in simple terms, SMARTER reader than me. When I picked it up, I was under the wrong impression that this will be something like the Zeitgeist movie (only without the bullshit). I though it would be this entertaining little book debunking the Bible and Christianity, concentrating on the flawed facts or lack thereof in "The Book". You know, the fun stuff, like a 600 year old man building an ark, a talking serpent, the immaculate conception and so on. The hits, so to speak. Nope. The literal content of the Bible was hardly even touched on in this book - instead, it dug into the roots of Christianity. A very philosophical book that I was completely unprepared for - I never even read a "Philosophy for Dummies" for starters, not to mention a real philosophical book, up to this point in my life. The arguments presented in this book were so well crafted and perfectly worded, that I had to hold this book in one hand and a dictionary in the other. Moreover, I caught myself re-reading many paragraphs and passages over and over again to understand at least the gist of it. On several occasions, I had to stop reading altogether for a minute or two, to give my Pentium III of a head time to process the information I was ambushed with.
  Several years down the road, when I am no longer a manchild, I will be sure to take another shot a this book, because after reading it this first time I feel like I took away only a fraction of it's content.
  First, though, me getz me some BRAINZ:)
• 
  Ryan

  Several of the hosts and guests on Point of Inquiry (one of my favorite podcasts) refer to this as The Book. After reading it, I can see why. Smith boldly states his aim early on: "It is not my purpose to convert people to atheism...but to demonstrate that the belief in God is irrational to the point of absurdity. If a person wishes to continue believing in a god, that is his prerogative, but he can no longer excuse his belief in the name of reason and moral necessity." Using amazingly clear logic, and a breadth of scientific knowledge, I'd say Smith accomplishes his goal.
  
  Many mystics will reply "so what? We've known that god is beyond reason for some time." Smith addresses this view--and pretty much every other justification for the existence of god--in well-written prose. Since Smith wrote this, many others have elaborated on Smith's lines of reasoning, and some of them have come up with better refutations for the belief in gods. And Smith falters a bit, IMO, in the discussion of Jesus' ethics.
  
  This book is also a bit dense. It's a tour-de-force of logic and philosophy, and it can't be read very quickly. Still, highly recommended.
• 
  Steve

  More than 30 years before Dawkins penned his own bestseller, Atheism: The Case Against God was first published and went on to become one of the biggest selling atheist books of the twentieth century. Quite right too, as this excellent critique of theism is a magnificent testament to the power of logic. It's somewhat surprising to learn that author George H. Smith was still in his early 20s when he wrote it.
  
  Concentrating on the philosophical arguments against God's existence, the deep intellectual passion on display here is wonderful. Meticulously cutting through all the theological double-talk with his fine scalpel of a mind, Smith exposes the glaring contradictions and absurdities of theism, and in so doing, makes the single most convincing case for atheism I've yet read. (From the outset, Smith explains that if a person is not a theist, then they are an atheist. Agnosticism simply refers to the (un)knowability of a god and is a separate matter that can co-exist with either position.)
  
  His pursuit of (and 'for') reason is relentless. This is no bandwagon book of smug posturing and pithy retorts - Smith makes a real effort to present the best arguments of his opponents, often exhaustively so, before proceeding to dismantle each one with devastating precision. While I found myself questioning his train of thought on a couple of points, the book is nevertheless hugely and enjoyably successful in what it sets out to do. More philosophically in-depth than many of the recent crop of atheist titles, I really think this one deserves much wider recognition today than it currently receives.
• 
  Lisa (Harmonybites)

  Yes, I am an atheist, and was before I ever opened this book. I guess the reason I rate this book so highly is because it's a philosophical approach dealing with the various arguments for a God. Too often what I've seen dubbed "The New Atheism" comes across as hectoring, shrill, even, dare I say, evangelical, with all the sophistication of a three-year-old stamping their feet and screaming "Religion sucks."
  
  There are a couple of chapters on the consequences and "sins" of religion, yes, but at the very end--it's not where the emphasis of the book lies. Part One, "Atheism and God" defines atheism and treats the whole concept of "God." Part Two, "Reason, Faith, and Revelation" deals with why reason and faith are opposed. And finally, in Part Three, "The Arguments for God" Smith refutes the most common arguments for God, the Cosmological and Design arguments. A third, the Ontological (that God by his nature as a perfect being must exist) is in a way dealt with in the early chapter about the unintelligibility of the very concept of God.
  
  I was exposed to all these arguments for God in my Catholic high school and Jesuit College--so I believe Smith does cover all the bases and presents the arguments for God fairly--and demolishes the idea that religion has any intellectual respectability.
• 
  Book Shark

  Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith
  
  "Atheism: The Case Against God" is an accessible, scholarly philosophical book that makes compelling arguments against the concept of a supreme being. It's a book that offers cogent arguments to the question of god() in a logical manner. This 355-page book is composed of the following four parts: 1. Atheism and God, 2. Reason, Faith and Revelation, 3. The Arguments for God, and 4. God: The Practical Consequences.
  
  Positives:
  
  1. A thorough, well-written book that dissects the most common arguments for god().
  2. Great wisdom throughout this book. Ideas explained in a lucid manner. Consider the following, "While one may assert that something is presently unexplained, one may never conclude that something is inherently unexplainable." Excellent!
  3. Great systematic approach of defining concepts and conveying ideas.
  4. Provides great ammo for debates.
  5. Good use of sound logic.
  6. The problem of evil dissected.
  7. In defense of science.
  8. Reason and faith as exclusive terms.
  9. Everything you wanted to know about the limitations of faith.
  10. What theology entails.
  11. The misology of the Bible.
  12. Arguments for god() logically dissected.
  13. What the Second Law of thermodynamics pertains to.
  14. The difference between rational and religious morality.
  15. How Christianity thrives on guilt.
  16. Excellent reading list.
  
  
  Negatives:
  
  1. In spite of Mr. Smith's excellent approach, philosophy can be difficult to follow at times.
  2. The book may be uneven at times, spending too much time dissecting faith while spending less time on say debunking souls.
  3. Since the book was written some time ago, some ideas have evolved. The use of skeptic and anti-skeptic comes to mind.
  
  In summary, Mr. Smith takes on a freethinking journey of reason. His accessible yet profound approach makes a very strong case for atheism. I really enjoyed his style of writing which is lucid and compelling and he has clarified many concepts for me. This a wonderful book to introduce someone new or someone like me who is seeking philosophical clarity. A true classic and like fine wine gets even better with time.
  
  Further recommendations: "Sense and Goodness Without God" by Richard Carrier, "Decoding the Language of God..." by George C. Cunningham, "50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God" by Guy P. Harrison, "Godless..." by Dan Barker, and "Why I became an Atheist" by John Loftus.
• 
  Derek Perumean

  I read this book years ago and looked at it again recently because of my old Army buddy who is attending Biola was interested in atheism. Although this book is old and some of the arguments dated (I'm thinking here of the contemporary arguments from guys like Plantinga or Swinburne, which could not be examined) I would still recommend this before I would ever tell someone to pick up Dennett, Harris or the sophist Dawkins (his book is utter garbage). Smith's book will get you thinking. About the only bad thing I can say about it is that he relies on Ayn Rand to make his case for ethics. I have never understood the fascination with her and even worse is anyone who thinks of her as a philosopher. She is to philosophy what Frida Kahlo is to art. Nuff said! I do give Smith tremendous credit for telling the reader who wishes to delve further into Thomistic metaphysics to look for other sources. Most writers completely misinterpret Aquinas and produce shoddy counter-arguments. Smith does a decent job and includes the biggest limitation of Aquinas' proofs that I have also thought: you get the god of philosophy, but not the god of religion. To be sure, the 5 Ways are from the Summa, which was sort of the Wikipedia of its time. In order to fully understand what Aquinas said you have to look at his other works (and yes, those are sitting on my shelf). If you are an atheist or believer you will find some good stuff to ponder in this book. And afterwards you should go out and find someone who disagrees with you.
• 
  Worthless Bum

  There are basically two ways in which one can argue against god and religion: either they are false or harmful. This book concerns itself with the former and in that capacity it is probably the best book ever written. It is unquestionably the best book I have ever read which takes the god-is-false approach to argue against god. Smith shows in simple, lucid reasoning how the notion of a god is an ill conceived and incoherent mish mash of purely irrational nonsense. It is difficult to conceive how anybody could be a theist after reading this book.
  
  The book's one drawback is a chapter at the end of the book which argues for an Objectivist ethics (yuck!). I was pondering whether to give this book 4 or 5 stars and I decided that an obviously flawed short chapter concerning ethics isn't enough to seriously mar the magnificent focus of this book (which in not concerned with ethics).
• 
  Jason Mills

  Smith's book dates from 1979. You might expect it to be peppered with scientific arguments that might now be out of date, but in fact he doesn't use any. Arguing that atheism is the default and remaining position if theism does not hold up, Smith spends the whole of his 300 pages hacking away at theism from a purely philosophical perspective.
  
  This is a rigorous, trenchant attack on the evasions and smoke-clouds of theology. Although he focuses on christianity for cultural reasons, Smith's arguments are as readily applicable to any theistic religion. The philosophical approach sounds dry and dusty, but in fact the author's irritated slam-dunks make for a very entertaining read: sometimes you can almost hear his eyes roll:
  

  Anything asked in the name of Jesus will be granted, including the miraculous transportation of a mountain. It would take very few examples of mountain moving to convert the atheists of the world, but the modern Christian is reluctant to defend these grandiose claims of faith, much less attempt an actual demonstration.

  
  A particular pleasure was Smith's brisk and effortless demolition of the Argument from Design and the Argument from Life - in each case not even mentioning evolution!
  
  The book does get a little boggy towards the end, when he outlines a meta-ethics based on Ayn Rand's work. But the fun returns for some welcome pops at the rarely-criticised precepts of Jeebus at the end. Those theists who (spuriously) dismiss the likes of Dawkins as insufficiently versed in theology might find Smith's book an uncomfortable riposte.
• 
  Julio Pino

  "God, cleverly disguised as a burning bush, tells Moses to...". After Bertrand Russell's WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN, which I read in my teens, this pungent volume, which I read in my twenties, is the book that most influenced me in thinking of theism versus atheism. The book is unusual in that the author identifies with the political right, unlike Dawkins or Hitchens, and at the time of publication still followed Ayn Rand. From astrophysics contra metaphysics and the morality (if any) of why some people survive plane crashes, no topic related to the Supreme Being is left untouched.
• 
  Terri

  The methodical and rational way the author picks apart the various traits commonly attributed to god (omniscience, omnipotence, etc) is just beautiful. I have read this book three times. Love it!
• 
  Richard

  During the last couple of decades there has been a whole succession of loud books on this subject—if you want to read Hitchens or Dawkins you just stroll into the nearest library or bookshop—but Smith’s is less well-known and harder to track down. Which is a shame, because it’s far better and very different in tone.
      There are four parts: first, ‘God’ considered in the abstract, purely as a concept; second, two ways of looking at life—reason and faith—compared and contrasted; third, an analysis of historical attempts at using reason to prove the existence of God; and finally, the effects of organised religion on morality and behaviour. This is very much a philosophy book; it’s about ideas (there’s relatively little here about the Bible for example) and also lacks the outright hostility, the polemics, of those more recent works. This one is as detached, observant and analytical as a diagnosis, as meticulous as a dissection, as solemn as a burial. For me, one of its more surprising details was how much it changed my view of the two words ‘agnosticism’ and ‘scepticism’, both of which I see in a different light since reading this. Smith only falters near the end, in a short section dealing with ethics; I don’t know what happened there—it’s almost as if someone else stepped in and wrote that part—because it’s suddenly woolly and indecisive. That does, though, only serve to point up the sheer clarity—both of the writing itself and the mind behind it—of the rest.
      In fact, this is the best thing I’ve read on the subject: no duff logic, just clear thinking expressed in such crystal-clear language I wish all philosophy books, on all philosophical subjects, could be like this.
• 
  Daniel

  When I first started this book, I was told that George H. Smith was not like Richard Dawkins. In terms of his politeness for theistic world-views, he does have a level of charitableness that if ever found in Richard Dawkins would be be an argument for the existence of God in and of itself. However, in the extent that Smith offers any profound objections to theism, specifically the theism of Christianity, Smith leaves the well-versed philosopher of religion and atheists wanting more at the end of almost every argument.
  
  While the book is good overview of basic objections that atheists raise, George Smith does not portray the arguments he is responding to accurately. A good example of this is in his discussion of the 'First Cause Argument' where he states it as "everything has a cause." But, this is not the argument. An important verb, 'begins,' is left out. The actual argument is "everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause." So in as much as most Atheists miss this detail, this book is accurately portraying the way in which the atheist tends to argue. However, it will inadequately prepare an atheist for confronting a theist that has any philosophical knowledge.
  
  However, the book is not all bad. As a theist I found the beginning of the book to be thought provoking, especially his discussions of Thomistic doctrines of analogy and the objections he raises on natural law. However, and this is for the low rating, the book loses steam with every page turned. What begins as honest philosophical investigation, dwindles into poor philosophical summaries and ends in a pool of Dawkin's like rhetoric on Bible verses that any one could pull out of context to justify their frustration with religion.
  
  Finally, his ethical system seems to be inconsistent with his model of the universe. How is it that we can posit metaphysical categories, like eternality, of a universe that clearly possesses existence and material and then say that 'things' have natures that direct us toward our natural end (Smith says this end is survival)? Is human nature composed of matter? As I understand an Aristotelian model, the form will adhere in the substance, but it is not material. If this is the case, then what is the cause of the essence? It can't be matter because if it was then it would be a subject of discussion in the physical sciences. Thus, it must be immaterial and therefore have an immaterial cause, but Smith has removed immaterial causes from his system in order to avoid the conclusion of theism. In addition, his ethical system based on survival does not uphold an ethical system, it undermines it. If survival is the meta-ethic of objective good in ethics (i.e., normative ethics) then virtues, like courage are non-existent and cowardice is elevated. In other words, you only save a life if you know that your life will not be ended in the process.
  
  In summary, the book begins with good questions and prompted me to revisit difficulties in my own theological understanding. But in the end, Smith reveals a stereotypical atheistic, "I don't like God, therefore atheism" response.
  
  
  
  
• 
  Christopher Hudson Jr.

  As someone who considers themself an atheist, I was initially skeptical about how much I would gain from a book with a thesis I already more or less accept. However Atheism: The Case Against God proved to be one of the most enjoyable secular/non-religious books I’ve read. Despite a few quibbles here and there, George H. Smith’s classic book holds up surprisingly well after 40 years. Smith responds to common religious arguments as well as objections to atheism in very unique and interesting ways compared to many modern prominent non-religious writers. The strongest sections are Smith’s blistering critiques of religious agnosticism and Christian ethics. My main criticism is the very clear influence of Objectivism on the author (at the time of the writing), which in my opinion, taints many of the sections on metaphysics and meta-ethics. In addition, while Smith mostly sticks to philosophical arguments and responses, discussions of cosmological and design arguments for a god are probably best when they include a bit more science to inform the debate. Despite these minor quibbles, I would highly recommend Smith’s book for those interested in atheism or objections to Christianity more specifically.
• 
  L

  It was this book, read when I was 19, that put a name to what I'd been feeling for two years. Smith labeled my beliefs that I had only until that point thought were "lacks" of beliefs, intangible and unknowable. This book did nothing to "sway" or "lure" me; I knew what I was feeling long before this. I just didn't have a definitive name for it. I exhaled deeply when I read that others felt the same way, even though I didn't "come out" until thirteen years later. This little book will always have a warm and cozy, nostalgic place in my heart.
• 
  L

  That is correct! I have finally finished this excellent book and, for the most part, I loved it.
  
  It went over every question regarding God one could possibly think of, and more regarding other deities and Christianity in general. It never regarded something as fundamentally stupid until *after* Smith went over it in excruciating detail. For many people, it would be too difficult to read because of the sheer depth into each individual point. However, for me, that is what made this book splendid. I loved the depth and metal unlike anything else.
  
  On the flip side, the same thing that made this book brilliant is what removed a star: detail. This isn't an easy read. The author has a wide vocabulary and values clarity to an extent that makes it confusing to those without such a grasp on the English language.
  
  Overall, this book was fantastic. I cannot recommend it highly enough, despite my only 4-stars. In a few years, once my vocabulary has expanded and my reading skill has improved, I hope to read it again. Maybe that time I'll understand it well enough to give it that final star.
• 
  Gary Beauregard Bottomley

  This book gives a devastating take on theism and a brilliant defense for atheism and was published in 1979. For the most part he presents a more coherent and consistent set of arguments than the more recent books defending atheism do.
  
  The author is not a philosopher (he seems to be more of a political writer than anything else) but he's very clever in his logical constructions and what words really mean. He starts off by discussing what an atheist really is, shows how definitions of God usually are inconsistent, how the natural can't be used to describe the supernatural, and how faith precludes reason. Faith is the belief without support (or how I like to say "faith is pretending to know something you don't know"). Science is based on reason, but it is never certain. This uncertainty allows for doubt and can lead to belief systems based on whims and authority.
  
  I like the first two thirds of the book very much and there are many great points the author lays out. It can make a difference for anyone who has thought that atheist are atheist because they must hate God but now realize their faith just doesn't make sense (thinking atheist hate God also doesn't make sense either) and are starting to question their faith.
  
  The last third of the book has a lot to be desired. His cosmological and design arguments were sparse; he's clearly not a scientist and a lot has happened since 1979. His discussion on ethics seemed absurd. He seems to be an Objectivist of some type and thinks that the right moral value truths have been derived through the writings of Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden. I'm not an objectivist so I don't really know if he accurately states their views, but if that's what they believe in they need to be more coherent and systematic. Moreover, I had no idea why he wrote those sections in this book, because you don't need to develop your own system of ethics from a pseudo philosophical system in order to refute God is required for morality to exist.
  
  I highly recommend this book if you find it at the used bookstore for 2$ (as I did), and it is a great read (but can be difficult because the author is logically precise), but he unnecessarily damages his story by needlessly worshipping at the temple of Ayn Rand.
  
  
  
  
  
• 
  Fred Kohn

  I've been hearing about how great a book this is for some years now, so I thought I would give it a try. It's not too bad, but it didn't blow me away. The author would have done better not to say anything about the Bible, because pretty much everything he says is wrong. I found the ethical arguments pretty good, although his reliance on the writings of
  Nathaniel Branden was annoying. Apparently the author is a Randian Objectivist, which I don't count as a point in his favor. The quotes he used from
  Ayn Rand were actually to the point, though, and I think the section on ethics was one of the best parts of the book.
• 
  Alexandra

  I could write about religion all night long. I came across people who thought I was crazy and stupid for not believing in a supreme being who controls us like puppets. this book deserves to be read! There are some mind-blowing facts in it that makes you wonder. I like talking about this " fragile " subject with open-minded people, people who won't judge you, people who won't tell you that all your life's sufferings happened because you don't believe in God. because let's face it, God has a huge ego and gets angry with you if you don't obey its rules. I'm afraid that books like this and topics of discussions similar to this will forever be treated with judgement and hate and it's just sad. It's easier to believe in a god than to believe in yourself, apparently.