Atheism: The Case Against God
Smith, George H. 1980. Atheism: The Case Against God. 1st ed. Prometheus Books (Accessed January 23, 2007).
Rating:
10
Summary:
Brilliant exposition of atheism
The book consists of four basic parts. It begins with an exposition of atheism and illustrates how critics of atheism muddle the definition in a vain effort to refute this position. The author then contrasts reason with faith and explores revelation. The third section refutes arguments for god by illustrating how they are logically inconsistent. The fourth section focuses more explicitly on Christianity and illustrates how the precepts of Christianity are absurd.
It is clearly stated from the beginning of the book that the author is not at all interested in an objective treatment of theism and atheism – he clearly comes down on the side of atheism. The author is explicit in his denunciation of god (and religion), “It is my firm conviction that man has nothing to gain, emotionally or otherwise, by adhering to a falsehood, regardless of how comfortable or sacred that falsehood may appear” (pp. x-xi). The author also notes that his purpose in writing the book is not to convert people to atheism, but rather, “…to demonstrate that the belief in god is irrational to the point of absurdity; and that this irrationality, when manifested in specific religions such as Christianity, is extremely harmful” (pp. x-xi).
I will address some of the problems with the book below. But before addressing the problems, it is imperative I discuss some of the basic definitions provided by the author.
First, the author lays bare the definition of atheism, “The prefix “a” means “without,” so the term “a-theism” literally means “without theism,” or without belief in a god or gods. Atheism, therefore, is the absence of theistic belief. One who does not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being is properly designated as an atheist” (p. 7). The author goes on to explain that attributing positive beliefs to atheists is not accurate, “… the failure to believe in a god does not imply any specific philosophical system” (p. 21). Atheism is a negative position – the lack of belief – not a positive position. Anyone who makes a blanket statement regarding positive beliefs of atheists obviously does not understand the label and is in error.
The author also discusses the definition of ‘agnosticism’, “Agnosticism, as a general term, now signifies the impossibility of knowledge in a given area. An agnostic is a person who believes that something is inherently unknowable by the human mind. When applied to the sphere of theistic belief, an agnostic is one who maintains that some aspect of the supernatural is forever closed to human knowledge” (p. 9; see also p. 12). When clearly explained, agnosticism is shown to be not an alternative to atheism but a different conceptual idea altogether. One can simultaneously be an atheist and agnostic. For instance, one can lack a belief in god and also hold the belief that knowledge of god is impossible. By simply claiming that you are an agnostic you are not actually presenting your position on god (whether or not he/she/it exists) but simply saying whether or not it is possible to know if god exists.
The final point I think is worth mentioning in the summary is a point the author makes rather late in the book. The author notes that, for an atheist, discussing a theist’s belief in god is often futile. To determine if rational discussion is worth your while in your discussion of god with a theist, the author provides a simple test, “Before discussing any theist’s claim to rationality, the following question must be asked: “If your arguments are shown to be incorrect, will you relinquish your belief in god?” If the answer is “no” – as it often is – then any further discussion with this person is a waste of time. Any claim to rationality or concern with truth is mere pretense on his part, since he is indifferent to the validity of his arguments. This, to put it mildly, is hypocrisy” (p. 227). Thus, if your goal in reading this book is to arm yourself with the logic to illustrate to a theist that their belief is misguided, you may be foiled by the simple fact that many theists refuse to wield to rational thought – they insist on believing despite reason.
Review:
Having summarized the topics covered in the book and outlined some of the basic understandings necessary for an intelligent discussion of atheism, I now turn to my thoughts on the book. The logic employed in the book is brilliant. I found virtually every argument outlined by the author compelling. Additionally, the book is better written and far more engaging and intelligible than scripture. Speaking of scripture, this book also kept drudging up one of my least savory thoughts since leaving the religion of my youth: I spent the first 25 years of my life reading gibberish (scripture). This is especially appalling considering this book has existed as long as I’ve been able to read. Oh the hours I could have saved! I actually bought this book for a friend over a year and a half ago and bought for myself The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold. Boy did I get shorted on that deal. The Christ Conspiracy is a piece of trash; this book is an invaluable guide to making sense of the arguments employed by theists.
Well, enough with the praises. The book has a few problems, minor though they are. First, the book is purely philosophical. While this isn’t a problem in itself, the author makes the unfortunate mistake of trying to push the philosophical arguments beyond their boundaries when he delves into the realm of psychology. “A psychological sanction, if successful, causes the emotion of guilt… A man motivated by guilt, however, is a man with a broken spirit; he will obey the rules without question. A guilt-ridden man is the perfect subject for religious morality, and this is why psychological sanctions have been extremely effective in accomplishing their purpose” (p. 301). I don’t disagree that from a philosophical stand point religion can be seen as psychologically damaging. But given there is actual psychological evidence that details some of the problems with religion on the human psyche (see Batson, Schoenrade, and Ventis 1993), that literature should be drawn upon.
Another problem with the book is the author’s simplistic analysis of ethics. While I don’t necessarily disagree with the underlying argument of the ethics section, it does draw heavily on a rational-choice perspective, which makes the author’s approach subject to the same criticisms that the rational-choice approach is subject to. In short, the discussion lacks an understanding of the roles of social structure and culture in determining an individual’s ethics. It also fails to note that ethics can be culturally specific, though it does point out the indeterminate and contextual nature of ethics. I don’t want to give the impression that the author’s discussion of ethics is flawed, only that it it doesn’t cover everything it should.
Another problem with the book, though some could argue this is also a positive, is that the book focuses exclusively on Christianity after the first section on theism/atheism. The benefit of focusing on Christianity is that the book provides a detailed discussion, which no doubt would have been pared down had other religions been included. But it would also have been nice to see the application of the author’s logic to Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. Perhaps a companion volume has done this?
My final problem with the book is that the author fails to make a clear distinction between the two types of skepticism (see p. 128). The author jumps into his discussion of skepticism by denouncing skepticism and claiming it is often situated as a forerunner to theism and Christian theology. What the author fails to note is that he is referring just to the philosophical position of ‘universal skepticism’, which is altogether different from scientific skepticism. Universal skepticism doubts the existence of everything, claiming nothing is as it appears. Scientific skepticism, on the other hand, “is a scientific, or practical, position in which one questions the veracity of claims, and seeks to prove or disprove them using the scientific method” (from Wikipedia). Because the author does not clarify which skepticism he is referring to in his discussion, I found myself confused and defensive. Once I realized that he had not drawn the appropriate distinction and that he was referring only to universal skepticism (he later praises scientific skepticism), his arguments made sense. It would have been useful to have the clarification at the beginning rather than as an ‘Aha!’ moment later on.
I could go on to highlight some of the better excerpts from the book, but there are far too many to do the book justice. I think everyone should read this book, though I’m not so optimistic as to think that irrational theists will be willing to change their positions in light of the rational and reasoned approach the author presents.