Philosophy Now Forum

As is customary do when I go to my local Barnes and Noble, I was browsing the atheist section when another customer suggested that I read Atheism: The Case Against God by George Smith. He said it is a good, if not the best, introduction to the atheism and argument against God there is. I think the gentleman was taken aback when I said I would take him up on his suggestion because I like comic books. I wasn't being rude, just honest.

I was right, too. It reads more like a self-promoting comic book than a serious argument against theism. For example, in the in introduction he says:

• 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. Anyone who claims, on the one hand, that he is concerned with human welfare, and who demands, on the other hand, that man must suspend or renounce the use of his reason, is contradicting himself. There can be no knowledge of what is good for man apart from knowledge of reality and human nature—and there is no manner in which this knowledge can be acquired except through reason. To advocate irrationality is to advocate that which is destructive to human life.

This guy calls himself a philosopher? Where did he get his credentials? Did he find it buried in a kitty litter box? There is so much wrong with that one paragraph that it does not even rise up to the level of ludicrous. First of all, a belief that comforts is a gain for the believer whether or not that belief is true, and to rob the believer of that comfort without giving him or her something to fill the void is an act of cruelty. Secondly, what is the good of man? Is the good of man necessarily good for the cosmos? Third, if atheism is right, man is a rationalizing creature, not a rational one. His mind evolved to survive, not to discern what is real—which means Smith's 'firm conviction' is no more legitimate than a religious fanatic's claim to truth.

Have any of the atheists here read it? Any favorite excerpts you'd like to share?

The Inglorious One wrote:
to rob the believer of that comfort without giving him or her something to fill the void is an act of cruelty

I am an atheist but that has absolutely no negative bearing on me at all either emotionally or philosophically
However if believing in God brings one comfort so be it just as long as this does not impact upon anyone else

The Inglorious One wrote:...
First of all, a belief that comforts is a gain for the believer whether or not that belief is true, and to rob the believer of that comfort without giving him or her something to fill the void is an act of cruelty. ...

How about if the belief also brings guilt, anguish, etc?

Secondly, what is the good of man? ...

No idea as the author didn't say this. for someone who accuses others of littering you should learn to read.

Is the good of man necessarily good for the cosmos? ...

Well ignoring that it's not the 'good of man' I'd wonder what this 'cosmos' is?

Third, if atheism is right, man is a rationalizing creature, not a rational one. ...

But you need Reason to do this?

His mind evolved to survive, ...

I'm sorry!? Are you using the atheist Theory of Evolution here?

... not to discern what is real ..

And now you appear to be bringing in some kind of faith in an unobservable 'reality'? To survive one must discern what is real or not.

—which means Smith's 'firm conviction' is no more legitimate than a religious fanatic's claim to truth.

The difference being that his conviction is based upon his own reasoning whereas he religious fanatics is based upon the word of others.

Have any of the atheists here read it? Any favorite excerpts you'd like to share?

Nope, why an atheist wish to read such a thing is beyond me.

The Inglorious One wrote: I was right, too. It reads more like a self-promoting comic book than a serious argument against theism.

You read a single paragraph, decided to misconstrue it and vindicated yourself. Good work!

I'm just about done with the book.

Smith opens by portraying atheism as a victim of fear and prejudice, which, true or not, is not an argument against God. It is, rather, a crude attempt to evoke sympathy and lay claim to the moral high ground.

In claiming the status of victim and by assigning all blame to others, a person can achieve moral superiority while simultaneously disowning any responsibility for one's behavior and its outcome. The victims 'merely' seek justice and fairness. If they become violent, it is only as a last resort, in self-defense. The victim stance is a powerful one. The victim is always morally right, neither responsible nor accountable, and forever entitled to sympathy.
― Ofer Zur, Ph.D

It is true, as Smith claims, that atheism is not necessarily the end product of a chain of reasoning. Theists hear all the time that atheism is the default position. Like every other other anti-theist book I've come across, Smith's book presumes God is an abstract and emotionally activated idea whose primary function is to explain the world and establish a moral order. “Theism must be learned and accepted,” Smith argues. “If it is never learned, it cannot be accepted—and man will remain implicitly atheistic.” If he was talking about popular religion, the kind you see on TV, he might be right to some extent, but by reducing theism to nothing more than a body of learnt ideas, by arguing that the mere belief in God makes that person a theist, Smith exhibits a superficial, even childish, understanding of religion.

The second chapter of Part One argues that atheism, in its basic form, is not a belief, but rather the absence of belief. Fine. I'll give atheism that much, but that lack of belief has logical ramifications he chooses to ignore.

Smith is befuddled by the ambiguity of “god” and perturbed by the virtually universal proclamation by theists that God is unknowable. He is miffed because theism does not yield to his belief that “philosophical discussions should be as clear and precise as possible, and to restrict the concept of god to a supernatural being is in the interest of clarity.” In other words, he is upset because wants to be in control of the discussion and theists won't comply. But such clarity as he wants has all the depth of an ink stain on Teflon and is more misleading than the vagueness of esoterica. As with every other atheist I've encountered, Smith's denial of God's existence is contingent on reducing God to in idea, which, theists contend, is absurd. God is no more an idea than reality itself is an idea; it's a realization that precedes conceptualization. He is incapable of understanding is that the idea of God is no more God than the idea of reality is reality itself: that it's the conceptualization of a value-presence that is realized, not the Presence itself.

Smith does not even understand the proper role of philosophy—at least as theists see it. Science deals with physical-energy activities; religion deals with eternal and cosmic values. Philosophy—authentic philosophy—grows out of the wisdom which does its best to correlate these quantitative and qualitative observations. The latter, however, comes in under Smith's radar. Human beings, and I'm assuming Smith is one of them, are not the rational creatures he assumes them to be: the rationalizing mind is like a mouse riding an emotional (and biological) elephant. The elephant goes where it wants and the mind rationalizes its movement afterward.

The Inglorious One wrote:I was right, too. It reads more like a self-promoting comic book than a serious argument against theism.

Surely you do notice how easily the ineptitude of his argument can be played out both ways?

The Case Against God wrote: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.

Im sure this is agreeable to both sides of the argument.

The Case Against God wrote:Anyone who claims, on the one hand, that he is concerned with human welfare, and who demands, on the other hand, that man must suspend or renounce the use of his reason, is contradicting himself.

I still see little argument here, pending actual circumstance. What is this muppet's actual point?...ah hang on, he thinks he is the barer of all reason!

The Case Against God wrote:There can be no knowledge of what is good for man apart from knowledge of reality and human nature—and there is no manner in which this knowledge can be acquired except through reason.

Agreeing still, since i know that God exists, there must still be reason afoot. Is he still stating the somewhat biased position that atheists are the beholder of all reason?

The Case Against God wrote:To advocate irrationality is to advocate that which is destructive to human life.

I still agree and i still KNOW God exists! What is this turd's actual point?

attofishpi wrote:I still agree and i still KNOW God exists! What is this turd's actual point?

That you are irrational, illogical and don't use the word 'know' correctly I guess.

Arising_uk wrote:

attofishpi wrote:I still agree and i still KNOW God exists! What is this turd's actual point?

That you are irrational, illogical and don't use the word 'know' correctly I guess.

Smith should pay more attention to what neuroscience has to say. Contrary to what he argues, reason alone isn't 'the way' to knowledge.

The Inglorious One wrote:Smith should pay more attention to what neuroscience has to say. Contrary to what he argues, reason alone isn't 'the way' to knowledge.

What does neuroscience say about belief, faith and knowledge?

The Inglorious One wrote:
Contrary to what he argues reason alone is not the way to knowledge

No it is not as learning and experience are also the ways to knowledge

Arising_uk wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote:Smith should pay more attention to what neuroscience has to say. Contrary to what he argues, reason alone isn't 'the way' to knowledge.

What does neuroscience say about belief, faith and knowledge?

Not much, but there is much that can be extrapolated form the observed facts. The rational mind is like a mouse riding an emotional elephant. The mouse can train the elephant, but it cannot command it and it cannot suppress it without detrimental effects on the entire being. What atheism denies is this: “Behind the barricades of pre-established structures, the foxes of the intellect may engage in clever reasoning, but the lion of Being continues to roar outside the gate.” That is why atheism is, and always will be, nothing more than minor irritant in the broad history of man. It is why religion will never go away.

Arising_uk wrote:

attofishpi wrote:I still agree and i still KNOW God exists! What is this turd's actual point?

That you are irrational, illogical and don't use the word 'know' correctly I guess.

Irrational and illogical? How so?
Granted man's religion is used politically in a destructive manner, that is man's folly. You and theists alike can only 'guess' that i am using the word 'know' incorrectly, that is your problem not mine.

The Inglorious One wrote:As is customary do when I go to my local Barnes and Noble, I was browsing the atheist section when another customer suggested that I read Atheism: The Case Against God by George Smith. He said it is a good, if not the best, introduction to the atheism and argument against God there is. I think the gentleman was taken aback when I said I would take him up on his suggestion because I like comic books. I wasn't being rude, just honest.

I was right, too. It reads more like a self-promoting comic book than a serious argument against theism. For example, in the in introduction he says:

• 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. Anyone who claims, on the one hand, that he is concerned with human welfare, and who demands, on the other hand, that man must suspend or renounce the use of his reason, is contradicting himself. There can be no knowledge of what is good for man apart from knowledge of reality and human nature—and there is no manner in which this knowledge can be acquired except through reason. To advocate irrationality is to advocate that which is destructive to human life.

This guy calls himself a philosopher? Where did he get his credentials? Did he find it buried in a kitty litter box? There is so much wrong with that one paragraph that it does not even rise up to the level of ludicrous. First of all, a belief that comforts is a gain for the believer whether or not that belief is true, and to rob the believer of that comfort without giving him or her something to fill the void is an act of cruelty. Secondly, what is the good of man? Is the good of man necessarily good for the cosmos? Third, if atheism is right, man is a rationalizing creature, not a rational one. His mind evolved to survive, not to discern what is real—which means Smith's 'firm conviction' is no more legitimate than a religious fanatic's claim to truth.

Have any of the atheists here read it? Any favorite excerpts you'd like to share?

Both your and his frameworks are biased such that your accurate judgment of the others is tainted. You both speak of things you cannot know, believing them because it serves your purpose. The only truth as to the questions and answers that you both pose, is the knowledge that neither of you can know, thus agnosticism is the only true resolve.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:The only truth as to the questions and answers that you both pose, is the knowledge that neither of you can know, thus agnosticism is the only true resolve.

That is only half correct.
In a universe where God does exist, you would have to agree that a man can be made aware by God, of God's existence.

attofishpi wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:The only truth as to the questions and answers that you both pose, is the knowledge that neither of you can know, thus agnosticism is the only true resolve.

That is only half correct.
In a universe where God does exist, you would have to agree that a man can be made aware by God, of God's existence.

You and I have been down this road before, atto, so you know how I feel. If a creator is the creator of 'all,' loving it 'all,' then it would give them 'all' the same knowledge. Or do you have favorite children that you tell the truth to, while lying to the ones you hate? Such that the ones you hate, never have a chance? That's a pretty piss poor father, in my book, and would deserve no respect at all! Say determinism, please? As it surely exists, mankind sees to that. Slaves, anyone?