Atheism: The Case Against God (The Skeptic's Bookshelf) Paperback – July 12, 2016

Smith's book is brilliant (Good End Notes too). Rational arguments against the existence of god are solid and irrefutable. Maintaining faith in this fiction (xanity) has no rational basis. Smith asserts. "Atheists have long contended that the concept of god is unintelligible, this being a major reason why it cannot be accepted by any rational man. The theist who openly admits this cannot expect to be taken seriously. The idea of the unknowable is an insult to the intellect, and it renders theism wholly implausible." (Smith p.45) Smith shows how all definitions of god reduce to religious agnosticism. The agnostic's & xantian's common belief in the unknowable nature of god as expressed in alleged qualities such as ineffable, inexpressible, transcendent and unfathomable support the foregoing conclusion. This allows us to learn that "If god is completely unknowable, the concept of "god" is totally devoid of content, and the word "god" becomes a meaningless sound." (Ibid p.44) Therefor since "Religious agnosticism suffers from the obvious flaw that one cannot possiblly know that something exists without some knowledge of what it is that exists." (Ibid p.43) Smith delivers to the reader the inescapable conundrum of Xanity. Two choices present themselves to the believer. Quit the defense of the supernatural, or broadcast belief in the existence of a supernatural being "while arguing that this being is knowable, at least to some extent, by the human mind." (Ibid p.46) To claim god is unknowable yet knowable is to forsake the keep of reason.Chapter three explores various characteristics of god, so the reader learns that "...the attributes of the Christian God cannot withstand critical examination; the concept of God is permeated with ambiguities, contradictions and just plain nonsense." (Ibid p.50) Both positive and negative theology are failures in alleviating these logical inconsistencies. Negative theology defines what god is not while positive theology asserts what god is. Both fail because of the Laws of Logic, The Law of Identity: A is A or anything is itself; The Law of Excluded Middle: Anything is either A or not-A; The Law of Contradiction: Nothing can be both A and not-A. (Ibid p.143)On page 47 Smith lists the attributes of god from the National Catholic Almanac: "...According to this source, God is "almighty, eternal, holy, immortal, immense, immutable, incomprehensible, ineffable, infinity, invisible, just, loving, merciful, most high, most wise, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, patient, perfect, provident, supreme, true." How is it possible for the Catholic writers to declare god is incomprehensible yet list twenty-two other traits? Smith found a xantian explanation. Thomas in "Philosophy and Religious Belief" asserts that god is not only ineffable but also immanent. God cannot be ineffable and immanent for to be incapable of being expressed or indescribable is to not exist while existing or remaining within and being restricted to the mind are contradictory. No being as depicted in the National Catholic Almanac can exist any more than can a square circle. Thomas fails to reconcile god's incomprehensiblity with other attributes. Xanity and agnosticism share the same irrationality. The agnostic has advantage over the xantian. She knows better than to assign qualities to god, for to say anything about god is to limit god. To assert god possesses characteristic A is to say that does not have attribute not-A. (paraphrased from John Hospers, "An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis") "Existence entails a finite nature, and if God exists, then God must be a finite being." (Smith p.49) Smith concludes that no attempt to define god succeeds. "After judging religious agnosticism - the belief in a unknowable god - to be indefensible, we examined Christianity's attempt to escape from the irrationalism of agnosticism while retaining the notion of a supernatural being. The escape was a total failure. The attributes of the Christian God are merely a disguise, an elaborate subterfuge designed to obscure the fact that the Christian God is also unknowable. God's characteristics, while supposedly giving us information about God's nature. Actually accomplish the reverse: they plunge us further into agnosticism." (Smith p.87)The only flaw was in chapter nine "The Cosmological Arguments" While Smith succeeds in refuting "The First Cause Argument" for god by demonstrating decoupling of causality from the epistemological context of existence, for "To demand a cause for all of existence it to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause ... Causality presupposes existence, existence does not [presuppose causality ... Existence - not God - is the First Cause." he implies the Steady State model of Cosmology. We now know through observational data of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation and the accelerated expansion of the Universe that the Steady State model fails. Smith wrote Atheism The Case Against God in 1979, at least two years prior to Alan Guth's Inflation theory. Inflation is now established as a leading theory of cosmic origins. The Universe began uncaused by a Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation that gave rise to the energy potential of a Higgs inflationary field. This resulted in a rapid(10^-32 second) expansion of space-time of the order of magnitude of 10^50. There was no cause or causality associated with this primordial or indeed any other Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation. All the energy of the entire Universe was compressed into a Planck sized region at the inception of the Inflationary period much like a similar sized Black Hole. This means the Universe began in a state of maximum entropy; thus, no information from any time prior to the Inflationary epoch could have survived. Additionally, the rapid expansion created much room for order to form. As the fundamental forces decoupled from one another via spontaneous symmetry breaking, the nature of energy, matter, and the dark energy/matter congealed into what we see or infer. This well known and verified scenario solves/refutes all of the cosmological arguments for god. A new afterward addendum to the book would thus seem to be needed.

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.

George H. Smith ably critiques the idea of God, showing it is not only unfounded and incoherent but positively harmful. In philosophy, atheism is the position that God does not exist. Smith however argues for the view that it is merely lack of belief in God, as do many atheists. It is interesting to see that this position goes back much further than the modern US atheist movement. Many criticisms he makes also seem familiar along such lines, such as those denoting the dangers of faith and specific Christian doctrines. Readers who wish for a thorough criticism of arguments for theism, or arguments for atheism, would be disappointed though. Smith criticizes the cosmological and design arguments, but no others.However, as he rebuts theism and shows it is nonsensical on other grounds, this is not strictly necessary. Some of his criticisms are also based on Objectivism, specifically Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden, which readers who disagree with them may find problematic. We must remember though that good arguments may come from those we otherwise disagree with, and there is no obvious problem with them. I would urge readers who disagree with Objectivism to not let this bias their assessment of the book (this constitutes only a small part of the material). Smith does not go into his views in great detail, asserting an agent causation theory of free will here for instance without making arguments for it or going into this further. The book is not about that, of course, and he does argue to support his position against theism. Overall despite some areas where more information could have been interesting, this is a good book against theism, easily accessible to readers who are not versed in these issues.