IAP Political Forum

Which book are you currently reading?

By  Lawrence Louis (Houston, TX USA) - See all my reviews
     

Though I consider myself a Christian, I do not support the Christian apologetic stance that our faith can be verified through reason, and George Smith's "Atheism: The Case Against God" gives ample reasons as to why. Faith should be, as Soren Kierkegaard envisioned it, a purely irrational leap.
The restriction on the length of my review of this book (imposed by
Amazon.com at a 1,000 words) does not allow me to delineate all the positive particulars this book has to offer. Regrettably, I can only emphasize what aspects of this book distinguish it from other works of a similar nature.

One of the most attractive features that I found in Smith's book was his ability to convey complex philosophical dilemmas, that are germane to the realm of theism, without falling into the common practice - which most professional philosophers constantly do - of inundating his arguments with esoteric jargon. Any laymen can peruse through Smith's work without having to open a philosophical dictionary every five minutes. While Smith does put forth his charges against religious belief in a manner that is fairly easy to grasp, he does not sacrifice substantive content, therefore an individual who is more seasoned in the subject of philosophy and theology will not find "Atheism: The Case Against God" lacking by any means. This ability to reach both the philosophical hobbyist and the academician speaks much of Smith's talent as a writer as it does of him as a philosopher.

Outside this book's easily discernable assertions, another noteworthy characteristic of Smith's piece is its originality. In reading other works relating to non-theistic argumentation, I began to see the same routine of arguing for atheism, which consisted of providing a summation of a particular theistic argument, and then find certain fallacies or misrepresentations that the argument may have. Whether the argument happened to be cosmological, teleological, ontological, or moralistic the same technique was employed to engage all of them. Though this is a very effective means of addressing an argument, it is one that has been used ad nauseam. So for an individual who has been exposed to a great deal of such kinds of work, it is refreshing to see this more innovative approach to the whole theistic/atheistic controversy.

If one had to describe Smith's approach in one word that word would have to be "fundamental". As stated earlier, other philosophical works that address the theistic position get bogged down in the various details of theistic argumentation, without striking at the root or presupposition that such arguments are built on. Smith's technique on the other hand address what is at the heart of these arguments.

What is at the root of most theistic arguments for the belief in a
God? According to Smith this is not the proper question to ask. The proper question to ask is what is presupposition of any argument period. The answer to this question is the ability to decipher truth from falsehood.

Yet verification, as Smith so deftly explains to his audience, rests on the use of certain standards, which gauge the reality of any given proposition. Since we exist within a universe our standards must be derived from our perception of the universe. Given this idea, if anything is posited, which exists outside the universe (i.e. God or any form of supernatural entity), the argument is futile. In fact, as Mr. Smith rightly claims, it is not an argument at all. The universe, in the words of Ayn Rand are the "causal primary". One cannot talk about causation (i.e. cosmological arguments), design (i.e. teleological arguments), or moralistic arguments unless one is speaking within a proper context, which in this case is the universe itself. To do otherwise is to regress into a state of incoherence. For example, it is ultimately absurd to talk about a cause to the universe, if we derive the concept of cause from our observation of the universe. To talk about a concept, such as causal relationships, outside the context from which the concept was realized (i.e. the universe) is to divorce it from its context. Thus the theist has rendered his argument ineffective. To paraphrase Mr. Smith "to talk about a cause to the universe is like talking about a bird's flight with no atmosphere." In one crushing argumentative blow after another, with the physical universe as a necessary axiom, Mr. Smith annihilates most of traditional theistic rhetoric, without even delving into the individual fallacies, which are inherent in all of them. Only two words are necessary to describe his approach - "SHEER BRILLIANCE!!!" The theist is left with very few options. He either can retract all his assertions and admit that there is no rational basis for the belief in God or he can attack the very foundation of reason (the physical universe) - thus precluding his right to employ argument. Either way, George Smith backs the Christian apologist and proponents of the supernatural into such a tight corner, that it is virtually impossible for them to escape

A theist, who has read other critiques on theism and agrees with them, may believe that he has some recourse in faith. However Mr. Smith has addressed this issue and shown it as an invalid method for attaining the truth. Clearly Mr. Smith in his book "Atheism: The Case Against God" leaves theists with no options. He has shown theism, and especially the Christian manifestation of it, for what it truly is - a worldview rife with misology. Mr. Smith undermines the old Christian adage that all truth can be found if one believes in God, and instead edifies David's Brooks position that "to explain the unknown by the known is logical procedure, but to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." This book is a must read for anyone pondering the claims of theism seriously.

I got so many books yesterday, I am set.

Gonna start '23 Ways To Get To First Base". A book with the most random sports trivia.

1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, by Charles C. Mann

Very interesting stuff.

The Three Musketeers! Long, but pritty good so far.

Gonna start rereading The Historian.

You read?

;)

I tried getting into the Dark Tower series... but I'm an ignoramous and I immediately get turned off by long books - a common occurence of Steven King's. I love his short stories, but his books just take too much effort from me.

I had to stop reading "Pumpkin Head" and "It" cause I was getting tired of all the exposition...



/rant