Category: Atheism

Smith’s purpose statement is clear: “It is my purpose…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” (xi). George Smith argues again that Christianity is absurd and harmful. When one considers his reasoning, it is not difficult to see why he thinks thusly. If Christianity makes moral assertions then the atheist better respond by saying that it is absurd and harmful. If Christianity assumes exclusivity, then atheism better fear. Atheism must by nature see any other alternative as dangerous because it undermines their general premise: there is no god.

“If a person wishes to continue believing in god, that is his prerogative, but he can no longer excuse his belief in the name of reason and moral necessity” (xi). This is a fine illustration of the atheistic ultimatum: Renounce reason if you desire to follow your god. If this were a genuine either/or, the Christian would gladly renounce reason to follow his God. But “reason” for the atheist is not the same “reason” that Christians follow. The atheist sees no reason to allow Biblical revelation to guide their lives; rather they replace it with their humanistic standards. John Frame writes that “if we ask what his ultimate presupposition is, the most basic commitment of his heart, we would have to say that it is unbelief—a passionate desire to oppose and to frustrate God’s purposes” (John Frame, Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, p.126).

As Frame notes, it is a “passionate desire” to dethrone God’s prevalence in the morality of society. This desire is surely fruitless if it is framed on the ability to reason outside of God’s world. Further, Smith concludes that we cannot excuse our belief in God as “moral necessity.” Here he once again borrows Christian language. Notice that moral necessity is always contingent on morality. Where Smith finds “morality” in his god-less system is yet to be proven.

In the latter section of his introduction he gives his reasoning for the usage of “god” (with and without capitalization) in two different ways. “God” with little “g” refers to the “generic idea of god” (xii), “God” with capital “G” refers to the God of Christianity. This method facilitates his differentiation of “gods.” Smith is trained against the arguments for the existence of the Christian God. He sees the Christian God as the general threat to his assumed neutrality. His general “god” versus the Christian “God” is an unrewarding enterprise for it hides his specific intent of responding to Christianity. Nevertheless, George Smith has laid out his cards on the table with clarity. Herein begins his journey towards the impossible.

Part V 

Smith asserts “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 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” (x). This is Smith’s position in a simple syllogism:
a) If one is Concerned for Human Welfare
b) But Renounces Reason
Therefore, HE HAS NO RIGHT TO HAVE CONCERNS FOR OTHERS.

If anyone has the slight capacity to solve this enigmatic conundrum it is certainly not Dr. Smith. Let’s assume for a moment that Christianity is irrational; does that in any way deny the philanthropists from the Christian religion over the last 2,000 years and prior? Of course not! Not even the most irrational of all people will succumb to this line of thinking. And why does contradiction play any role in this? If I am concerned for my fellow man, why must I consider the logic of my concern? It appears that at this moment my love for my brother or sister is superior to any Aristotelian formulations.
I am continually bewildered by Smith’s constant attachment of irrationality to the Christian faith. This matter has been briefly addressed in previous articles, but it needs to be dealt with once again. How come Dr. Smith does not define reason? Further, why and on what basis does he assume the irrationality of Christianity? It is clear here that he has no plan to even consider the role of reason in Christianity. He assumes automatically that since Christians believe in God therefore they must be irrational. This is simply another form of circular reasoning. Now, it will be evident that soon he will begin to pose a case for atheism (as the title suggests) but notice beforehand that his argumentation already presupposes at least a few things about the Christian message: a) It is contradictory and b) it is not grounded on facts.

Smith continues: “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” (x). Why does Smith consider our position contradictory? Well, because according to his thinking, understanding the human condition and nature requires reason. This seems bizarre and Smith is obviously amused by his own stupidity. If reason is required to know about human nature how does Smith reason about human nature? We are left with no answer. Further, on what basis does Smith know what is “good” for man? “Good” implies something objective and so what is the source of “goodness?” That is not answered either, not even hinted.

The Christian worldview knows human nature not merely because it experiences human nature but because Scriptures are clear in this matter. Human nature is sinful from Adam (Genesis 3) and desperately wicked (Jeremiah 17:9). It is because we are made aware of this fact through special and general revelation that we pursue in giving comfort to the needy and love to the despised. If history teaches us anything it is that excessive emphasis on reason leads to despising human condition or welfare. Hitler’s Germany was heavily influenced by Darwin’s objectivity about the origin of species; Fidel Castro’s evil dictatorship is based on the objectivity of Karl Mark. In the end, it is atheistic reason that leads to a denial of basic human rights.

There is no better quote to end this piece than Dr. Smith’s: “To advocate irrationality is to advocate that which is destructive to human life.” Indeed, Smith is correct: he is irrational and his irrationality leads to the destruction of human life.

Part IV

Recently I had the opportunity to read through some positive and negative reviews of this present book. Among the many summaries a short discussion on the book caught my attention. In Jeremiah Hodge’s praise of Dr. Smith’s volume he writes:

No thinking theist will be capable of undertaking this book and then intellectually holding fast to his fondness for God.

This statement of course stems from his conviction of being an “explicit agnostic atheist.” These terms will be discussed at a later time when we will analyze Dr. Smith’s definitions of “atheism,” “agnosticism,” theism,” etc. Hodges’ conclusion that any thinking theist will surely lose his fondness of God is perplexing. What is he to say of those who have read the book and gained a greater appreciation for the God of Scriptures?

Hodge undermines the presuppositions behind his assertion and misses the central idea that to assume that one thinks require an originator of thought. From his perspective, this book builds his fortress with bricks of reason, whereas the pitiful Christian builds his house with bricks of faith. However, the contrary is the more reasonable position since the absence of a Guide (God) builds an autonomous fortress open to the armies of “dependence.”* George Smith continues his line of reasoning by remarking that,

…man has nothing to gain, emotionally or otherwise, by adhering to a falsehood, regardless of how comfortable or sacred that falsehood may appear (x).

This is a constant charge against the Christian faith, that is, that it simply serves as a guilt reliever with no real relevance (this is assumed from Smith’s point that emotional orientation towards religion stems only from false guilt). For some it has been a family practice for generations but for others it is a way to alleviate the oft-felt guilt of some unsubstantiated act. While I do not for a moment deny the accuracy of such possibilities in reference to Christian religion in general, at the same time atheism is guilty of the same charge. In fact, if you apply atheism to the statement above by Smith it can be equally adequate. Many atheists adhere to atheism simply because it has been passed down to them or because amidst the many options it seems to be the most fitting for anyone who desires to live under his own control. Simply put, if a human being wants to be the captain of his ship and the master of his soul, then atheism defines that lifestyle.

On a more existential note, man has much to gain from Christian experience even if his experience is spurious. The writer of Hebrews confirms this by stating that there are some in the body that “have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come” (Hebrews 6:5), and yet may be found to be outside of the religious (Christian) fold altogether. Certainly I am not advocating that people come to the church simply to experience and taste and then depart, but rather a greater point is in view: that man has much to gain by experiencing or for that case, sampling of the goodness of the truth.** Smith denies altogether this possibility stating that any experience is groundless and false. But he cannot make such objective statements unless he himself has experienced and tasted of the goodness of the Word of God. Christian Existentialists throughout the centuries have advocated such practices and as a result have seen God operate through the experience of Holy Communion (both sacramental and experiential) bringing about a faithful commitment from those who would embrace the glory of God and His Church. God is not in any way limited to the resources of Dr. Smith’s proposals or his formulations of how the Christian faith should operate.

* The contrast is between those who are self-dependent and with those who acknowledge that to depend on a Higher authority than self is much more desirable.
**At this point it is significant to add that though in this life people may enjoy the benefits of the church, namely, interaction with a righteous community, appreciation for what is moral and true, celebrating the God of Creation, etc. ultimately such enjoyment will prove to be fruitless unless one truly commits himself/herself to the Lord of the Church.

Part III

The incomprehensibility of Dr. Smith’s words becomes even more apparent as he attempts to play the role of victim in his introduction. “Atheism” he remarks, “is still somewhat unacceptable. Simply being an atheist may be acceptable–if, that is, one keeps it to oneself. What is frequently considered inappropriate is to advertise this fact, or openly to attack religious doctrines” (x). There is one considerable observation to make that may aid the context of this statement. The case against god was published in 1979; a time in which atheism’s voice was already something to be feared. It was only six years prior that abortion became legal in the United States and the pressure–though not particularly from atheists– helped the cause for the fight of woman’s rights (in this sense, woman’s rights are not synonymous with rights as voting or equal pay for equal work, but the rights to abort a fetus in the first trimester). Further, the 70’s led to a major revival of atheistic thinking in America unlike any other time in American history. The vulgar practices, the innumerable pregnancies out of wedlock, and the proliferation of addictions of all sorts (and their approval by the media at large) seem to convey the idea that these un-Christian activities were common. The point here does not need to be prolonged. The idea that “to advertise the facts (of atheism), or openly attack religious doctrines” (x) was unacceptable is absurd to say the least. The very propagation of freedom (being, immorality, etc.) without restraint is sufficient proof that they were at least attacking religious (particularly Christian) standards of conduct.

The author contends that there is a group of philosophers and psychologists who, “while openly admitting the irrationality of theistic belief, actually recommends it as a kind of therapeutic device designed to give emotional aid and comfort to mankind—thus lending support to the myth that the average man is emotionally incapable of facing the facts” (x). “The facts” Smith refers to is nothing more than the idea that living as if there is a God is detrimental to the well being of civilization. Certainly these trained minds that recommend religion as therapy are unaware of its inadequacy and surely they make such statements only to please the status quo of American religiosity (after all it is the “religious” in America that support their practices). Let us rephrase the question: Is the average man capable of facing the facts? This question illustrates the infelicity of the atheist mind. Can the average man face the fact? In one sense, Yes! He is confronted by the facts everyday of his life. He looks at the skies and he sees facts ad infinitum; he sees the birth of his first-born and finds it uncommonly mysterious. But in another sense, No! The Scriptures come in to the middle of this word game and shatters Smith’s argumentation. If by fact, Smith means the experience of God as attested in Sacred Scriptures then no one can know (experience) God (John 6:37-44) unless the Spirit opens his heart and mind. The facts lead ultimately to God, but the facts in and of themselves lead only to the conclusions presupposed. One final remark is helpful here, and that is, that the assumption that the facts lead to atheism is unwarranted. The greats of the Christian faith were highly attracted to Christianity and indeed came to appreciate the God of the Bible through the facts of revelation. Among these were the superb C.S. Lewis of Oxford and St. Augustine of Hippo whose mighty intellect aided the great masses of students to this present day.

Part II

As we continue our analysis of George Smith’s book I am reminded of a fundamentally important principle of interaction: Engage the thoughts, not the stereotype. In many ways this critique serves as a fresh reminder that proper analysis must be at its core, proper. Dr. Smith could have taken many routes in his attack against god. One of them could be to tackle all the major religions in the world and consequently their versions of “god.” However, to his credit, he chose the god of Christianity, and thus, facilitating my critique by particularizing my comments.

In his introduction, Smith cites two meanings to the title of his book: The first meaning is that it is a “philosophical case against the concept of god; and secondly, it refers to the psychological case against the belief in a god” (ix-x). He further explodes in frustration at the “credence given to religious claims in the intellectual community” (x). The presuppositions of Dr. Smith are twofold: 1) Christianity cannot offer anything of intellectual substance, and 2) the intellectual community ceases to be intellectual when it accepts religious dogma. These are ingrained assumptions that will become clear throughout these critiques.

A philosophical case against god, as Smith expects to make, will be grounded only in the previous presuppositions made above. Since presuppositions are inescapable both for Christians and non-Christians alike, it is my desire to deal with the atheistic presuppositions. My attempt here is to rehearse these assumptions before we actually interact with the meat of his arguments, so that the reader is aware of what lies behind the atheistic thought.

Smith now moves to the second meaning of his title, which is, a psychological case against god. According to Smith, this teaching of “god” or “religion” has caused “damage that often takes years to counteract” (x). Notice how the philosophical and psychological meanings are interrelated. If a philosophical case against god can be made, then the psychological affect it has made on people throughout the centuries who believes in god must by definition be damaging. Of course, the author does not reverse his logic; for if a case for god can be made, then the psychological affect on those who have not believed in god is not only damaging but also damning. At this point one is reminded of Pascal’s famous wager where he argues that if one tries Christianity and finds it to be in error one will not have lived in vain; however, if one rejects Christianity then he will reap the consequences for all eternity.

Of course, there is a sense in which Smith accurately portrays the abuses of the Christian faith throughout history and at present. Who denies the atrocities of the Crusades by so-called Christians or the legalistic cults of our day that entangle and indoctrinate their followers leading them to insanity? It is true that religion has been abused, especially in the name of Christian religion. Further, abused religion has led to mental and disturbed children who grow up to hate religion and hate anything related to religion. However, at the end of the day we must realize that the abuse of something is not an argument against its proper use. So if any atheist is to attack the foundations of Christianity it must attack its most pristine representation (this excludes any cult or any other structure that is contrary to the Holy Word of God).

Part I

George Smith’s introduction begins by asking the philosophically heavy question: Does a god exist (ix)? Smith asserts that the answer to this question is one that has led to a substantial amount of literature. The “vast majority have answered the question with a resounding ‘Yes’ ” (ix)!  Smith proceeds to warn his readers that this book presents a minority viewpoint. His honesty becomes apparent when he notes that this is not a sympathetic analysis, and neither is it a critique of “religion” per se, but a critique of “the belief in god, especially as manifested in Christianity”(ix).

There are a few points to make from the start about George Smith’s introduction. The first is the boldness of the author in attempting to present a case against “a god” (later we will discover his reasoning behind his use of “god” without the common capital letter usage). It is not everyday where the creature rises to confront his supposed “Creator” in a logical fashion. After all, it is a “case against God,” and a case against something requires a patterned and reasonable rationale for disbelieving it, which most say is to be believed. Secondly, it is a minority viewpoint. Minority viewpoints are an anomaly, because in one sense most of that which is considered majority today grew out of a minority at one point, but in the most obvious sense most of what is minority tends to be minority for a reason – it is still undeveloped and poorly propagated. They come from the pen of those whose nature or experience led them to feel comfortable being in a minority rather than the overwhelming nature of its opponent. Further, there is something very appealing about a minority position and that is, it attracts those who are discontent with the majority position. A third observation is his straightforward note that this is a critique of Christianity. Since it is not a critique of Islam’s god or Hindus’ gods, the reviewer will not have to spend time analyzing the inadequacies of other gods, but rather on an exclusive commitment to critiquing Dr. Smith’s presentation of the “god” of Christianity.

Since this is a detailed analysis of this introduction and there is no time constraint, the following articles will engage in many of the thoughts presented. Atheism at its very conception begins with a common assumption: there is no god. At the very heart of their critique is the Christian faith. In fact, only in the last four to six years has there been any significant interest in another religion, Islam. This interest of course emerges from the objective and forceful nature of Islam. Atheism at large cannot understand conviction (the conviction that infidels must die as Islam teaches), because they have none (apart from the conviction that they do not believe in god). In contrast, the primary presupposition of these articles–which may span from now to an unknown date in the future– is the conviction that the God of creation is not the god of Islam or of any other religion, but the God of the Scriptures, particularly the Trinitarian Christian God. As observed previously, there is an inherent hatred for that which is “Christian” in atheism. To most of them Chrsitianity is tolerable as long as it is not about to impose something on anyone else. At the point it does, then Christianity must be destroyed at all costs, their rights must be abolished, and their followers must be silenced in the public square. The only analogy that comes close to understanding the atheistic mind is that of a man who believes he is dead and after significant testing proving his awareness of life, continues to submit that he is dead until he convinces himself that nothing anyone will ever say will disprove his self-analysis that he is dead. At this point, the man (the atheist) lives to prove to himself that he is dead though all those surrounding him know he is alive. The atheist suppresses or represses that common knowledge (Romans 1) and all facts that he is exposed to prove his thesis that he is dead. How subtle that the case against God is a case for God.

This is one of many blogs on George Smith. He is the author of “Atheism: A Case Against God.” An atheist blogger has recommended this book, and out of courtesy, I have begun reading the book in order to engage him more intelligently. Smith’s main thesis is that: Atheism is the absence of theistic beliefs. He attempts to throw the burden of proof back at the believer. Of course, Dr. Smith is no innovator in this area. In the next few weeks I intend to interact with his introduction.