A Response to Mr. George H. Smith - Part I

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, & the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."
- Karl Marx

There is a book written by George H. Smith that he has simply entitled: "The Case Against God," that I would like to respond to here. In his book, Smith contends that religious belief is entirely irrational, and that religious teaching is psychologically dangerous. I am far more concerned with his first assertion than with the second, but I will eventually move on to his second point as well.

Let me be absolutely clear here - I am not attacking Smith himself. I do not wish to come across as if I were attacking him, either. Now, this book was published in 1989, so it is not exactly cutting edge. But I was surprised to find that, upon reading it, I found nothing new at all since atheists (and simple critics) of CHristianity began their arguments against it.

In his foreward, Smith makes it quite obvious what his agenda is:
I) He is "...amazed at the credence given to religious claims in the intellectual community" and seeks to eliminate that credence.
II) Furthermore, Smith is "...appalled by the psychological damage of religious teaching."
III) And his ultimate purpose in writing this book is "...not to convert people to atheism... but to demonstrate that belief in God is irrational to the point of absurdity."

So, dear readers, Smith is not going to try and compell us to become atheists - but he does want us to know that if we don't then we are pedantic, irrational and ignorant people who enjoy psychologically damaging ourselves. Religion is, as ever, the greatest evil ever foistered upon mankind. Evidently, the bloodiest and most brutal wars are ever fought in the name of religion.

That assertion, although Smith himself does not make it, is a very common one among atheists. It is also obviously false. The bloodiest, most brutal wars have all been fought in the twentieth century, and they were all started by atheistic regimes, or for atheistic/ secular purposes. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Dong, Moussilini - all atheists. Now not all atheists are immoral or psychologically damaged people (although, according to Smith, all religious people may very well be) but the simple fact of the matter is that the atheist (or agnostic for that matter) cannot justify any one type of behavior over and against another type of moral behavior.

The crux of SMith's argument is, much like Kai Nielson's assertions in his debate with J.P. Moreland, that the concept of God is itself incomprehensible. THat is, that one cannot define God without contradicting some attribute of God or that self-same definition. For starters, dictionary.com provides this definition of God taken from the American Heritage Dictionary:

1 a) A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.

b) The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.

All the other definitions which follow are generalities based off of the first definitions provided here, or pertain to more venacular uses of the term which simply do not apply.

Not to blithely dismiss Smith's objection, but the fact that the dictionary gives a definition, and the fact that theologians have been discussing the concept for thousands of years, seems to point to the fact that people do have an idea, which they generally agree upon and mutually understand, when they speak of God.

Smith does however elaborate his objection, pointing out that various theists mean different things whent hey use the word "god." Some equate god with nature, existence, the universe, etc. - such people would be called pantheists who believe, essentially, that god (whatever it is) is physically manifest in the world. Now, in the Judeo-Christian (and even Islamic) traditions, this is obviously not that which is meant.

There are also those that identify god with "reality" or even "ultimate reality," with the effect of strong-arming atheists into the theist camp because atheists also exist in reality; although this forced maneuvering of their position is the product of mere linguistic games and does not answer any questions.

Furthermore, some theists claim that God is unknowable or incomprehensible by the finite human mind. Smith gets into this objection more later on, and so will I, but let me first say that I do not hold the position that God is totally unknowable. To do so would be contradictory; if God is unknowable, and I believe God exists, how can I believe something exists that I can have no knowledge of? Similarly, if God is completely incomprehensible to the human mind, that is that I can know of God but cannot understand God in any sense, then my belief is also worthless. Smith's previous three charges, if they are part and parcel of the definition of God, would render theism irrational - and I agree that if a theist holds those assertions to be true, then said theist is in a lot of trouble.