Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies

Most anthologies of essays are like a loose pile of sand, but thematically, I thought this one hung together fairly well. The style varied from popular to almost bibliographical. The Ayn Rand essays were informative, though I thought Smith bent over backwards a bit too far to shield Rand herself from the charge of fanaticism. (As is so often done with Marx.) The essays I liked the best were "My Path to Atheism," "Atheism and the Virtue of Reasonableness," (good advice for theists as well), and "Frantz Fanon and John Locke at Stanford," which I read as a stirring defense of free thought against the PC mind control so prevalent in our academic establishments. If everyone (including Smith himself)would follow his rules for debate in that second essay, we might be in for a lot of good, healthy debate! As a Christian, I was perturbed, but not surprised (having seen it so often), to find someone as apparently well-informed as Smith badly misunderstand what orthodox Christians mean by faith. He repeated the old canard that "Faith conflicts with reason," and a great deal of his discussion was saddled with this profound and oft-repudiated error. Faith, he argued, "cannot give you knowledge." It is "intellectually dishonest, and should be rejected by every person of integrity." He backed up his mangled argument with the writings of some obscure theologian. But when understood as orthodox Christians understand it (as I argue in my book Jesus and the Religions of Man), it is truer to say that nothing besides faith can give knowledge. "Never, never doubt the efficacy of your mind," Smith advised. Yes, and that is (in the Christian sense) an act of faith. Beyond a reasonable and tested faith in reason, memory, the fives senses, and other people, faith in God is the highest form not of blind faith (an un-Christian concept), but of the clear-headed act of reason by which rational beings perceive what is real in their environment. If you think faith is a wild and uneccessary leap in the dark, you misunderstand the Christian religion, and the nature of knowledge in general. Suffering from this misunderstanding, Smith blames Augustine for the Dark Ages; which I think is radically unfair. (Especially considering that Augustine, one of the greatest thinkers in world history, died in a city under siege of the invaders who really did usher in the Dark Ages.) Smith also tries halfheartedly to argue that Jesus fit the "profile" of an abusive cult leader. This is nonsense. In fact, compare the more detailed list of traits common to cult leaders compiled by such skeptical psychologists as Marcia Fabin and Anthony Storr with the Gospels, and it appears that Jesus was at the opposite end of the spectrum from that sort of person. I have been studying world religion, gurus, Messiahs, and "Living Buddhas" for many years, and I have not found any who resembled Jesus. Despite these criticisms, I enjoyed this book and found a lot of value in it.

Heresy, Smith defines in his preface, is the rejection of the orthodox, and heresies are considered a threat to the established social order once the dogma of the institution (be it religious or otherwise) has become aligned with the power of the state or political force. The state, holding the reins of power, uses force, instead of persuasion, to enforce the orthodoxy. The Founding Fathers, most practicing Deists, itself a form of heretical thought, understood this and insisted on the separation of church and state, thus preventing the establishment of an official religion, preventing, they hoped, official heresies as well. Orthodoxy itself is not dangerous, only its alliance with political power. The central theme of Smith's book is the "crucial difference between the voluntary orthodoxy of organizations and the politicized orthodoxy of governments. "A free society, complete with orthodoxies and prejudices, is the best of all worlds for the heretic. Liberty permits the heretic to pit his beliefs against those of the orthodox majority." The paradox for the heretic is whether if and when his view becomes the dominant - to politicize the new orthodoxy or to permit liberty, which enabled the heretic to conquer ideologically, to possibly undermine the new orthodoxy? Smith is unapologetically atheist; belief in God for Smith is simply unreasonable and irrational. Asked to prove the nonexistence of God, Smith's answer is simply that one cannot prove a negative and that the person who asserts the existence of something bears the burden of proof. He asserts that to believe in faith or to rely on faith is to "defy and abandon the judgment of one's mind. Faith conflicts with reason. It cannot give you knowledge; it can only delude you into believing that you know more than you really do. Faith is intellectually dishonest, and it should be rejected by every person of integrity. The book is a loosely connected series of essays that discuss a variety of Christian and social heresies. He begins with his own philosophic journey to atheism. He is certainly a libertarian, and the essays on public education and the War on Drugs reflect that philosophy. But the reason I began this book was to discover his writing about Ayn Rand. He devotes two substantial chapters to her and the Objectivist philosophy. Rand evokes fierce passions, both pro and con. "Accounts of Objectivism written by Rand's admirers are frequently eulogistic and uncritical, whereas accounts written by her antagonists are often hostile and what is worse, embarrassingly inaccurate." The situation has been made worse by her appointed heir to the throne, Leonard Peikoff, who has declared Objectivism to be a "closed" philosophy, i.e., no critical analysis will be tolerated; one must accept it as he says it is and that's that. Whether Objectivism will survive such narrow-mindedness remains to be seen. It's a classic case of the true believer "unwilling to criticize the deity. Think

This is a loose collection of essays by Smith. They cover a variety of topics, like Smith's personal atheism, heresies over the years, and Objectivism. His critiques of Objectivism are well-written and, IMHO, spot-on.I wish I could give the book five stars, but there doesn't seem to be much of an underlying theme, as the title suggests. I would've liked to have seen something where the chapters lead to an inevitable conclusion, as in A:TCAG.

This is an excellent collection of essays on atheism, Ayn Rand, and miscellaneous issues. Smith is an excellent writer. I only give the book a 9 because some of the articles lack references. His essays on Rand are good medicine for those dogmatic Randians who have never read any other works of philosophy, and think that Rand can do no wrong. A previous reviewer questioned the relevance of "Franz Fanon and John Locke at Stanford", but this essay is important in analyzing the drastic effects of political correctness on the campus.

While I enjoyed immensely George H. Smith's book, 'Atheism: The Case Against God,' this book doesn't live up to it's predecessor especially at such a high price. Most of the essays are excellent: 'My Path to Atheism,' 'Philosophies of Toleration,' 'The Righteous Persecution of Drug Consumers,' and 'Children's Rights in Political Philosophy' are a great read and the last one really made me think. However, there are some questionable essays; one wonders what interest anyone would have in reading 'Frantz Fanon and Jonh Locke at Stanford'. One thing I found annoying were constant spelling errors scattered throughout - was this book edited? Another thing I could not figure out was whether Smith was a libertarian or an anarchist - he certainly has no problem with the privitization of the justice system, yet on the back of his first book he is described as an advocate of the libertarian view. If you have some extra cash to spend and want to add this to your collection, get it! If you haven't already bought 'Atheism: The Case Against God' or 'Atheism: A Philosophical Justification' buy those instead.