Shermer's Chivalry

In 1998 Michael Shermer debated Doug Geivett on the topic, "Does God Exist? Where Does the Evidence Point?" Michael Shermer states "I won the debate!" because his mother-in-law told him that the minister of the church in which the debate took place said so. Oddly, he even thinks that the church's staff was too nice to him and that there must have been a: be nice to Shermer pep-style-rally beforehand. This was reported by the Skeptic Mag Hotline as "SHERMER WINS GOD DEBATE!"

I was interested in some of Michael Shermer's comments after the debate took place. He wrote:

"For me the most interesting part of debates is the Q & A because then you get to hear what some of the audience is thinking. Again and again the question of morality came up. I was asked that, since I don't believe in God, if I think it was perfectly acceptable what Hitler did to the Jews. Incredible!"

Assuming that this is an accurate retelling of the question that was posed to him, and I have no reason to doubt it, this is a good point. The question was misstated. The question should not be whether an individual atheist believes Hitler's actions were perfectly acceptable but on what ground are Hitler's actions absolutely condemned. Consider that Dan Barker has stated that "Darwin has bequeathed what is good" (John Rankin debate) and also believes that rape is not absolutely wrong (see here). Sam Harris believes that "there's nothing more natural than rape" and that rape played a beneficial role in our evolution (see essay here). Perhaps what we have chosen to consider immoral is evolutionarily beneficial. Moreover, consider that drawing absolute materialism to a logical conclusion Adolf Hitler lived a wonderful life: he enjoyed his power, had thousands of adoring adherents, did as he pleased, and when he decided it was time to end it all-he did so. He then went on to complete annihilation, a sort of perfect peace by which one simply ceases to be. I say that he lived a wonderful life from his own perspective alone (and sadly, from the perspective of neo-Nazis). But I have no reason whatsoever to claim that atheists in general or Michael Shermer in particular would think of Hitler's life as wonderful or that they do not consider his actions to have been immoral, to say the least. Again, that is not the issue, the issue is, "Why do we consider, and refer to, his actions as 'immoral'?"

Michael Shermer continues his comments thusly:

"That really is one of their favorite arguments. But I deflated the morality 'proof' once and for all with a no-win question I posed first to the individual, then to Geivett, then to the whole audience: IF THERE IS NO GOD, WHAT WOULD YOU DO MORALLY? WOULD YOU KILL ME?" [all caps in original]

Here I must simply admit that I just do not get it, I just do not follow the line of reasoning. If there is not God why would I want to kill Michael Shermer (the appropriate term is "murder")? Rather, if there is no God I would agree with Michael Shermer.

Michael Shermer

Yet, the point that he is driving at is the "WHAT WOULD YOU DO MORALLY?" Michael Shermer continues thusly:

"The first guy said that if he found out there is not God, he was not sure whether he would kill me or not. I said, 'Well, that tells us a lot about the depth of your character. Stay far, far away from me.' Geivett said that was an unfair question, but that he too was not sure if he could be moral without God."

Again, I simply do not understand what the issue is or how someone could not be sure what to do. Why is this even an issue? But now we are moving closer to the main point which is doubt about ability to be moral without God.

Let us continue:

"I repeated my admonition that one would be well advised to steer clear of people who have so little character that, without the threat of eternal punishment they have no self control. I then addressed the entire audience, and said: 'if you cannot be moral without God, doesn't that imply that, in reality, you are not a moral person at all? That you have no courage, no conscious, and no character? And if you would be moral without God, doesn't that refute the argument that you cannot be moral without God? Think about this. Who would you rather marry? A person who says 'I will not cheat on you because it is a sin and I don't want to go to hell,' or someone who says 'I will not cheat on you because I love you, I respect you, I promised that I would not do so, and I have the courage and character to live up to my promises.' ' I think (I hope) the point was made."

There are a few very important things to deal with here: (1) a logical fallacy (a false dichotomy), (2) another is Michael Shermer's oversimplification and lastly, (3) another presumption about what is moral and immoral.

(1): when asked a question think about the question before you think about an answer. Michael Shermer presents a false dichotomy in asking if we would be moral with or without God. The false dichotomy is attempting to restrict you into giving a "Yes" or "No" answer both of which lead where Michael Shermer wants to take you. Have you ever heard the rhetorical question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" The implication is that if you reply "No" then you are admitting that you are a wife beater and if you reply "Yes" then you admit that you used to do it. But why answer "Yes" or "No"? I would answer, "I never have and never will beat my wife." There is no logical imperative to answer "Yes" or "No." The issue is what morality is, whether it is absolute, whether it is meaningful, whether it has any sway over us, etc.

(2): what struck me as an oversimplification is that, in fact, there have been people who were immoral until they "found God" and yes, they were the sorts of people that you would have wanted to remain well away from.
For example, David Berkowitz aka The Son of Sam, the multiple murderer who thought that satan was speaking to him through a dog. He has been in prison for decades and has turned down offers of parole because he believes that he is precisely where he should be, in prison conducting Bible studies. Or consider Raul Reese who was an extremely violent man who one night stood in his home with a riffle waiting for his wife to come home so that he could shoot her to death and then blow his own brains out. That is, until the butt of his riffle "accidentally" hit the power button on his TV set and there was Chuck Smith preaching about God. Reese is now a pastor. A friend of mine told me that he had dealt with a man who came to our church and made a profession of faith (as it is sometimes called). He game my friend vials of hydrochloric acid which he had purchased having planned on murdering his wife and dissolving her body.
So, yes there are secular people who would have committed unspeakable acts had they not come to believe in God ordained morality. Now, let us assume that there are theists who do not commit immoral acts because they fear divine punishment. What of it? Perhaps they are twisted and immoral (at least conceptually) but I suppose that we could say thank God, or time, chance and matter, that something is holding them back. In fact, for these people perhaps the God delusion is an evolutionary necessity in order to keep them from causing harm to others. What would have happened if Raul Reese had turned on his TV set, riffle in hand, and heard Carl Sagan say, "The cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be"? What if he had heard Prof. Richard Dawkins state, "In nature, the usual selecting agent is direct, stark and simple. It is the grim reaper"?1 God only knows. The question is why should a person who has one single life to live which could end at any moment keep from fulfilling their basest urges? Because they would be immoral according to an abstract concept of manmade and or evolved morality?

(3): now to the moral presumption. Michael Shermer asked "Who would you rather marry?" Note that he did not explain why it is preferable or moral to not cheat on our spouses. Why make such promises to begin with? Like encountering a riddle wrapped in an enigma Michael Shermer's statements are a weave of false dichotomy layered upon false dichotomy. Note the options he offers when asking who you would choose to marry. Either "A person who says 'I will not cheat on you because it is a sin and I don't want to go to hell,' or someone who says 'I will not cheat on you because I love you_'" Why are these our only choices? For me, this was reminiscent of a conversation between Dr. Jason Gastrich and James The Amazing Randi (see essay here). Part of the conversation went like this:

Randi: "I want to live this time, now, and do the best I can ah, with, with what I've been given."
Gastrich: "_Christians too-that are trying hard to change the world today. Trying to make advancements in science and, and-"
Randi: "And why is that?"
Gastrich: "For the love of people, for the love of God I suppose."
Randi: "Oh, 'for the love of God,' yes. So we got the old fear thing again. If you don't do this, boy, you're gonna go to hell. And you know what hell is like? Ooh, that's very hot, very nasty. It's almost like Florida in the summer."

I am not quite certain what occurred but it appears to me that Mr. Randi was setting up Dr. Gastrich but did not receive the response that he expected. Did you notice the oddity? Dr. Gastrich states that Christians do these things "for the love of God," but Mr. Randi states "the old fear things again." I find that fascinating.
Now, why were Michael Shermer's two options falsely dichotomous? Because they are simply not realistic. If he were to ask perhaps any Christian on the planet, instead of presuming, I am fairly certain that they would respond with words to the effect of I love God and I love my spouse. I am faithful towards God and my spouse.
Note that Prof. Richard Dawkins wrote:

"I can show that from a Darwinian point of view there is more Darwinian advantage to a male in being promiscuous and a female being faithful, without saying that I therefore think human males are justified in being promiscuous and cheating on their wives. There is no logical connection between what is and what ought."2

He further states:

"We are machines built by DNA whose purpose is to make more copies of the same DNA_It is every living object's sole reason for living.'"3

In my essay Introducing the Dawkinsian Weltanschauung I demonstrate that the way that Prof. Richard Dawkins distinguishes between what is and what ought is purely arbitrary and it is not difficult to discern that he is merely borrowing morality from theistic moral systems, namely Christianity.

Dan Barker likewise presents us with a false dichotomy in arguing that lying is not absolutely immoral. For some reason Reginald Finley and Matthew Davis approvingly quote Dan Barker's logical fallacy (see essay here). During his debate with Peter Payne, entitled "Does Ethics Require God?", Dan Barker asked Mr. Payne,

"If God told you to kill me, would you do it?"

Dan Barker's website (here) states,

"Payne replied, uncomfortably, that if he were certain it was really God making the command, he would have to consider it."

This strikes me as rather odd and I am not entirely certain as to what Mr. Payne's reasoning was. Speaking for myself, if I was certain that God was commanding me to murder someone I would make every effort to be promptly fitted for a straightjacket and enjoy an extended stay in a room with padded walls. There simply is no indication from the Bible or subsequent theology that God would, at any moment, ask me to murder anybody. For the sake of accuracy, I am here referring to murder and not killing such as would be the case in a self-defense situation.

Note that Michael Shermer referred to his line of questioning as presenting a "no-win question" and that elsewhere, he referred to it as "a debate stopper."4 I believe that our lesson to be learned from Michael Shermer's tactic is to always question the question and think about how your answer can break through the restraints of a false dichotomy and pave the path for a middle way.

1. 1. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker-Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1986), p. 62
   
2. 2. Nick Pollard talks to Dr. Richard Dawkins (interviewed February 28th, 1995 published in Third Way in the April 1995 edition [vol 18 no. 3])
   
3. 3. Nick Pollard talks to Dr. Richard Dawkins (interviewed February 28th, 1995 published in Third Way in the April 1995 edition [vol 18 no. 3])
   
4. 4. Michael Shermer, The Science of Good and Evil, p. 154