Michael Shermer Creates a Morality

Michael Shermer, accused sex offender, tells us about morality. He claims to have a rebuttal to a video by Dennis Prager in which Prager claims that Atheism has no objective morality. In the end, Shermer agrees that there is no objective value to be found in his “moral universe”, but he has the true answer anyway. I’ve transcribed, sort of, the points that Shermer makes in his video which actually is there to pimp his book.

1. “Divine Command Theory is fallible.”

Doesn’t address the question: where are the objective morals of Atheism? What is the objective source? This is a Tu Quoque Fallacy and a Red Herring.

Plato’s dichotomy. If God exists, then God sets the rules for material existence, including morality.
“What if God said that murder is Ok, would that make murder right? Of course not.”

Of course not? Based on what Atheist, materialist principle?? What material, objective principle in the Atheist universe allows this statement as if it is true? Immediately, then, he declares a truth statement, a moral principle, with no reasoning, no grounding, no proof, much less objective proof of an empirical nature which would be objectively obvious to all reasonable people. He makes this declaration for no objective reason. He probably assumes that all westerners who are acculturated in the western Judeo-Christian ethic will automatically agree with him due to their cultural bias. It must be that, because there is no logic presented, nor any empirical, objective knowledge of a material source.

“What are the ‘reasons’ murder is wrong, and why can’t we base our morals on those reasons alone, and skip the divine middle man?”

Why? Because Atheism has proved conclusively that that doesn’t work: Atheist nations in the past century murdered at will, and in large volumes – from 150 to 250 million people slaughtered by Atheists under Atheist principles, for Atheist "reasons". Those principles were declared rational and were based in Darwinism, so they were also declared ‘scientific’. And they were justified by their use of Marxist/Nietschean principles, which justified massive bloodshed. Atheism was and is the state religion of China. And it also was of the USSR. Yes it is a religion if it allows moral decisions such as justified genocide.

“If it is really wrong in the moral universe, it doesn’t matter what God thinks or if there is a God or not: it’s still wrong”.

Completely false premise: there is no moral universe. There is no rational supersession of a deity; that is logically absurd under Reduction Ad Absurdum. Especially not of a hypothetical 'universe of morality' which supersedes a creating being. There is no evidence, material or otherwise, that anything like a moral universe exists. Certainly it does not exist as a sub-function of the material universe, and Atheists have long claimed that the material universe doesn’t care about humans in the least, and there is no morality contained in material objects, and therefore no material, objective morality can exist. If he is declaring the existence of a non-material universe, then he has stepped out beyond the philosophical materialism, which Atheists hold dear. What is the source of whatever exists in that non-material universe, and what would make it ‘objective’? he doesn't say, because that universe isn't there.

It can’t be wrong without a source for morality which is superior to humanity. Humans can’t dictate morality for other humans. Although Atheists and Islamists try.

Standard Atheist complaint, which also obviates any such thing as a superior moral universe. For Atheists, all of the universe is material, physical. The Atheist is the highest manifestation of material existence. Because there is only material existence, there is nothing which is "superior to humanity". So claiming that morality requires something that cannot exist for Atheists (God), justifies the denial of a deity, but Shermer instead uses it to justify a mystery universe which non-physically, spiritually (?) holds sway. Nobody but he knew it existed.

2. Either/Or Fallacy. (False Dichotomy)
“Between ‘absolute’ morality and ‘relative’ morality is ‘provisional’ morality: moral values that are true for most people, in most circumstances, most of the time. All societies around the world have sanctions against murder.” “All social order would break down”.

False Dichotomy does not refer to ontology (objective physical existence), it refers to epistemology (truth), generally in regards to choices in decision making. This use of False Dichotomy is "Fuzzy Logic", which violates the First Principle of Non-Contradiction: If it is true, then it is true; if it is not true, then it is false (truth is binary).

If morality is not true, then it is false. He proposes a False Trichotomy, which introduces a vast spectrum of possible "true moralities" that exist in between the Truth and the Not Truth. This also is the Fallacy of Equivocation, which changes word meanings in order to serve a purpose in argumentation. Morality either exists or it does not exist.

Provisional morality is again completely “relative” to the subjective whim of the individual; it is not objective in any sense, it is subjective, a creation of the speaker. Shermer likes to pretend that he is the creator of morality. In reality, every Atheist can create his own "moral code" to suit his own desires. And he can change that "moral code" at the blink of an eye, as the situation requires.

It is empirically, demonstratively, false to claim that all societies have sanctions against murder. Along with the defunct Aztecs/Toltecs who killed regularly and the still-extant Amazonian tribes that still kill regularly (and cannibalize) there are the Atheist governments which engage in murder on the order of genocides. Social order did not break down under Atheist governments because all thought and action were closely controlled. Violators of the social order were removed from society. Completely removed. Read Solzhenitsyn; he lived it.

“Exceptions: self-defense; capital punishment; Just war”. “But it is true that murder is wrong”.

This is the same issue as before: By what "objective" moral principle is this true, and it is set in place by what objective material mechanism? And how is “truth” determined? On the obviously sliding scale of Shermer?

3. “Religious Source of morality is unreliable”

This is a dodge. It doesn’t address the concept of Atheist objective morality. This is a Tu Quoque Fallacy, and a Red Herring. A twofer.

“Most people don’t see burning bushes or stone tablets from the Almighty. So where do these ideas about Right and Wrong come from? There are many ‘holy books’, with different commands for different religions, so which one is right? These make absolute moral claims that contradict one another. They can’t all be right. Even in Abrahamic religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, there is disagreement as to what is Right and Wrong.”

Then the prior statement regarding the singular worldwide cultural understanding of morality being unified, is false. This then is Non-coherent; internal contradiction. Violates the Principle of Non-Contradiction. But most importantly it is useless in explaining how Atheistic "objective morality" even works, much less how it is based in reality, or where one can find the "universe".

“Members of these religions still commit violence in the name of God today”.

False Equivalence Fallacy. One, not all are violent and that is a blatant lie, Abrahamic religion – and Atheist States – have been far more violent. Aside from false, this is on the order of slander.

“Religion has no method to determine Right from Wrong”.

Demonstrably false. Truth value = zero.

“It’s religion that gives us moral opinions, but science has a systematic method for determining truth claims”.

False Equivalency, and False Premise: Scientism as a religious claim: This statement and its implication are absolutely False according to the Scientific Method, which must self-restrict strictly to material phenomena which are amenable to measurement by technology, and repeatably reproduced in material experiments for validation, falsification and objectivity. Science can say nothing without repeatable demonstrations via experiments by disinterested parties, designed to validate or falsify hypotheses regarding material cause and effect. All scientific findings are contingent upon possible future invalidation (falsification); they are never objective truth. Any other claim for science is false. Therefore, any religious claim for science is false, and obtuse.

If a proposition is of a non-material nature, science is impotent to discuss it, much less render an objective judgment. Any statement otherwise is FALSE, and ignorant or evil.

4. “Absolute Morality Corrupts, Absolutely”
“Absolute morality inexorably leads to the conclusion that anyone that believes differently has departed from the truth, and thus is unprotected by our moral obligations”.

Historically this absolutism lead to the Crusades, Inquisitions, witch hunts, religious wars and genocides, all in the name of God. Today, suicide bomber shout out Allahu Ackbar, ‘God is Great’. These Islamic terrorists also believe in absolute, God given moral values of Right and Wrong, and they act accordingly.”

Leftist Atheists usually endow their pet: Islam with Peace, except when it is useful not to. The Crusades were 200 to 250 generations ago. Since then Christianity has had billions of followers, many of which created the republican form of government which eliminated slavery, emancipated women and blacks, etc. This accusation is without merit. It amounts to another slander.

“What about Hitler, Stalin and Mao? Aren’t they examples of godless, relativistic Atheism? NO.”

“First, Hitler was not an Atheist. Hitler was a Catholic, and Stalin was Orthodox. But all this is irrelevant, because they killed in the name of ideology, not Atheism, which isn’t even a belief system. In fact, National Socialism and Communism were faux religions in those societies, and as such they provided their believers with absolute moral values about Right and Wrong. They serve as examples of why absolute morality corrupts, absolutely.”

Hitler was NOT a Catholic; he killed Catholics who refused to change over to Hitler’s ideology which was Hitlerism forced-preached in previouly Catholic Churches, i.e., it was Norse pagan superiority and Darwinism.

Lenin and Stalin killed almost all priests, killed Christians en masse, and destroyed most churches. Atheism was the official state ideology, starting with Lenin. The religious position was Atheism.

The idea that National Socialism and Communism were Catholic or Orthodox is part of the Big Lie. They were godless, Humanist, New Man, Utopia on Earth ideologies, which engaged casually in savagery and eugenics, not to mention industrialized genocides – brutality completely unhampered by any moral qualms, due to the Atheist-Darwinist basis. Atheism and Darwinism were the belief systems that allowed zero morality to intervene.

And this Atheist invokes these false arguments as if they are true, a demonstration of the quality of morality of Atheists, right on video for all to see.

“CONCLUSION.
So. Morality is not absolute. But neither is it relative. So where does it come from?

We get our morality from our parents; peers; mentors; teachers; books; and culture. And we listen to that ‘still small voice within, our moral conscience. Morality is in our nature, we are moral beings with real moral emotions that we can reason about, which we’ve been doing for centuries.

Absolutely not true. Atheists are generally Consequentialists who declare completely subjectively that a certain goal is "moral", and any means to get to that goal is therefore moral. That is both Darwinian, Nietzschean, and Atheist to the core.

Ever since the Enlightenment, religious based theocracies have been replaced with constitution-based democracies, and the result was the abolition of slavery and torture, democratic rule of law, decline of violence, and the granting of civil rights, women’s rights, children’s rights, gay rights and animal rights, as our moral sphere has expanded ever larger.

This is the blatant false appropriation claim of the accomplishments of the Christian Western culture for Atheism. It is cultural theft; Darwinism and eugenics is the result of Atheism. The constitutional governments were formed based on rights endowed by the Creator... Except in France under the Atheist Leftists and the huge eugenic bloodbath ensued there. That was the Dawn of the Enlightenment, which declared Atheism to be the correct ideology.

Book pimping:

...a ‘real moral universe’ with ‘real moral values’ about Right and Wrong. And there is an arc to that moral universe that really does bend towards truth, justice and freedom. It’s up to us to make that happen.

If there is an arc to morality, Atheism drives that arc toward totalitarian barbarism, eugenics, and mass murder as was done in the 20th century, everywhere that it held sway..

Shermer has committed the overall Fallacy of Equivocation regarding the term "objective". Objective means that there is demonstrable physical evidence which can be observed by any reasonable person just by looking at it, observing it. Shermer's subjective universe is not objective in any manner. So Prager is right.

Note that this author, Michael Shermer, is a sexual predator accused by multiple females including Leftist females.

Michael Shermer has no moral principles, which is why he proposes an Excluded Middle Fallacy (First Principle of Rational Thought) in order to slide his subjective morality in between absolute Right and Absolutely NOT Right: Wrong. His morality is not morality, it is an excuse to do as he wishes and to declare that to be "moral".