One unique form of the argument for morality was conceived by Michael Shermer. I refer to it as the argument form embarrassment for reasons that I think are apparent.
I mentioned it in my essay Shermer’s Chivalry I referred to it and here I wanted to focus on it
Michael Shermer has what he considers “a no-win question” which is “If there is no God, what would you do morally? Would you kill me?” Now, do not ask me to explain neither his question nor the answer of someone who, “said that if he found out there is not God, he was not sure whether he would kill me or not.” I certainly do not understand any of it but dealt with the topic in the essay mentioned above.
Now to Michael Shermer’s response to the person who gave him the answer, “I said, ‘Well, that tells us a lot about the depth of your character. Stay far, far away from me.”
Indeed, stay away, far away. But if, God forbid, this person wanted to harm Michael Shermer he would not stay away and attempting to embarrass him, particularly publicly, is no way to attempt to prevent him from doing so.
Michael Shermer
Allow me an anecdote: there is a friend of mine who is just about the nicest guy you would ever hope to meet. At least, he is a nice guy now. Before, well, let me tell you about it.
He used to be a hardcore crystal meth addict, gang-banger and drug dealer. He had also practiced martial arts and could do some major damage. Once, he was dealing crack and some junkie grabbed a rock from his hand and ran off. My friend ran after him and catching up, knocked him down and proceeded to smash glass bottles over his head.
Now, what if Michael Shermer would have gone to my friend at that time and said, “Well, that tells us a lot about the depth of your character. Stay far, far away from me.” I have a feeling that Michael Shermer would have ended up with so many stitches in his head that it would have made Frankenstein’s monster look like a lightweight (remember that “Frankenstein” was the doctor’s name).
What if William Provine would have gone to my friend and stated:
The implications of modern science, however, are clearly inconsistent with most religious traditions. No purposive principles exist in nature. Organic evolution has occurred by various combinations of random genetic drift, natural selection, Mendelian heredity, and many other purposeless mechanisms. Humans are complex organic machines that die completely with no survival of soul or psyche…No inherent moral or ethical laws exist, nor are there absolute guiding principles for human society. The universe cares nothing for us and we have no ultimate meaning in life.1
What if Dan Barker (of the Freedom From Religion Foundation) would have gone to my friend and stated:
There is no moral interpreter in the cosmos, nothing cares and nobody cares_what happens to me or a piece of broccoli, it won’t the Sun is going to explode, we’re all gonna be gone. No one’s gonna care.2
What if Richard Dawkins would have gone to my friend and stated:
nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous-indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose.3
We are not, then, merely like apes or descended from apes; we are apes.4
In nature, the usual selecting agent is direct, stark and simple. It is the grim reaper.5
I shudder to think what if…
What would Michael Shermer’s attempts to embarrass him have accomplished? What would the void which atheism offers have done?
I shudder to think…
Yet, thanks be to God it was the Gospel of the Messiah Jesus which took him from being a very tough, dangerous, malicious, gang-banger and drug addict/dealer and turned him into one of the nicest guys you would ever hope to meet.