Student essay is used with permission.  It was originally submitted double-spaced with no extra spaces between the lines, featured proper MLA pagination, and 1/2″ paragraph indents.  The writing assignment asks for an argument about how several rhetorical elements work together to create a functioning whole in a given chapter of Michael Shermer’s 2004 book The Science of Good and Evil: Why People Cheat, Gossip, Care, Share, and Follow the Golden Rule.

Liana Monnat

English 101

Instructor: Joshua Dickinson

October 16, 2016

Michael Shermer Successfully Proves That Humans Can Be Good Without God

            In his chapter entitled “Can We Be Good Without God?” Michael Shermer’s objective is to prove that one does not need to be religious to be capable of moral behavior.  Shermer has, in his previous four chapters, taken care to establish ethos by demonstrating that he is an open-minded and intelligent fellow.  Judging by his use of vocabulary, he assumes his readers are also intelligent people, with whom he attempts to develop a connection through his intermittent use of humor.  Shermer has already proved that his arguments are well-supported by large quantities of evidence, which lets his audience know that what he is saying is inherently trustworthy.  Taking all of this into consideration and having carefully analyzed this chapter, the reader is compelled by logic to agree with Shermer that one can have religion without morality, and morality without religion.

Shermer begins his fifth chapter with an appeal to pathos.  He describes to readers the massacre perpetrated at Columbine High School by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (141).  His description of the event along with a photograph of the black-clad, angry-looking murderers gives the reader a glimpse of the terror that must have been experienced by those unfortunate enough to have been present at the massacre.  In building up to proving his argument, Shermer appeals to readers’ ability to reason by showing that outside influences do not cause a person to behave immorally.  He explains that in the aftermath of the event, many theories were put forth to rationalize the cause of Harris and Klebold’s murderous rampage.  Included in these causes were use of prescription drugs, cult or gang influence, a fatherless home, homosexuality, and exposure to violence in video games (143-144).  Shermer uses logic to point out that none of these causes were relevant, particularly the idea that video game violence may have been the cause.  He makes mention of several newspapers that make such a claim, but dismisses the articles as having been written by “wannabe social commentators” and “ad hoc social scientists” and lacking in evidence (143).  Shermer shows how ridiculous the notion of video games being the causal factor is by relaying testimony of other players of violent games.  They all point out that they have not been driven to violence by their gaming habits (143).  By presenting these testimonies, he appeals to our common sense and ability to reason as intelligent individuals to realize that if video games caused people to behave violently, all gamers who played violent games would exhibit violent behavior, which is certainly not the case.  Shermer has thus far proved to readers that outside influences do not cause a person to abandon their morality.

Having logically dismantled the previous cases, Shermer turns his focus to the subject of gun control.  He quips that those in favor of more gun control took advantage of the Columbine massacre by “squawking for more legislation” (146).  His use of the word ‘squawking’ brings chickens to mind, and the great amount of noise they produce at the slightest provocation.  I believe creating this visual was probably the intent behind his humorous choice of words.

Liberal gun control advocates thoroughly ridiculed, Shermer notes that conservatives answered the call for more gun control by insisting that guns were not the problem.  The problem, as conservatives saw it, was the evil souls of the people who used them to commit evil deeds (146).  I feel that Shermer purposefully saved mentioning the gun control issue for last because it deals with the ideas of evil, morality, and religion.  He has taken much care in the preceding chapters to make it clear that he does not believe that evil exists, and that morality is not a product of religion.  The issue of gun control seems a well-chosen topic from which to begin his argument of how morality is a thing separate from religion.

The first example of evidence Shermer offers in his argument is an excerpt from a letter read by Congressman Tom DeLay.  He uses the excerpt to bring to readers’ attention an argument that is commonly made to explain violent acts.  It implies that as science provides evidence for questions that people once looked to religion to answer, people no longer feel obligated by a higher power to behave morally (147).  Shermer disputes this argument by describing the case of another perpetrator of a school shooting.  Rumors of the perpetrator being an atheist were quickly dispelled by the family priest, whose explanation was that the boy was a sinner but not an atheist, to which Shermer sarcastically quips “Thank God for that” (147).  This remark demonstrates his disgust that the priest would imply that being a Christian murderer was less offensive than being an atheist.  With this evidence, Shermer has supported his argument and demonstrated to his audience that religious people do not necessarily have morals.

For Shermer’s next move, he takes into consideration the opinions of several credible people who believe that morality is impossible without religion.  He utilizes quotes from the 103rd archbishop of Canterbury, Pope Pious XI, and the deeply religious Dostoyevsky who all fervently insist that religion is absolutely necessary for morality (149-150).  Shermer then includes the religious views of Laura Schlessinger, his one-time colleague.  He immediately diminishes her religious credibility by referring to her as a “self-appointed religious authority” (150). This implies to readers that although she is considered a ‘religious authority’ her opinions should not be taken too seriously.   He points out that although Schlessinger claims to have grown up lacking morals due to an atheistic upbringing, she admits that her parents still managed to instill her with some degree of morality (151).  This admission helps support his idea that non-religious people can have morals, but is the only part of Shermer’s paragraphs about Schlessinger that appear to be relevant to his argument.  He continues on about her, however, and it becomes apparent to readers that Shermer once admired her work but was taken aback by her conversion to Judaism.  He further weakens her authority by poking fun at her, and readers (this reader, at least) cannot help but wonder if he only included these paragraphs about Schlessinger because he is still disgruntled about her defection from his cause.

Shermer has, through several quotes from religious authorities, demonstrated to his audience that religious people are adamant that religion is necessary for moral behavior.  In an effort to prove that they are wrong, he refutes the claims of these authorities by serving up examples of religious people that committed atrocities while zealously practicing their religion.  His go-to example is Hitler and the annihilation of the Jews in Germany.  He illustrates for readers the religious fervor of Hitler by quoting him as saying “I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator.  By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work” (qtd. on 153).  By strategically using this quote, Shermer is proving to readers that not only did Hitler commit mass murder, he did so in the Lord’s name.  This example, more than any other, is meant to show that religion and morality are not related.

In perhaps his most convincing argument that one need not be religious to behave morally, Shermer gets personal.  He asks readers the question “What would you do if there was no God?” (154).  Now the reader must contemplate the point Shermer has been trying to make, but on an intimate level.  He forces one to admit that if it was learned that God did not exist, the vast majority of people would continue to behave morally.  Most people would not, free from fear of eternal reprisal, proceed to pillage, rape, and commit murder.  After this degree of self-examination, it would be illogical to disagree that morality is not a creation of religion.

In his chapter “Can We Be Good Without God?”, Shermer successfully proves that we can indeed be good without God.  He appealed to readers’ emotions by describing the nightmare that was the Columbine massacre and led his audience to logically conclude that no outside influences caused the perpetrators’ behavior.  Through the strategic use of quotes and examples, Shermer effectively demonstrated that contrary to the beliefs of religious authorities, deeply religious people are capable of behaving extremely immorally.  Shermer ingeniously substantiated his point by asking readers to ponder what their own behavior might be like without God holding them accountable for their actions.  I feel that this was his most convincing piece of evidence in support of his argument, it is hard to deny his logic when applying it to oneself.  It can be assumed that most readers would continue to behave morally, and would agree with Shermer that we can be good without God.

Work Cited

Shermer, Michael. “Can We Be Good Without God?”  The Science of Good and Evil: Why People Cheat,

Gossip, Care, Share, and Follow the Golden Rule.  Henry Holt and Company, LLC, 2004, pp.141-156.