If There is No God, is Murder Wrong? (a Reply to Dennis Prager)

Summary

Michael Shermer responds to Dennis Prager’s claim that without God, murder cannot be objectively wrong and “anything goes.” Shermer argues that morality does not require belief in God, offering four main objections.

1. Divine Command Theory does not explain morality

Divine Command Theory says moral rules are right because God commands them. Shermer invokes Plato’s question: Is an act wrong because God forbids it, or does God forbid it because it is already wrong?

If murder would remain wrong even if God approved of it, then its wrongness does not depend on divine command. And if God forbids it for good reasons, Shermer argues, people can rely on those reasons directly.

2. Absolute and relative morality are not the only options

Shermer rejects the idea that morality must be either universally fixed by God or merely a matter of personal opinion. Instead, he proposes provisional morality: principles that hold for most people, in most circumstances, most of the time.

He points to widespread prohibitions on murder, arguing that societies need them to survive and function. Exceptions such as self-defense, capital punishment, and war do not, in his view, erase the general moral rule against murder.

3. Religious sources do not provide a reliable, shared standard

Shermer argues that people do not receive moral instructions directly from God in a clear, consistent way. Religious traditions—and even members of the same tradition—disagree about right and wrong while making conflicting claims to absolute moral truth. He contrasts those disagreements with science’s systematic methods for evaluating claims.

4. Moral absolutism can justify harm

Shermer argues that people convinced they possess absolute moral truth may regard those who disagree as outside the bounds of moral concern. He cites religious wars, inquisitions, witch hunts, and genocides as examples of violence committed in the name of God.

In response to the claim that atheism leads to atrocities, Shermer notes that Hitler was Catholic and Stalin was Orthodox. He argues that their killings were driven by ideologies that functioned like religions and supplied absolute moral values.

Shermer’s alternative account

Shermer says morality is neither absolute nor simply relative. He argues that it comes from human nature and is shaped by parents, peers, teachers, books, culture, and conscience. Humans have moral emotions that can be examined through reasoning.

He credits the expansion of moral concern—including the abolition of slavery and torture, the rule of law, and the recognition of civil, women’s, children’s, gay, and animal rights—to historical moral progress. He concludes that people must work to advance truth, justice, and freedom.

Speakers and sources featured

• Michael Shermer — The main speaker and author of the argument.
• Dennis Prager — The person whose argument Shermer responds to; discussed and quoted, though not clearly heard speaking in the main segment.
• A brief closing voice — Addresses Michael and praises his work; the subtitles do not conclusively identify the speaker.
• Plato — Cited for the question of whether morality depends on God’s commands.
• Religious traditions and texts — Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are discussed as sources of competing moral claims.
• Historical and political examples — The Crusades, inquisitions, witch hunts, religious wars, genocides, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao are invoked in Shermer’s argument.