---
Giving the Devil His Due: Reflections of a Scientific Humanist
by Michael Shermer
3.93 · Rating details · 164 ratings · 35 reviews
Who is the 'Devil'? And what is he due? The Devil is anyone who disagrees with you. And what he is due is the right to speak his mind. He must have this for your own safety's sake because his freedom is inextricably tied to your own. If he can be censored, why shouldn't you be censored? If we put barriers up to silence 'unpleasant' ideas, what's to stop the silencing of any discussion? This book is a full-throated defense of free speech and open inquiry in politics, science, and culture by the New York Times bestselling author and skeptic Michael Shermer. The new collection of essays and articles takes the Devil by the horns by tackling five key themes: free thought and free speech, politics and society, scientific humanism, religion, and the ideas of controversial intellectuals. For our own sake, we must give the Devil his due. (less)
GET A COPY
KoboOnline Stores ▾Book Links ▾
Hardcover, 366 pages
Published April 9th 2020 by Cambridge University Press
Darin Stewart
Apr 28, 2020Darin Stewart rated it liked it
Giving the Devil His Due is a good retrospective of Shermer's thought and work over the years. While most of these essays are available in various forms and from multiple publications, it is useful to have them collected, organized and in several instances updated and expanded. It also highlights one of Mr. Shermer's failings as a thinker and writer, he is prone to oversimplification. In most of his work he is thoughtful, thorough and insightful. Yet when his topics brush up his predilection for libertarian oriented solutions, he tends to overlook or ignore inconvenient perspectives. When he discusses the yacht incentive, in which movers, makers and shakers are driven to have a yacht just a bit bigger or more luxurious than their peers, all of society benefits because they are creating the markets and the employment they generate to support their ambitions. Shermer notes that when a middle-manager willingly works 80-hour weeks in a mundane supply chain job, the whole supply chain is the better for his sacrifice. He neglects to take into account the toll an 80-hour work week will take on that manager, his friends and other ways they could contribute to society had they the time, energy and security.
Shermer lauds market forces in their ability to extract maximum labor for the smallest wage without mentioning the dynamic of keeping hourly workers just below the threshold that would provide benefits or the difficulty of having to work multiple such jobs in order to make ends meet. This narrow view carries over into his assessment of public education. He rightfully lambasts the deplorable state of the American public education system. He holds up the superior results of private schools as evidence that privatized education will inevitably lead to better outcomes. Again, he is probably correct for the majority of students. He does not account for the fact that private schools can reject the most vulnerable, disruptive or highest need students. These are left to the public system to deal with with ever dwindling resources. Neither does he account for the growth of public funding of religious education through voucher and charter solutions. This is a particularly disappointing omission for such a prominent "scientific humanist". I am a fan of Mr. Shermer. He is an important voice for secularism, humanism and above all rational inquiry. It is disappointing when he takes a simplistic approach to complicated issues. He is capable of much, much more. (less)
flag7 likes · Like · comment · see review
Dan Graser
Apr 15, 2020Dan Graser rated it it was amazing
Michael Shermer is one of the indispensable thinkers of our time, on a huge range of subjects, as this volume of essays collected from the past 15 years or so makes clear. The editor of Skeptic magazine, he is equally adept at analyzing and confronting the absurd ravings of snake-oil salesmen, Holocaust deniers, censorious free speech deniers, the most radical claims of the religiously fundamentalist, and the peddlers of crackpot theories as pertain to biology and the natural world more broadly.
One of the more interesting aspects in this volume is the metamorphosis of his political beliefs, something which I hadn't actively followed in his writings, as he shifts from a libertarian mindset to a well-defined position of classical liberalism. I realize some are already rolling their eyes as the latter term has been used by a myriad of unlettered trolls and other species of social-media-excreted troglodytes(read: podcast hosts); Shermer is one of the few who use it correctly. This also brings up something I have always enjoyed about Shermer's writings; he is absolutely clear how many times he has changed positions on issues and from where the data supporting that shift came.
Perhaps the best endorsement of this volume I can give is that it bears qualities of the two dedicatees listed at the front: Christopher Hitchens and Steven Pinker. From the former, Shermer takes the style of a traditional polemic, mingles it with a certain literary elegance, while at the same time giving the devil his due before displaying in absolutely clear terms why the view expressed by his intellectual combatant is either misguided, blatantly false, or so woo-woo as to not be worthy of being called a position. From the latter (Pinker), he maintains a strict and committed dedication to presenting the knowable facts about any sort of situation/position, analyzing them in a scrupulously scientific manner, and coming to a reasoned conclusion (regardless of how inconvenient it may be for the current intellectual zeitgeist) or making plain why no conclusion is possible given the paucity of fact. This is a wonderful volume and the clarity of this writing is something that we desperately need in our current time of reactionary angst brought on by our necessary measures of social distancing and "stay-at-home," isolation. (less)
flag5 likes · Like · comment · see review
Mars Cheung
May 10, 2020Mars Cheung rated it it was amazing
Maybe my favorite read from 2020 so far.
I've been a fan of Dr. Shermer's work for many years now and his book, The Moral Arc, really changed how I viewed the state of humanity, changing my pessimistic view towards one cautiously optimistic for our future. I was particularly looking forward to this book but was expecting it to be fully geared towards a full throated defense of freedom of speech/expression against the nonsensical censorship coming from both political parties.
The book does do that, but I was delighted to see that it covers a vast amount of material beyond that. It's a collection of essays from Dr. Shermer discussing the teaching of evolution, the psychology of how political minds work, his interactions with other well-known intellectuals, to philosophical discussions about morality and how an objective stake can be claimed for them on a scientific basis and much, much more. The book is grouped into sections addressing these factors and each essay extrapolates on the subject. It's easy to read, clear and well-organized. Highly recommended. (less)
flag4 likes · Like · comment · see review
Jakub Ferencik
May 10, 2020Jakub Ferencik rated it it was amazing
Shelves: philosophy, politics, education, economy
Published in 2020 -- Shermer's latest work. This volume assured me that Shermer is a very important thinker, if not one of the more important thinkers of our times. I've reviewed a number of his books on this page and I've been familiar with him for a while I just didn't realize how much thought he puts into things .. a lot of things. I enjoyed his essays in his most recent book very much. They seem balanced and defend the opposing view often. Shermer defends moral realism (236), a liberal (as in political) view of human nature (254); fire-arm regulation, which I found particularly interesting (181): having guns in the home is associated with a 41 percent increase in homicide and 244 percent increase in suicide rates; Governing Mars (145); makes a case for classical liberalism (134); and so much more. I particularly enjoyed Part 5 of the book, where Shermer addresses his relationships and thoughts on Hitchens, Dawkins, and Peterson. Shermer even discusses Graham Hancock's work on America's lost civilizations in the Amazon. All in all, a very balanced portrayal of one's views. If there is anyone to disagree with, it's Shermer. He's very open to being wrong. (less)
flag1 like · Like · comment · see review
Melissa
Jun 05, 2020Melissa added it
Shelves: did-not-finish
DNF - Taking a break from this for now.
flag1 like · Like · comment · see review
Steve
Apr 14, 2020Steve rated it really liked it
Shelves: reviewed
Interesting, thoughtful anthology
One of the things Michael Shermer discusses in this anthology is confirmation bias and he made me realize that I have that bias. When I would read an essay that I disagreed with, my initial reaction is that I don't like the book. When I would read an essay that I agreed with, my reaction would be that I love the book. It made me realize that whether I agree with them or not, the essays are indeed thought-provoking. I also liked when Shermer indicated when he had changed his views on things. Overall the book is an interesting read.
Disclosure: I received a complimentary copy of this book via Netgalley for review purposes.
(less)
flag1 like · Like · comment · see review
David
May 02, 2020David rated it really liked it
Shelves: current-events, essays, science, sociology
Overall, a great collection of essays by one of today's top skeptics. I bought this book after hearing Mr. Shermer on TJRE. Shermer seemed to make a lot of since on that show and I am glad to have read this book. I did have a problem with two (back to back) essays in this book - the first titled "On Guns and Tyranny", the second titled "Debating Guns: What Conservatives and Liberals Really Differ on About Guns [And Everything Else]).
Not that I had a problem with them because I fundamentally disagreed with what Shermer was saying (it's a mixed bag), it's just that I felt the arguments were weak and somewhat political, and, in the case of the second essay, biased by the authors emotional perspective; something that stuck out all too glaringly in light of the other essays in this collection being purely rational. The second article relies heavily on the guidance of another book (that I have not read) that, judging from the excerpts, learns very liberal and is guilty of casting Conservative thought in a very poor light while holding highbrow and nobel Liberal thought standards. I automatically distrust as factual any writing that goes down either (and any) party lines.
Having said that, I felt the rest of the essays made strong and well articulated arguments.
On a personal note, I realized I have have read a crap ton of the books referenced in this work and that although I don't readily identify as a skeptic, I sure read like one. I was surprised to see heavily referenced an obscure book I happened to pick up (Gardner's Fads and Fallicies in the Name of Science) which turns out to be a skeptics classic. (less)
flag1 like · Like · comment · see review
Mike Cheng
Nov 11, 2020Mike Cheng rated it liked it
This is a collection of short writings and articles by Michael Shermer discussing, among other things, religion (primarily in the context of evolution vs. creationism, with another article about Scientology), gun control, free markets vs. the Fatal Conceit (F.A. Hayek!), and Christopher Hitchens. The first few chapters were the best part for me, wherein Mr. Shermer discusses the importance of the First Amendment and free speech (which includes offensive speech as well as hate speech*) - best summarized in the following Commandments of Free Speech: (1) Who decides what speech and thought are acceptable and unacceptable? You? Me? The majority? A committee? The thought police? Control of speech is how dictatorships and autocracies rule. We must resist the urge to control what others say and think. (2) What criteria are used to censor certain speech? Ideas the majority disagrees with? This is another form of tyranny - a tyranny of the majority. (3) It is not just the right of speakers to speak, but also the right of listeners to listen. For example, when colleges deplatform speakers or there is use of the hecklers’ veto, the audience’s right to listen is violated. (4) We might be completely right but still learn something new in hearing what someone else has to say. We might be partially right and partially wrong, and by listening to other viewpoints we might stand to be corrected, and thereafter refine and improve our beliefs. Or, we might be completely wrong - so hearing criticism or a counterpoint gives us the chance to change our minds and improve our thinking. Nobody is infallible. The only way to know we’re off the rails is to get feedback on our beliefs, opinions, and even our facts. Alternative facts are corrected by actual / confirmed facts. But the Confirmation Bias means we are all subject to seeking only confirming evidence to cement our beliefs. To avoid this we need to listen to our critics and the other side. (5) Whether right or wrong, by listening to others we have the opportunity to bolster our own arguments and fortify our positions. If you know only your own position, you do not know it as well as you would if you knew your opponent’s position. (6) Freedom of inquiry and free speech is the basis of human progress because of human fallibility. We are all wrong some of the time; many of us most of the time. Ideas should be tested in the marketplace of ideas. (7) My freedom to speak and dissent is inextricably tied to your freedom to speak and dissent. If I censor you, why can’t you censor me. Once customs and laws are in place to censor on one topic, what’s to stop censorship of any other topic that deviates from the accepted canon. This last one, as well as the title of the book, comes from A Man For All Seasons wherein it is argued that even the Devil should be given the benefit of law.
*Dennis Prager contends (not in this book) that it is “hate speech” that deserves the most protection, as nobody would move to censor “love speech”. I would assume that Mr. Shermer agrees, as he makes two additional points against censoring hate speech: (a) It is elitist and arrogant to think that the masses / Hoi Polloi should be “protected” from controversial / wrong ideas and thought - everyone must be given the opportunity to evaluate themselves; and (b) the solution to hate speech is more speech because not only is censorship ineffective in curbing hate speech / bad ideas - it might actually make them more desirable when not debunked in an open forum. it merely makes it more desirable and the ideas are less out in the open. (less)
flagLike · comment · see review
Kate
Jul 30, 2020Kate rated it really liked it
“For our own safety’s sake, we must give the Devil his due,” says Michael Shermer in his latest book, Giving the Devil His Due: Reflections of a Scientific Humanist.
Shermer defines the Devil as anyone who disagrees with you (or someone else), and he insists that this Devil has the right to speak his mind -- because this book is about the defense of free speech above all.
It’s about open inquiry; about challenging ideas; and about defining and defending your own reasoning.
Readers aren’t likely to agree with everything Shermer offers in this book… and that’s the point.
Debate and discourse are paramount to this experimental psychologist and publisher of Skeptic magazine.
He takes a contrary and opposing viewpoint to just about every controversial issue on people’s minds today: rejecting the theory of evolution; Holocaust deniers; debating guns, religion, racism, and school violence. (And then there are even more topics that you may not have realized merit much more of your own moral contemplation.)
Shermer’s essays are more than a collection of thoughtful musings. It’s stunning to see the author admit to deliberation that counters his own early beliefs, and that he can be introspective enough to allow new information to inform his opinion. For perhaps this reason alone, it’s a necessary book for the times we are living in. Disagreements are healthy; free speech helps us all learn and grow through our skepticism.
One can’t help but learn something through reading Giving the Devil His Due, even if it simply serves to solidify precisely WHY one holds a belief. This Devil’s Advocate deserves his say! (less)
flagLike · comment · see review
Colin
Jan 06, 2021Colin rated it really liked it
Decent collection of essays on various subjects. I found plenty to disagree with, which is good because I like disagreeing with stuff. He seems weirdly pessimistic and lacking in imagination /ambition when it comes to the problem of how to decrease the insane level of gun ownership in America. Well, that's not surprising, perhaps: it's a long-term problem, more complicated than doing the same in New Zealand, but is that a reason to rule out anything more than a bit of tinkering around the edges? Come on, dude, if you call yourself a public intellectual you need to think outside the bodybag. I mean, box.
He talks a lot of sense too, when he's talking about things that don't go BANG!
My only real complaint was that the intro rehashed a lot of the material in some of the early essays so that you read the same thing, almost word for word, within the space of just a few minutes. That seemed a bit pointless. (less)
flagLike · comment · see review
Rob
Jun 05, 2020Rob rated it liked it
Shelves: audiobooks, non-fiction, religious, science, essays, political, read-2020
As with many collections of previously published material, Giving the Devil His Due contains work that may be familiar to someone who has has previously read some Shermer. This volume contains five sections, with essays covering Shermer's views on religion, politics, free speech, humanism and a final section of biographies/criticism of public intellectuals.
As a Libertarian turned Classical Liberal and renowned skeptic, many of Shermer's opinions are predictable, but what I find refreshing about Shermer is his (at least feigned) openness to new information and his desire to explore viewpoints that are different from his own and challenging to the status quo. (less)
flagLike · comment · see review
Chris Boutté
Jan 05, 2021Chris Boutté rated it it was amazing
As a fan of skeptic authors, I've known of Michael Shermer for ages but only recently got into his work, and I absolutely love everything I've read so far. This book is a collection of essays, and I typically don't like this type of book, but it was phenomenal. Even if you don't agree with Shermer, you have to respect his thought process and how he analyzes various subjects. This book covers a wide range of topics from free speech debates, creationism vs. evolution, gun control, morality, pseudoscience, and much more. This book can easily be read in chunks, but I binged most of it in one sitting because it was so good. (less)
flagLike · comment · see review
Dean Mayes
May 09, 2020Dean Mayes rated it liked it
I like Michael Shermer but I found myself struggling after getting half way. He makes sound arguments about free speech, elucidates enlightening arguments around gun rights - even though I remain an advocate of gun control. But it is when he wades into the territory of libertarian, laissez fare economics, limited government and public versus private education that he lost me. His arguments there seem to become simplistic and only consider a limited section of society at the expense of the rest.
I couldn't finish this book. (less)
flag1 like · Like · comment · see review
Aly Goodwin
Jul 31, 2020Aly Goodwin rated it it was amazing
Glad, and lucky I think, to have been set this book to read by a book club member. Five stars even though it might be a touch long ( but only in as much of the sheer number of topics broached).
Clarified many of my own convictions and raised others I hadn’t even considered.
It will be very confrontational to quite a lot of self described liberals, religious folk and trend followers but the logic is impeccable and the author’s intelligence also.
So many could learn so much from this book not least common human decency and the old chestnut of treating others how you would like to be treated. (less)
flagLike · comment · see review
Mandie Weinandt
Sep 09, 2020Mandie Weinandt rated it really liked it
I'm mixed on this one. I'm very glad I read it but I wouldn't say I "liked" it. There are a number of facinating ideas, explorations, and thought experiments here but also a lot of assumptions based on a privileged lens and lack of translation from theory or academic practice to more general practice. It will definitely make you think, which is always great even if you disagree! The audiobook is read by the author, which is good because it carries the appropriate tone needed to better understand the text but the audiobook is poorly edited. (less)
flagLike · comment · see review
' xlink:href='%23b'/%3e%3cuse fill='black' filter='url(%23c)' xlink:href='%23b'/%3e%3cpath fill='white' d='M12.162 7.338c.176.123.338.245.338.674 0 .43-.229.604-.474.725a.73.73 0 01.089.546c-.077.344-.392.611-.672.69.121.194.159.385.015.62-.185.295-.346.407-1.058.407H7.5c-.988 0-1.5-.546-1.5-1V7.665c0-1.23 1.467-2.275 1.467-3.13L7.361 3.47c-.005-.065.008-.224.058-.27.08-.079.301-.2.635-.2.218 0 .363.041.534.123.581.277.732.978.732 1.542 0 .271-.414 1.083-.47 1.364 0 0 .867-.192 1.879-.199 1.061-.006 1.749.19 1.749.842 0 .261-.219.523-.316.666zM3.6 7h.8a.6.6 0 01.6.6v3.8a.6.6 0 01-.6.6h-.8a.6.6 0 01-.6-.6V7.6a.6.6 0 01.6-.6z'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e){kind=small}
