Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Pinker in the Harvard Crimson

Categories
Culture
Education
Religion
Science
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Steven Pinker has published an interesting op-ed in today’s Harvard Crimson, criticizing the current report of Harvard’s committee on general education. If one could reformulate Pinker’s dogmatic pronouncements as questions to be examined, this would be a good essay. For example,

  • What is faith?
  • Is Earth truly an undistinguished speck in the cosmos, or is there something special about it?
  • How is the paramount value of “reason” affected if the mind and its thoughts are merely products of chemical activity in the brain?

Opinion –Less Faith, More Reason
Published by The Harvard Crimson
On 10/27/2006 4:36:48 AM
By STEVEN PINKER

[T]he picture of humanity’s place in nature that has emerged from scientific inquiry has profound consequences for people’s understanding of the human condition. The discoveries of science have cascading effects, many unforeseeable, on how we view ourselves and the world in which we live: for example, that our planet is an undistinguished speck in an inconceivably vast cosmos; that all the hope and ingenuity in the world can’t create energy or use it without loss; that our species has existed for a tiny fraction of the history of the earth; that humans are primates; that the mind is the activity of an organ that runs by physiological processes; that there are methods for ascertaining the truth that can force us to conclusions which violate common sense, sometimes radically so at scales very large and very small; that precious and widely held beliefs, when subjected to empirical tests, are often cruelly falsified.

I believe that a person for whom this understanding is not second-nature cannot be said to be educated. And I think that some acknowledgment of the intrinsic value of scientific knowledge should be a goal of the general education requirement and a stated value of a university.

My second major reservation [about Harvard’s new Report of the Committee on General Education] concerns the “Reason and Faith” requirement.

First, the word “faith” in this and many other contexts, is a euphemism for “religion.” An egregious example is the current administration’s “faith-based initiatives,” so-named because it is more palatable than “religion-based initiatives.” A university should not try to hide what it is studying in warm-and-fuzzy code words.

Second, the juxtaposition of the two words makes it sound like “faith” and “reason” are parallel and equivalent ways of knowing, and we have to help students navigate between them. But universities are about reason, pure and simple. Faith—believing something without good reasons to do so—has no place in anything but a religious institution, and our society has no shortage of these….

SOURCE: http://www.thecrimson.com/printerfriendly.aspx?ref=515314

Comments
Pinker in the past has defended women killing their infants on the grounds that our hunter-gatherer ancestors sometimes found this practice adaptive (in times of drought or famine, better to kill an infant and thus keep onself alive to reproduce at a more opportune time when both parent and offspring are likely to thrive). This brilliant piece of analysis appeared in the New York Review of Books as I recall (ca. 1997). I encourage someone to track down the precise reference -- it was quite a remarkable piece of insanity. William Dembski
November 24, 2006
November
11
Nov
24
24
2006
09:56 PM
9
09
56
PM
PDT
"One bright side- he didn’t say anything about his desire to kill newborn babies that are unwanted!" JasonTheGreek Jason, are you confusing Pinker with Princeton's Peter Singer? Or does Pinker hold this view as well?russ
November 24, 2006
November
11
Nov
24
24
2006
09:53 PM
9
09
53
PM
PDT
"that our planet is an undistinguished speck in an inconceivably vast cosmos;"
Undistinguised. Well, except for the fact that its inhabited by life- the only known place, thus far, in the universe to have any life whatsoever. More so- it has human life...men and women, like Pinker, capable of pondering this very fact. Maybe Pinker hates himself and sees himself as somehow being a speck of nothingness in the cosmos, but most would disagree. You have to love his arrogant attitude as well. You'd think he was a god himself, since he so clearly states that he KNOWS the mind is nothing but a chemical process from the brain, that the earth is but a tiny speck that means next to nothing in the vast cosmos, and the rest of the inane statements he makes. You quickly reach the problem area with Pinker's worldview. If what he writes here is nothing but a chemically process that he has no control over- why should we listen to any of it to begin with? My mind is nothing but some chemicals I have no control over, but it somehow allows me to write that it's mere chemicals I have no control over. Why listen to anything he has to say if it's all just random firing neurons with no basis in objective truth? He goes on to make the completely absurd statement:
"Faith—believing something without good reasons to do so—has no place in anything but a religious institution, and our society has no shortage of these."
Can ANYONE, and I mean anyone here confirm what he says here? Do you consider your faith something that you believe and have no good reasons in doing so? That is NOT what faith means when it comes to religion. Faith does NOT mean believing in something without good reason or believing in something without evidence. Does Pinker really believe that a brilliant man like CS Lewis, for example, was a simpleton who believed what he did and had not a single good reason to do so? Did Pinker forget all the books Lewis wrote that detailed the varied reasons to believe as he did? What of other well known theologians today? Moreland, William Lane Craig, and many others...I don't think anyone using critical thinking skills can conclude these men and women believe what they do and do so without reason or evidence. That goes alone with the arrogance of Pinker's thinking. I wonder what it feels like to be soooo smart, knowing everyone who doesn't share your nihilistic worldview is but a moron, ignorant in everything they do...? It's a disgrace that institutions like Harvard even give this guy a soapbox to speak from at all. One bright side- he didn't say anything about his desire to kill newborn babies that are unwanted! You'd think that alone would brand someone a lunatic- unfortunately, at Harvard (they gave him the soapbox afterall), this isn't the case. Which is one reason I'd never pay for my kids to attend that school.JasonTheGreek
November 24, 2006
November
11
Nov
24
24
2006
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply