Atheism Culture Darwinism Intelligent Design News

Steve Pinker on faitheism

Spread the love

Closing our religion news coverage for the week, we have Steve Pinker on faitheism.

Readers may remember Pinker from this:

A truly ethical bioethics should not bog down research in red tape, moratoria, or threats of prosecution based on nebulous but sweeping principles such as “dignity,” “sacredness,” or “social justice.” …

Here he is on the dangers of “faitheism” (a Jerry Coyne coinage):

The backlash against the New Atheists has given rise to a new consensus among faith-friendly intellectuals, and their counterattack is remarkably consistent across critics with little else in common. The new atheists are too shrill and militant, they say, and just as extreme as the fundamentalists they criticize. They are preaching to the choir, and only driving moderates into the arms of religion. People will never be disabused of their religious beliefs, and perhaps they should not be, because societies need unifying creeds to promote altruism and social cohesion. Anyway, most people treat religious doctrine allegorically rather than literally, and even if they do treat it literally, it’s not these folk beliefs that serious thinkers should engage with, but rather the sophisticated versions of religion worked out by erudite theologians.

Unbelievably, Pinker goes on to say re Coyne’s new book, Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible,

There’s another reason that Coyne’s characterization of science is far from vacuous: it admits of no syncretism, hybrid, or other mongrel with religious faith. This intransigence is not a quibble over the meaning of the word ‘science’; it’s a statement of how people with any appreciation of the value of science ought to fix their beliefs. They should treat all claims with skepticism, and provisionally accept only those that are warranted by arguments and evidence that anyone can recognize. They should not accept claims on the grounds of revelation, doctrine, authority, tribal solidarity, subjective appeal, or no reason at all — that is, on faith.

This from the man who has advanced the notion of our brains being shaped for fitness, not for truth. In any event, there is now hardly anything left of Darwinism but its followers’ faith.

Pinker misses in the book the shrill tone Coyne adopts on his blog. Well, can’t have everything.

See also: Talk to the fossils: Let’s see what they say back

Follow UD News at Twitter!

6 Replies to “Steve Pinker on faitheism

  1. 1
    Mung says:

    Hi News. Broken link.

    Here he is on the dangers of “faitheism” (a Jerry Coyne coinage)

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Here is a review of Coyne’s book in “The New Atlantis”

    Faith, Fact, and False Dichotomies – Austin L. Hughes
    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/.....ichotomies

  3. 3

    It seems that new intellectual atheists get pushed to the fore, when one of the well known atheists dies, or otherwise ceases work. And then this clicque of ‘famous’ atheists support each other.

    Jerry Coyne seems to drag them all down, being a bit too obvious in his work as a stereotype of an emotionless mr spock.

    I can’t believe Pinker just explicitly rejected subjectivity. Wouldn’t subjectivity be handy in marriage and friendship and whatnot? huhuhuh they are so stereotypically evil

    We must be careful to keep this batch of atheists, so they are not replaced with anything more sophisticated.

    In stead of addressing the atheists, we should now address the source of where these atheists come from, and ask parents if they would like to have their children taught how choosing works at school.

  4. 4
    Axel says:

    The shrill tone of Dickie D’s exotic flights of fancy rather put me in mind of his namesake, the other Little Richard.

    I suppose Dickie’s flight of fancy of a ‘blind watchmaker’ would be more or less equivalent to the other Little Richard playing his piano with his backside and the heel of his shoe – though the latter seem reasonably effective, fit for purpose’, as lawyers would say. Yet Dickie’s visually-challenged watchmaker would scarcely serve for music-hall humour.

    ‘I see said the blind man’, is an example of the extremely puerile, often insensitive, humour we lapped up in the army, yet blind people do say that, seeking understandably to minimise awareness of their disablement in a normal social setting.

  5. 5
    Silver Asiatic says:

    They should treat all claims with skepticism, and provisionally accept only those that are warranted by arguments and evidence that anyone can recognize.

    I’m very skeptical about that. He provided no evidence to support his opinion — it’s simply a dogmatic claim to take on faith.

    They should not accept claims on the grounds of revelation, doctrine, authority, tribal solidarity, subjective appeal, or no reason at all — that is, on faith.

    We should obey this because Steve Pinker said so.

  6. 6
    idnet.com.au says:

    “treat all claims with skepticism, and provisionally accept only those that are warranted by arguments and evidence that anyone can recognize” I find this a useful way to live but I have not found that it opposes either ID or Christian faihy.

Leave a Reply