Pinky and the Brain (Anyone know that cartoon?)
Steven Pinker is a Harvard Professor of Psychology who has studied languages and cognition. He is an ardent atheist and a staunch proponent of reason, science, humanism and progress. His project in Enlightenment Now is to demonstrate the successfulness of the modern era and to recapitulate it so that we do not lose the precious ground that has been gained. He is thoroughly optimistic about how the Enlightenment has performed and rails against those that see it otherwise with their doom and gloom.
If modernity’s project and aim is happiness and progress, Pinker would assert that it is wildly victorious. Truly, the progress and technology and advancements in the last three hundred years is mind-numbing. Hicks maps these ends clearly early on in his Explaining Postmodernism[1].
While I prefer these ends over evil, totalitarianism, genocide, etc, I wonder if there is more to the story. And I am not the only one. Pinker’s critics note his vehement defense of the Enlightenment keeps him from acknowledging the existence of any correlating problems. Maxwell accuses him of committing this intellectual sin and yet agrees that Pinker makes some great points.[2] Pinker has an impressive number of charts to prove that the state of the world is better than any other time in history but his wanton lack of admission that the human race still faces significant crises is peculiar.
There is much here to ponder and I offer three short, somewhat unrelated musings:
- I think it’s important that Christian academics take Pinker seriously.
Nick Spencer, a Senior Fellow at Theos, offers a response to Pinker that is an excellent example of a Christian posture towards those that detest our worldview. He is generous with his words, complimenting Pinker where he can. Yet Spencer respectfully disagrees with Pinker on the origins of many of the Enlightenment ideals and institutions. He makes his case for Christianity’s contribution to what has transpired without committing the intellectual “sin” Pinker does. Spencer acknowledges the messiness of history and admits that “Christianity gave us Crusades, Inquisition, and Wars of Religion, alongside the rule of law, the invention of the individual (to use Siedentop’s title) and the notion of ineradicable human dignity and equality.”[3]
Sure, Spencer has a bias and an ascribed worldview but he is appropriately open, thoughtful, and researched in his critique. His example offers a model to resist Noll’s anti-intellectualism without moving to rationalism as god.
2. Christian leaders could take a positivity lesson from Pinker.
Today’s Christian leaders (mega-church ones may be more fair?) are trained to run systems and give feedback and operate with an eye for continuous improvement. Most leaders can easily pick out what is wrong, weak or broken. Status quo is not an option for the best leaders. Among many of my colleagues, we have joked that it is a spiritual gift to be able to see all the deficiencies. It is also exhausting. It has become part of the wider culture and Pinker would have us place much of the blame at the feet of many academics, media, postmodernists, the far politically left and right, and so on. Pessimism and dystopia is at obsessive levels among these groups according to Pinker and he accuses them of “progressophobia”[4] Most leaders I know are no where near this level but I think we must guard against an infiltration of pessimism in the Church.
How do we lead and live from a more positive outlook? I would venture that more than Pinker, who has placed his hope for the future squarely on the backs of science and humanism, we have reasons to be optimistic. And I wonder if church leaders have room to grow in our celebration and appreciation for all the good God is working through our local contexts?
Of course Pinker is not positive about Christianity as he views it as irrational and wishes it would “defer to reason, science, and humanism on all questions relating to human conduct, including morality.”[5] But he is exceedingly positive about his beliefs and his project and I think we should be more so about ours.
3. Is progress and happiness a worthy end or goal for life? Is worshipping God a better one?
Perhaps moralistic therapeutic deism is not working for us. Can happiness and progress hold our full human weight? What of the environmental crisis? What of the staggering anxiety epidemic? Is progress at all costs really giving us what we want or truly need? We are more connected in some ways and deeply fractured in other ways. Christian leaders must ask if there is more to life’s pursuits than Enlightenment’s ends.
Instead of cowering from Pinker’s intellect and his disdain for my worldview, I am more appreciative of the faith I hold. He has nudged me towards gratefulness for the era I live in. And I am eternally grateful that I do not bear the weight and pressure of my own immanence – that my fleeting and flickering happiness is not my ultimate end. I believe in what Taylor describes as the Transcendent – Someone greater than my own existence.[6] Pinker mocks the idea that “the universe is saturated with purpose” and calls it primitive.[7] He makes a valid point about some naive abuses but I do not agree with him and believe there is a higher purpose than my happiness and it does not diminish me even slightly to admit it.
I know I am biased but I am more comfortable living with the chief end of man being to “glorify God and enjoy Him forever”[8] than with progress and humanistic happiness that depends on what this world alone offers.
[1] Stephen Hicks, Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault (Brisbane, Australia: Connor Court, 2019), 13.
[2] Nicholas Maxwell, “We Need Progress in Ideas about How to Achieve Progress,” Metascience 27, no. 2 (2018): pp. 347-350, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11016-018-0312-4.
[3] Nick Spencer, “Enlightenment and Progress, or Why Steven Pinker Is Wrong,” Theos Think Tank, February 20, 2018, https://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/comment/2018/02/20/enlightenment-and-progress-or-why-steven-pinker-is-wrong.
[4] Steven Pinker, Enlightenment Now: the Case for Reason, Science, Humanism and Progress (London, UK: Penguin, 2019), 47, 215, 406, 373, 448.
[5]Geoffrey Galt Harpham, “Get Shorty: Steven Pinker on the Enlightenment,” Evolutionary Studies in Imaginative Culture2, no. 2 (2018): p. 103, https://doi.org/10.26613/esic.2.2.95.
[6]Charles Taylor, “Challenging Issues About The Secular Age,” Modern Theology 26, no. 3 (August 2010): pp. 404-416, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0025.2010.01615.x.
[7]Pinker, Enlightenment Now, 24.
[8]The Westminster Shorter Catechism (Philadelphia: Board of Christian Education of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., 1936).
About the Author
Andrea Lathrop
I am a grateful believer in Jesus Christ, a wife, mom and student. I live in West Palm Beach, Florida and I have been an executive pastor for the last 8+ years. I drink more coffee than I probably should every day.10 responses to “Pinky and the Brain (Anyone know that cartoon?)”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Amazing Animaniacs reference!
Also, love the question about happiness as a worthy end goal. Progress as defined by Pinker certainly is happening, but so too is suffering. I also don’t remember Jesus saying “Blessed are the happy” so it never seemed to be an end goal for him.
Thank you!
Andrea, I love that you pulled a lot of our recent readings together all in one place.
I found myself saying “preach it sister” after every point you made. I wholeheartedly resonate with the three points you made: (1) Christians taking Pinker seriously; (2) stay positive; (3) and “Is progress and happiness a worthy end or goal for life? Is worshipping God a better one?”
The only thing I would change for me is that I see no difference between pursuit of happiness and worshipping God. Also, I see no difference between “joy” and “happiness” I know it sounds subversive but its these kinds of weak distinctions that perpetuate the idea that there exist the realm of the supernatural (phenomena) that is separate from the supernatural (noumena), and “never the twain shall meet.”
But that’s just me. 🙂
Harry! I love that – I too think about the difference between joy and happiness and believe we often over-play it in the Church and I am grateful for the way you framed it. Very helpful!
Such a great post A!
I couldn’t help but think of Gary V who has the ear of a lot of young people these days and Happiness is his message. Which isn’t bad if it is a part of life but I think making that your “god” – which he would never say- but that is what it leads too, is not good. I slightly disagree with Harry and do see a difference in Happiness and Joy because Happiness is not a fruit of the Spirit but Joy is. Happiness while good is dependent on happenings while joy is found as anchor in the Spirit. This I think is where we as leaders learn not to be as pessimistic as you mentioned, that is, by being anchored in joy not happiness. But that’s just my 2 cents :).
I appreciated your response and thought about Harry’s joy and happiness…may we all continue to grow in this virtue of joy. As the world gets darker (much more a postmodern thought than Pinker obviously), a Christian’s deep joy (or mirth or happiness) that is grounded in Him will be a beautiful testimony to the world. Amen.
Hey Mario. I’ll take the “slightly agree” compliment. Hahaha. It’s something I want to research further — when did “happiness” and “joy” get separated? I still have this notion that they are synonyms of each other. Consider Scripture, it seems that what might be implied in joy is also used for happiness, i.e., “Blessed is the one who does not walk in step with the wicked or stand in the way that sinners take or sit in the company of mockers….” [Ps. 1] Some translations just replace “blessed” with “happy”
Also, if we say joy is a higher quality of happiness, I’m not sure we can experience that in our human condition. Again, I could be totally wrong on this, but worth the research. Good stuff.
Andrea,
Thank you for your fair appraisal of Pinker and the lessons we can learn from him. Yes, we are differentiated from Pinker in that we have a personal connection with our God (recognizing Pinker does not) who is moving his people towards the fulfillment of his purposes. I definitely agree we should be more positive because our faith rests in our Creator rather than our limited efforts. What does the advancement of the Kingdom look like within the perspective of “progress?”
Well I watched more “Pinky and the Brain” than I want to admit when my son was a little boy. Great post, Andrea. I wrote a similar thought to your second point. I do believe the Church could increase its optimism when it comes to our presentation of the gospel and our own lifestyle but not with a “pie in the sky” or naive hopefulness. I believe a people of deeply thoughtful, intelligent, Spirit dependent hope is who we are called to be.
Andrea, great post and analysis of Pinker. However, I don’t think there is any reason to be optimistic without true faith in Jesus Christ and without Christians being salt and light in a dark world.
Hi Andres. I’m a it behind, but hey, better late than never. This was a good reflection on the basics of Pinker and reckon you got to crux really well. I also read the critiques of Pinker, and determined that most hadn’t read the book, or if they did, they read without thinking about it. In chapter 19 he does address the existential threats facing humanity on all the usual front, but like other social observers he concludes that pessimism is generally our greatest enemy. I like that you picked that out in lessons to church leaders. Unlike others, I have hope in ‘most’ people. Everyone is made in the image of God, and Christs light shines on ‘all people’ (John 1:9). Redeemed or not, we are all vessel that God can and does use. Church leaders included :). Keep spreading that hope Andrea.