<\/p>\n
Humans have been fascinated with time travel for some time now. One would only have to look at the plethora of Hollywood movies that deal with the subject of time travel such as \u201cBack to the Future\u201d, \u201cThe Terminator\u201d, \u201cTime After Time\u201d, and one of my favorites, \u201cSomewhere in Time\u201d. It seems there is some internal desire to recreate the past, with improvements of course, that brings a certain satisfaction.<\/p>\n
Steven Pinker, in his book Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism and Progress<\/em>, seems to want to go back to a period called the \u201cEnlightenment\u201d, and derives great satisfaction from this mental time travel. \u201cSteven Pinker is a cognitive scientist, psychologist, linguist, popular science author, and Johnston Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University.\u201d[1]<\/a> \u201cPinker divides his book into three parts, using the first to set out what enlightenment is; he identifies humanism \u2013 the striving for the flourishing of all humans \u2013 as setting its goal and reason and science as guiding its methodology.\u201d[2]<\/a> Pinker\u2019s humanism has no real need of faith in God since, \u201cThe superstitious faith of earlier times would be supplanted by what he called \u201cthe Religion of Humanity\u201d \u2013 a rationalist creed in which an imaginary version of the human species would occupy the place of the Supreme Being.\u201d[3]<\/a><\/p>\n Pinker\u2019s second section of the book is devoted to showing the progress that has been made in the world. Pinker shows chart after chart explaining how the world is better than it was in the past and how we have used humanism to stave off entropy or the chaos in the world. In attempting to use a law of science, entropy, the second law of thermodynamics to describe his ideas, Pinker engages in scientism. \u201cHistorian Richard G. Olson defines scientism as \u201cefforts to extend scientific ideas, methods, practices, and attitudes to matters of human social and political concern.\u201d\u201d[4]<\/a> Scientism seeks to legitimize ideas of social science by borrowing from the empirical science fields. However, scientific laws are not theories but are proven by repeated observations under strict conditions. \u201cExponents of scientism in the past have used it to promote Fabian socialism, Marxism-Leninism, Nazism and more interventionist varieties of liberalism. In doing so, they were invoking the authority of science to legitimize the values of their time and place.\u201d[5]<\/a> It is clear to many in the scientific community that scientism is not the same as science. \u201cNoting that most Americans enthusiastically welcome scientific advancements, particularly those in health care, transportation, and communications, Hutchinson suggests that perhaps what the public is rejecting is not actually science itself, but a worldview that closely aligns itself with science\u2014scientism.\u201d[6]<\/a><\/p>\n Pinker believes that he is showing the decrease in entropy and the progress made in the world attributed to humanism by displaying graphs such as one which shows the decrease in child mortality from 1751- 2013, in figure 5-2.[7]<\/a> Although this graph displays the decrease in child mortality for several countries, it does not show how the child mortality differs between countries for today, which may speak to the inequities that exist in the world between the rich and the poor. So, although things are great in the US relatively speaking, this does not speak to the poor and suffering that continues throughout the world. It is interesting that Jesus, in Luke 16, compared the nameless rich man with the poor Lazarus to point out the inequities in wealth and the attitudes of selfishness that often accompanied these inequities.<\/p>\n Robert Whaples compares Steven Pinker\u2019s book Enlightenment Now<\/em> with Jordan Peterson\u2019s book 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos<\/em>. Although both are concerned with stopping chaos,<\/p>\n Peterson sees a darkness in the world that eludes Pinker. Rather than enumerating and trumpeting the successes that people around the world have achieved (and that should be celebrated), Peterson bluntly asserts, \u201cLife is suffering. That\u2019s clear. There is no more basic, irrefutable truth\u201d (p. 161)\u2014regardless of any material progress humanity has accomplished.[8]<\/a><\/p>\n It is clear that both Pinker and Peterson attempt to find meaning in life and overcome chaos from within humanity.<\/p>\n Going back in time and making useless comparisons will not assess the current needs of humanity. I do not believe that things are getting better overall, and I do not believe that life will be fixed by harking on better times, using outmoded ideologies, or going back in time. However, I do believe that there is hope for the future and a way to overcome chaos. That hope can only be found in what both Pinker and Peterson reject, a faith in Jesus Christ. He is the only hope for humanity today.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n [1]<\/a>. Naff, Clay Farris. “Enlightenment Wow: The Humanist Interview with Steven Pinker.” The Humanist, March-April<\/em>, 2018: 12-16.<\/p>\n [2]<\/a>. Haas, Felix. “Steven Pinker – Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress.” World Literature in Review, July-August<\/em>, 2018: 90-91.<\/p>\n [3]<\/a>. Gray, John. “The Limits of Reason.” New Statesman, February-March<\/em>, 2018: 42-44.<\/p>\n [4]<\/a>. Burnett, Thomas. “What is Scientism?” AAAS – American Association for the Advancement of Science.<\/em> n.d. https:\/\/www.aaas.org\/programs\/dialogue-science-ethics-and-religion\/what-scientism (accessed Feb. 21, 2020).<\/p>\n [5]<\/a>. Gray, John. “The Limits of Reason.” New Statesman, February-March<\/em>, 2018: 42-44.<\/p>\n [6]<\/a>. Burnett, Thomas. “What is Scientism?” AAAS – American Association for the Advancement of Science.<\/em> n.d. https:\/\/www.aaas.org\/programs\/dialogue-science-ethics-and-religion\/what-scientism (accessed Feb. 21, 2020).<\/p>\n