The Free Press and CBS News (Bari Weiss is involved in both organizations) is hosting an ongoing series of “town hall” interviews and debates, the topic being “Things that matter.” The series is sponsored by the Bank of America.
A few weeks ago the series included a episode of interest to many of us, a debate between Steven Pinker and Ross Douthat on “Do we need God.” These gentlemen should need no introduction, save to add that this debate probably arose because of Douthat’s new book, Believe: Why Everyone Should be Religious, a book that he promoted widely (see some of my takes on it here). The video of that debate went online yesterday.
Here’s part of the website’s intro to the debate:
Today, nearly a third of Americans claim no religious affiliation, which would have been unimaginable a generation ago.
But the story of religion in the West is much more complicated than simple decline. In the past few years, we’ve entered what feels like a religious revival, or at least a leveling off in the decline of faith. Even as our society becomes more technologically advanced, many people are searching more intensely for meaning, purpose, and moral clarity. In other words, the question of faith hasn’t disappeared. If anything, it is even more urgent.
For years, intellectuals predicted that as religion receded, society would become calmer, more rational, and more scientific. Shed religious superstition, the theory went, and we would inherit a more enlightened public life. Instead, many societies haven’t become less fervent so much as differently fervent—driven by conspiracy, tribalism, and forms of moral conflict that often feel almost cosmic in intensity.
The premise of our Things That Matter debates, sponsored by Bank of America, is simple but essential. We want to revive the tradition that has long made the United States exceptional: our ability to argue openly across deep divides while still remaining part of the same civic community. Disagreement does not have to mean contempt. And since religion is one of the most politically charged topics in public life, it felt fitting to begin here.
Where does morality come from without God? Are our ideas of human dignity, moral obligation, and human rights ultimately grounded in a transcendent reality—or are they products of human reason alone? Are the apparent benefits of religion simply the community and rituals it nurtures, rather than the truth of its claims?
To explore these questions, we brought together two formidable public intellectuals: cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker, author of Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress, and New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, author of Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics.
You can hear the 57-minute debate by clicking below (I hope). It’s moderated by lawyer and commentator Sarah Isgur, who seems to be a secular Jew. It begins with summaries by Douthat and Pinker (about 4 minutes each), and then Isgur asks questions to Pinker and Douthat, questions that were clearly given to the debaters in advance (they have notes to answer them).
My take: Pinker wiped the floor with Douthat. Of course I’m biased, but Douthat’s arguments were lame, and he didn’t even dwell on the “science-y” arguments he made when touting his book (fine-tuning, consciousness, etc.). (Steve could have rebutted those, too.) Instead, Douthat says that “God self-evidently exists” and doesn’t rebut Pinker’s arguments showing the well-known negative correlation between religiosity of countries (or American states) and their well being. Douthat also makes quasi intelligent-design arguments, one of which is that our minds were created by God to help us understand the universe. I guess he doesn’t understand evolution.
Audience questions, chosen in advance, begin about 19 minutes in (the debaters apparently knew the selected audience questions, too). They’re interspersed with more questions from the moderator. The best of her questions is at the end (55:15): “What is something that each of you would concede tonight—a point that the other made that you found compelling—that made you perhaps question some of your own positions on this?”
I would have preferred more of a slugfest, one in which Pinker and Douthat addressed each other, as they often do in Presidential debates (there’s a bit of that). This is all polite and respectful, but that detracts from what I like to see in a debate. But that’s due to the organizers, not the participants. And, sadly, there are no before-and-after votes. In my view, humanism won hands down over religion.
Looking forward to watching this! Thanks for posting.
Ricky Gervais’ articulation of atheism is perfect :
“OK, I don’t believe you.”
That’s it.
But – atheism is not religion :
“… religion can be defined as a comprehensive belief system that addresses the fundamental questions of human existence, such as the meaning of life and death, man’s role in the universe, and the nature of good and evil, and that gives rise to duties of conscience.”
Defining Religion in the First Amendment: A Functional Approach
Ben Clements
Cornell Law Review
Volume 74
Issue 3 March 1989
In the same article :
“Now is a great time for new religions to pop up. There are people who get religious about jogging, they get religious about sex…. Health foods have become the basis of a religion. ESP, of course, flying saucers, anything is fertile ground now. There’s a new messiah born every day.”
-Tom Wolfe (1980)
20 Years of Rolling Stone; What a Long, Strange Trip It’s Been
p. 340 “Voices”
Friendly Press
1987
Just because the box doesn’t say “Religion Inside” does not mean it is not functioning as Ersatz Religion (from Eric Voegelin’s essay) — or doesn’t synthesize an Ersatz Diety.
In fact, John Dewey names humanism a “religious faith” in A Common Faith (1934). This label had been taken out of his original Manifesto (“To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present.”) in later versions by the late 20th century.
I watched this on YouTube, just a couple of thoughts. First, the sponsorship by BoA somehow did not prevent the video from being horribly larded with ad breaks.
Second, I think Pinker did a good job talking about improvements in material outcomes due to rationality. But Douthat did a better job of making a connection to emotional outcomes like meaning, purpose, and happiness.
Wish it could have been a Lincoln-Douglas debate, with Hitch instead of Pinker!
The subheading in the promotion gives voice to the usual mistake made by secular people who do not understand religion but believe that they do understand religion. Secular people who live comfortable lives with full refrigerators believe that religion involves a “hunger for meaning.” Most religious people throughout human history have experienced religion as (1) a coping mechanism for survival in an indifferent universe, and (2) as a socially imposed method of behavior control. The people who seek “meaning” are the leisure class and, prior to modernity, that was always a tiny percentage of the religious community. Now, with modernity, many more are able to enjoy enough leisure time to discuss topics such as “meaning.” But that does not justify the equation of religion with a “hunger for meaning.”
A follow up debate “The rise of religion as luxury beliefs” perhaps?
Answer: No.
Without reference to my own beliefs, I was predisposed about the outcome of this debate. Without disparaging the participants, these two men are not intellectually equal.
Pinker spoke with eloquence and sincerity while Douthat seemed to resort to snark and little ad-hominem digs. After all, he has to defend not just god but a Roman Catholic one. Pinker had the relaxed and genial approach of one who doesn’t have to resort to obfuscation to make his points.
Douthat just rubs me the wrong way- his interview with Sam Harris was equally irksome and dismissive of non-believers. There was some interesting ground around community and social health needs but Douthat of course thinks only religion has the tools for that. Pinker politely pointed out that this was false.
I watched the debate. I don’t think that (m)any minds were changed. There were no gaffes on either side, although Pinker walked onto squishy ground when Douthat asked him if an AI bot could be conscious. Scientists like me would focus on Pinker’s rational defense of rationalism and proclaim him the winner, whereas religionists would focus on Douthat’s assertion of a supreme being and valorize him instead. Indeed, Douthat’s claim of a supreme being rested entirely on assertion so, to me, the rest was nothing new as it all rested on an appeal to authority. As a pure debate, where the purpose is to convince others and move them to change their positions, I would say that the two battled to a draw.
Watched it last night. I was going to send it to WEIT but I assumed you’d find it. I also agree Pinker wiped the floor with the ever annoying Christ Clapper Mr. Dotard.
The bit close to the end where they talked about AI was the best.
Pinker, as always, excellent.
D.A.
NYC
I’ve always referred to him, but until now, only to myself as Mr Doughnut.
A question raised by the debate: If AI were conscious, would it be ethical to turn off AI? An answer considered by neither Douthat nor Pinker: Turning off a human by restricting blood flow to the brain leads to fatal damage unless the flow is restored within a few short minutes; Turning off AI by flipping a switch does no damage to its circuits.
A question not raised by the debate: Which country is more religious, the one in which everybody is forced to profess the same religion, or the one in which everybody can embrace any religion they desire? Clarity requires this question be raised.
The host’s introduction was somewhat misleading. She quoted John Adams, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other,” while failing to note that Adams was objecting to unbridled passions such as avarice, ambition, and revenge. A country in which everybody is forced to profess the same religion suffers from the passions Adams decried.
She then quoted Alexis De Tocqueville, “States were the invisible scaffolding holding American self-government together,” and followed the quotation with talk about churches, not states. But there is no such quotation in “Democracy In America.” What is in De Tocqueville’s book is the following quotation “they [Roman Catholic priests] mainly attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country to the separation of Church and State. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America I did not meet with a single individual, of the clergy or of the laity, who was not of the same opinion upon this point.”
At the 38:00 minute mark the host says “Studies have shown that more-religious people are more likely to donate blood, give to charity. Where does morality, like a duty to help a stranger, care for the vulnerable, moderation, fidelity — where does that come from without religion?” Pinker’s answer, “Are you kidding? Could you not think of a single reason why it’s good to give blood, other than that God will punish you if you don’t, or your preacher told you to” is classic. The host’s reply, “But the humanists aren’t giving blood” shows a lack of desire to question the studies. There’s a vast propaganda machine devoted to promoting the churches. Most hospitals are secular. Most charities are secular. Their efforts, right out in the open, remain invisible because secularists lack a propaganda machine. Consider, also, the political opposition to secularism. Politicians are glad to promote national days of prayer. Ask politicians to promote national days of reason and more often than not they will show you the door. Also, are church blood drives attended to only by believers? Isn’t it possible that secularists show up? Do such churches ask people to state their religion so that an accurate account of who’s donating can be given to the media? Don’t bet on it.
At one point in the debate Douthat tosses out the word “comrades,” as if to imply that those who don’t support God must be communists. How does the man explain Ayn Rand, guru of capitalism? She was an atheist, as are many of her followers.
” . . . Douthat tosses out the word ‘comrades’ . . . .”
I wonder if Douthat feels equally inclined to refer to himself as a sheep.
If Douthat hasn’t done so already, I look forward to him debating a fundamentalist Southern Baptist or Assemblies of God type.
My family has suffered a lot of death, dementia, and suffering over the last year or so. I understand that does not make us in any way special, but it has been hard that so much of it happened in such a short span of time.
Anyway, I have noticed that my religious friends and relatives, which is most of them, have invariably dealt with all of this much better than I have been able to. Honestly, I could not even pretend to be dealing with the worst of it. Of course I have continued to get up every day and do the things that need to be done.
Like most of the regulars here, I have a skeptical viewpoint, and supernatural beliefs just do not fit into my head. But I have had cause to wish that were different. Spending months with every day mostly filled with despair is simply not an effective way to live.
So, as to the question “Do we need God?”, my answer is that many of us are fortunate enough to not have that need for much of our lives, but sometimes we need something that rational skepticism does not seem to readily supply.
I want to find out how your religious friends and relatives do better at coping with the situation. What do they believe? And how do their beliefs (those that you do not share) help?
I don’t think this is true, but it is amusing. Lucretius meant to cheer people up with his On the Nature of Things. Cicero asked, ‘How on earth do you think this is going to help?’
They say “He is in a better place”, or that the two of them are back together doing the things they enjoy. That they have been restored to a state of grace and healed of the physical ailments which troubled them in their last days.
They mean this literally, and they believe that we will be reunited some day.
Of course I wish that were the case, but that is not how my mind works. My parents never pushed religion on me, although they exposed me to quite a bit of it. When I was little, we lived in Japan, and my friends all practiced Shintoism. My parents had no problems with my accompanying them, participating, and absorbing that culture and a bit of the belief system.
But virtually all of my family are Baptists, so that particular set of beliefs are the ones I am referring to that give them comfort I cannot easily find.
Some great makeup, or Pinker is aging far better than I remember him from recent videos. Also still sharp. Not great on Communism though, which was of course indeed taking pride in reason and considering itself an outgrowth of science and enlightenment. His response to the noted absence of a new age of reason through New Atheism was also tepid, although a good one would obviously require more thought and study. Could have ventured into debating eugenics, which is an area where religious and secular outlooks truly do clash. Instead, some bland audience questions that did not venture far beyond personal anecdotes.
“Not great on Communism though, which was of course indeed taking pride in reason and considering itself an outgrowth of science and enlightenment.” I don’t think Pinker was addressing what communists thought themselves of communism. Yes, communists did and do speak of communism as resting on a foundation of reason and enlightenment. But I think Pinker’s point was that application of reason and science has shown that communists were and still are wrong about this claim in defense of their ideology.
As others have pointed out, the typical argument for the benefits of Religion in the general sense gives itself away by its invariable limitation to one religion. Neither Douthat nor anyone of his sort ever argues for the blessings of the Aztec religion. Why don’t they notice a Quetzacoatl-shaped hole in anyone, let alone other holes shaped
for Tlaloc, Tezcatlipoca and Huitzilopochtli?
In my view, human beings are naturally religious. Traditionally, that meant (at least in the US) some flavor of Christianity. These days, Communism, Islamism, and ‘woke’ need to be added. What are PZ Meyers and Hemant Mehta but deeply religious people? Not skeptics to be sure (Michael Shermer is a skeptic).