Pinker Debates Religion
Psychology Professor argued issues of faith and morality with prominent rabbi
Published On Monday, October 27, 2008 10:50 PM

By DANIELLE J. KOLIN
Contributing Writer

Noted author and public speaker Rabbi David Wolpe debates the relevance of religion with psychology professor Steven Pinker last night.

Rabbi David J. Wolpe and psychology professor Steven Pinker debated the existence of God and the benefits of faith at Harvard Hillel last night.

The discussion, which focused on questions of morality and whether altruism can exist without faith, was cosponsored by Hillel and the Harvard Book Store to promote Wolpe’s new book, “Why Faith Matters.”

Wolpe—named the number one pulpit rabbi in America by Newsweek earlier this year—and Pinker—an avowed atheist and best-selling author of books on the human mind and language—passed a microphone back and forth, engaging in an enthusiastic conversation without a moderator.

“If you’re going to hang yourself, you should do it from a high tree,” joked Wolpe about speaking alongside Pinker.

The California-based rabbi launched the discussion of morality by asking Pinker why individuals would tip waiters without the moral dictates of religion.

“If there is no God, and the basis of kindness is evolutionary development, what does it really matter if I don’t leave a tip?” Wolpe asked Pinker.

Pinker addressed the issue of generosity from a psychological standpoint.

He explained that people are altruistic for three reasons: because they want others to reciprocate, because others’ judgements pressure them, and because they must commit to moral principles to win others’ trust.

“The ultimate way to show that you have integrity is to have integrity,” Pinker said.

Despite the spirited debate, neither budged from his original position, and the discussion remained congenial.

An hour into the conversation, the audience—a diverse mix of Harvard students and area residents—was invited to ask questions of the two.

One audience member pushed Wolpe to explain his belief in God.

“Not all the rhetoric of scientific intimacy begins to capture what is another human being,” Wolpe said.

Another question focused on how Pinker could believe in a “greater good” without faith.

“There can be a greater good in the same way that there are mathematical truths,” Pinker said. “I believe in morality. I just don’t see what morality has to do with God.”

After the debate, Wolpe stayed behind to sell and sign copies of his new book.

“I wouldn’t say I agreed with either of them,” said audience member Benjamin A. Lerner ’11. “I thought Professor Pinker’s arguments were a little more precise.”

Though no conclusion was reached, the debate did spur discussion of rarely-broached topics.

“The soul as a separate entity from the body is something that not too many people outside religious circles speak about these days,” Wolpe said.

-----------

recent comments (follow comments)

How can Steven Pinker lay claim to either objective rationality or any kind of morality when on one of the first pages of his new book he says:

"The 9/11 cardinality debate is not about the facts, that is, the physical events and human actions that took place that day. Admittedly, those have been contested as well: according to various conspiracy theories, the buildings were targeted by American missiles, or demolished by a controlled implosion, in a plot conceived by American neoconservatives, Israeli spies, or a cabal of psychiatrists. But aside from the kooks, most people agree on the facts."

With this statement and with the rest of his opening chapter in which he plays fast and loose with the facts about 9/11 Pinker demonstrates that he is guilty of the same faith based arguments as are religious people. He does this without understanding the simplest facts of the case. He continues despite official denials to suggest that Osama bin Laden planned 9/11 (according to the official version it was Guantanamo resident Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who masterminded the conspiracy, though his testimony was obtained using torture.) He derisively dismisses as kooks the millions of Americans and people around the world who understand--not believe--understand that the three skyscrapers at the world trade center were demolished with explosives and not simply as a result of the two plane impacts, including the over 500 licensed architects and engineers at ae911truth.org who presumably know more about buildings than does Pinker.

To take these positions Pinker has to ignore physical evidence found in the debris such as the copious amounts of molten iron (impossible to be the result of jet fuel fires or any fire outside of a foundry), eyewitness accounts including from firefighters, police, and people like Felipe David who was severely burned and nearly killed by an explosion in the subbasement of the north tower seconds *before* the first plane struck. He must also ignore the numerous inconsistencies, errors, and flat-out lies that have been part of the official account from the beginning. His faith in the belief that those who think explosives were used are kooks cannot even be supported by the government's own report on the buildings, which incredibly conducted not a single test for the presence of explosive traces on the debris from the twin towers and world trade center building 7 (which would, in Pinker's world, be the first and only steel-framed high rise in history to collapse into its footprint because of a fire.)

In summary, Stevn Pinker's beliefs about 9/11 are faith-based, not fact-based, and speak either to his inability or unwillingness to consider the facts. In other words, Pinker knows how to talk the talk of skepticism and free inquiry when he is tilting at believers in religion and God but when it comes to secular issues like the reality of a serious crime he becomes as blind, dogmatic and vicious as any enemy of Galileo.