Enlightenment Now! - Steven Pinker

[Michael Hardner]

I'm just about done this book now. 

The main thesis is that all aspects of life are getting better over time, over the long term, thanks to the twin inventions of humanism and reason+science.

I absolutely have problems with Pinker's blunt rejection of several philosophies and his logic at times.  Especially around the health of the Zeitgeist... but this was written in 2018 or so.  And, to be self-critical, Even the politics of the last 10 years are a blip when you go back to the age of reason to now.... Which was centuries ago 

I do think that the main thesis, people getting their information from news sources that gives them a negative view, is valid 

. Although I'm not interested in defending someone else's ideas, as much as my own, I thought I'd put this forward. And I'm definitely not interested in debating a lot of people on this. 

Mostly I advise you pick up the book, or get an audiobook from the library. 

Here are the main points in a very short summary, discussion with Bill Gates. 

 

 

Edited December 13, 2024 by Michael Hardner

[Michael Hardner]

To add:

I'm not sure his philosophy is close to mine, or that I'm anywhere near as optimistic as he is. But in terms of his analysis of the broad strokes in history, and how institutions have served us, I would say my assessment is pretty close to his overall. 

Is coming from someone, myself, who was raised deeply embedded in religious culture versus Pinker who I think is an atheistic Jew.

Edited December 13, 2024 by Michael Hardner

[TreeBeard]

On 12/13/2024 at 3:46 AM, Michael Hardner said:

To add:

I'm not sure his philosophy is close to mine, or that I'm anywhere near as optimistic as he is. But in terms of his analysis of the broad strokes in history, and how institutions have served us, I would say my assessment is pretty close to his overall. 

Is coming from someone, myself, who was raised deeply embedded in religious culture versus Pinker who I think is an atheistic Jew.

Do you think his atheism is the reason for his optimism?   And, conversely, your religious views are the reason for your pessimism?

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

Do you think his atheism is the reason for his optimism?   And, conversely, your religious views are the reason for your pessimism?

That would be a paradox huh? 😂

[TreeBeard]

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

That would be a paradox huh? 😂

No, not really.  Religions often tell us that this world is a place to wipe our dirty shoes before the next, much better world we go to if we obey all the rules.  Seems logical that there would be some pessimism in that kind of worldview. 

[Michael Hardner]

8 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

No, not really.  Religions often tell us that this world is a place to wipe our dirty shoes before the next, much better world we go to if we obey all the rules.  Seems logical that there would be some pessimism in that kind of worldview. 

Oh, the apocalpyse side of religion.

Hmmm.... well... religious humanists still exist and have for a long time.  And RADICAL religious humanists... well you're talking about my family now.  Family members who devoted their lives to the church but in such a way to make an atheistic humanist blush. 
 

[Barquentine]

On 12/13/2024 at 7:43 AM, Michael Hardner said:

The main thesis is that all aspects of life are getting better over time, over the long term, thanks to the twin inventions of humanism and reason+science.

I completely agree with this. But there's something so pervasive in us that it must be innate - the idea or feeling that "These days everything is broken", implying things were much better in the past. O tempore, o mores! as the Romans said. 

It's often a case of "2 steps forward, 1 step back", but I'm an optimistic atheist who believes things will continue to improve, even the environmental situation. (Seems like humans are prone to brinksmanship on serious problems.)

[TreeBeard]

On 3/4/2025 at 11:18 AM, Michael Hardner said:

devoted their lives to the church but in such a way to make an atheistic humanist blush.

I don’t know what this means. 

[Michael Hardner]

6 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

I don’t know what this means. 

They were extremely humanist.

[TreeBeard]

On 3/6/2025 at 3:10 AM, Michael Hardner said:

They were extremely humanist.

If one puts their religion aside and embraces humanism, then great.   The religious don’t even need to go that far….
 

 If they just ignore all the bad things in their holy book, and only do the good things, they don’t even need to call themselves humanists.   They can claim their religion is the purpose for them doing good.  
 

Yay for Jesus!   (Ignore the part where he told slaves to obey their masters)

Edited March 7 by TreeBeard

[eyeball]

30 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

(Ignore the part where he told slaves to obey their masters)

That part should be mocked and ridiculed. There's no way on Earth the guy who said do unto others yadda yadda also said slaves should obey their masters.

[Michael Hardner]

16 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

If one puts their religion aside and embraces humanism, then great.   The religious don’t even need to go that far….
 

 If they just ignore all the bad things in their holy book, and only do the good things, they don’t even need to call themselves humanists.   They can claim their religion is the purpose for them doing good.  
 

Yay for Jesus!   (Ignore the part where he told slaves to obey their masters)

Well they're humanists, and it aligns with the basic philosophy of Christianity. 

 

Just as humanists are Christians in a sense. 

 

But no humanist Christian would honestly state that their religion doesn't do harm, ever. 

And even non-humanist Christians will ignore most of the old testament, if not all of it. I was brought up religious, and nobody I knew including my teachers, including the nuns, believed in creationism. 

There's a spectrum of metaphysical beliefs, and a spectrum of moral philosophies.  Within humanism and Christianity that is even true.

I don't think I've ever disagreed with someone over what they want to call themselves. 

I've called myself an atheist Christian on here, and people got mad at me.

[TreeBeard]

On 3/8/2025 at 4:50 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Well they're humanists, and it aligns with the basic philosophy of Christianity. 

If you ignore the bad parts of the bible, then yes.  
 

There are many Christians who would say the basic philosophy of Christianity holds that being gay is an abomination.  
 

How do you tell which one of you is correct?

[Michael Hardner]

30 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

1. If you ignore the bad parts of the bible, then yes.  
 

2. There are many Christians who would say the basic philosophy of Christianity holds that being gay is an abomination.  

3. How do you tell which one of you is correct?

1. The Bible isn't all about Christianity.

2. That's not in there.

3. It's pretty clear.

[TreeBeard]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

The Bible isn't all about Christianity.

Without the bible, is there Christianity?

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

That's not in there

Of course it is.  Stop being silly.  I said ignore that it’s there, not pretend it isn’t. 
 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's pretty clear

Then you should have no problems explaining how to determine who is correct. 

[Michael Hardner]

14 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Without the bible, is there Christianity?

Of course it is.  Stop being silly.  I said ignore that it’s there, not pretend it isn’t. 
 

Then you should have no problems explaining how to determine who is correct. 

Christianity should semantically mean things that Christ taught, not Judges Leviticus or Genesis for example. 

 

I mean this just makes sense to me. Otherwise, anyone believing in evolution would be said to not be a Christian right? 

 

I would furthermore argue that you could be an atheist Christian, just as you can be an atheist Buddhist... It's more of a philosophy. But I also understand that common meaning is Paramount... Otherwise I'd have to agree with every chud who calls Trudeau a. Marxist..

 🤣

[TreeBeard]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Christianity should semantically mean things that Christ taught, not Judges Leviticus or Genesis for example. 

 

What about Ephesians?  
 

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I mean this just makes sense to me. Otherwise, anyone believing in evolution would be said to not be a Christian right? 

If you believe that the bible is literal in all cases, then much of science should be tossed, yes. 
 

But what about New Testament teachings that condemn homosexuality?  1 Timothy 10. 

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I would furthermore argue that you could be an atheist Christian, just as you can be an atheist Buddhist…

Buddhism has no supernatural gods though.  Obviously, Christianity does.  Seems like a big difference. 
 

Although, if you believe in Buddhism’s celestial beings, I would argue it is no longer atheistic.  They’re not worshipped like a god, but they’re part of their teachings.

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

 

 

1. But what about New Testament teachings that condemn homosexuality?  1 Timothy 10. 

2. Buddhism has no supernatural gods though.  Obviously, Christianity does.  Seems like a big difference. Although, if you believe in Buddhism’s celestial beings, I would argue it is no longer atheistic.  They’re not worshipped like a god, but they’re part of their teachings.

1. Timothy was gay AF.

2. I thought that there was divinity in Buddhism?  I'll have to Google that...

[TreeBeard]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Timothy was gay AF.

I don’t think the bible says that. 

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

I don’t think the bible says that. 

And Jesus told the masses...

"JFC, read between the lines bro"

[TreeBeard]

13 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

And Jesus told the masses...

"JFC, read between the lines bro"

The religious fundamentalists don’t need to read between the lines.  They just read the bible in plain language to get what they need. 

Edited March 11 by TreeBeard

[Michael Hardner]

10 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

The religious fundamentalists don’t need to read between the lines.  They just read the bible in plain language to get what they need. 

They're known as Christians, but I - an atheist - am more Christian than them.