Religion has faded across the West, but the hunger for meaning hasn’t. Steven Pinker and Ross Douthat debate whether a secular society can sustain itself.
Mr. Pinker mentioned several times that religion/Christianity compels morality or good behavior because of a fear of God's punishment. This is a complete misinterpretation of Christ's message. Christ preaches selfless love meaning caring more for the good of the other over oneself. Willing the good of the other. He came to us to free us from our sins via the ultimate sacrifice of Himself on the cross, i.e., He suffered and died for OUR sins - the ultimate act of love! The message is not about fearing punishment. It is to imitate the love of Christ, to be Christlike, to strive to live saintly lives. To be better, loving people.
It could be argued that dying for the sins of others is not a particularly rational thing to do. Many say that love itself is not rational. But that's exactly what God is asking of us. The message isn't to be rational (now I'm not arguing against rationality), it's to be loving! Love your enemy as you love yourself. Getting hung up on Old Testament stories of punishment is too simplistic and misses the message of the Gospel.
I'm a very, very small speck on this planet. The Universe is so vast, so unfathomable, yet so beautiful and terrifying, that I have to have a word to call the Designer. I'll just call him God. I'll either find that true (yay!) or not (oh, well).
Have to say I'm left a bit underwhelmed, somehow the "debate" never really took off, but thank you for bringing together two individuals I greatly admire.
Jim I, SK and Taylor, your arguments will continue into infinity but personally I will follow the advice and knowledge of St. Thomas Aquinas who would humble all of us.
While I enjoyed the jousting, I felt disappointed that the central question, Do We Need God? was never broached. There was quite a bit about do we need religion, which can be viewed as a different thing entirely. Religions are a symbiotic relationship between ritual and scripture, and there are many more than Christianity and Judaism, like Buddhism, Islam, Animism, Wicca, etc., none of which were recognized.
One interesting exchange that came early in the debate concerned secularist claims that a secular and rational approach would result in less polarization. And the question was asked by Mr. Douthat why that was not the case.
The thought occurred to me that a different sort of belief system has evolved, that powerfully affects people's sense of reality and may account for much of the existing polarization: social media. Social media's "clergy" are the mass amounts of influencers who are followed by literally millions of people, who uncritically accept what they are told. Maybe social media is a new religion.
The earliest manuscripts of the Gospels and other New Testament books were hand-copied, sometimes repeatedly over centuries.
Copying errors happened, but scholars distinguish between accidental errors (misspellings, skipped words) and intentional changes (doctrinal edits, clarifications).
Intentional changes were generally small clarifications, like harmonizing details between Gospels or explaining ambiguous phrases—not radical rewrites.
Textual evidence
The Gospel of John, for example, exists in thousands of manuscripts from different times and places. The variations between them are usually minor: spelling, word order, or small additions.
No early manuscript shows evidence of a fabrication of the resurrection or a replacement of Christ’s teachings.
Scholars use textual criticism to reconstruct the most likely original text by comparing these manuscripts.
Motives and context
Early scribes were often devout believers, copying texts carefully for religious purposes, not political manipulation.
Altering texts about the resurrection in a way that contradicts the belief system would have been counterproductive for their community.
Corroborating evidence
The resurrection is attested in multiple independent sources: different Gospels, letters of Paul, and references in other early Christian writings.
Archaeological and historical context supports the reliability of the broad outlines of these events.
If the resurrection story had been invented or heavily altered, we would expect more contradiction or inconsistency in early independent accounts—but they show remarkable agreement.
Conclusion: While scribes could introduce minor variations, the overall evidence indicates that the words of Christ and the resurrection accounts were preserved faithfully enough to convey the original message. The core truths—His teachings, crucifixion, and resurrection—remain consistent across independent manuscripts.
I see. Sorry I misunderstood. Your point that religion doesn't inherently motivate aggression, with Judaism as an example, is an excellent one. The only land they have fought for in their 4000 year history, that I'm aware of, is the little strip that is Israel.
Mankind has spent thousands of years confusing the REAL from the IMAGINARY. Mankind’s long slog to figure out how his complex conceptual consciousness works continues into the modern world. Some among us believe the damnedest things.
Mr. Douthat’s swipe at Pinker’s “hair” reveals something deeper about Douthat’s mentality.
"Is a secular or a religious society more sustainable?"
This is quite a question.
Obviously it depends, to a large degree, on the religion.
How many gods are there? Hundreds...? Thousands...?
And every one of these gods has a different---often competing---point of view.
Aztec gods?
Roman gods?
I've read that a lot of gladiatorial contests were held during religious festivals.
Fairly current gods?
Martin Luther---a very religious man---was into one particular god. Can anyone find something that the most disgusting Nazi ever said about Jews which was worse than that which Luther used to howl?
Even Heinrich Himmler had his own offbeat set of gods, and a spooky old castle in which to worship them.
And how was it generally determined which gods to pray to?
Why religious wars of course.
(By the way, personal philosophy, combined with the fear of a bad conscience, sometimes keeps one in line.)
The evidence is real. The life and resurrection of Jesus is documented better and consistently by separate witnesses, with events captured sooner after they occurred than any other of that time.
We need guidance from God to keep a moral and ethical code. Without God, one will fudge the secular rules from time to time, and increasingly turn to one's own self interest in making decisions. This won't happen to every godless person, but it will happen, increasingly, to society. In my town, there are no traffic cops. People increasingly run red lights. Hey, they're in a hurry and why not? Our self is weak, and we need a logical, externally imposed ethical and moral code.
We can barely fit all the people in our Catholic church.
Mr. Pinker mentioned several times that religion/Christianity compels morality or good behavior because of a fear of God's punishment. This is a complete misinterpretation of Christ's message. Christ preaches selfless love meaning caring more for the good of the other over oneself. Willing the good of the other. He came to us to free us from our sins via the ultimate sacrifice of Himself on the cross, i.e., He suffered and died for OUR sins - the ultimate act of love! The message is not about fearing punishment. It is to imitate the love of Christ, to be Christlike, to strive to live saintly lives. To be better, loving people.
It could be argued that dying for the sins of others is not a particularly rational thing to do. Many say that love itself is not rational. But that's exactly what God is asking of us. The message isn't to be rational (now I'm not arguing against rationality), it's to be loving! Love your enemy as you love yourself. Getting hung up on Old Testament stories of punishment is too simplistic and misses the message of the Gospel.
I'm a very, very small speck on this planet. The Universe is so vast, so unfathomable, yet so beautiful and terrifying, that I have to have a word to call the Designer. I'll just call him God. I'll either find that true (yay!) or not (oh, well).
Have to say I'm left a bit underwhelmed, somehow the "debate" never really took off, but thank you for bringing together two individuals I greatly admire.
P.S. Your editing skills could use some work.
Jim I, SK and Taylor, your arguments will continue into infinity but personally I will follow the advice and knowledge of St. Thomas Aquinas who would humble all of us.
While I enjoyed the jousting, I felt disappointed that the central question, Do We Need God? was never broached. There was quite a bit about do we need religion, which can be viewed as a different thing entirely. Religions are a symbiotic relationship between ritual and scripture, and there are many more than Christianity and Judaism, like Buddhism, Islam, Animism, Wicca, etc., none of which were recognized.
One interesting exchange that came early in the debate concerned secularist claims that a secular and rational approach would result in less polarization. And the question was asked by Mr. Douthat why that was not the case.
The thought occurred to me that a different sort of belief system has evolved, that powerfully affects people's sense of reality and may account for much of the existing polarization: social media. Social media's "clergy" are the mass amounts of influencers who are followed by literally millions of people, who uncritically accept what they are told. Maybe social media is a new religion.
The earliest manuscripts of the Gospels and other New Testament books were hand-copied, sometimes repeatedly over centuries.
Copying errors happened, but scholars distinguish between accidental errors (misspellings, skipped words) and intentional changes (doctrinal edits, clarifications).
Intentional changes were generally small clarifications, like harmonizing details between Gospels or explaining ambiguous phrases—not radical rewrites.
Textual evidence
The Gospel of John, for example, exists in thousands of manuscripts from different times and places. The variations between them are usually minor: spelling, word order, or small additions.
No early manuscript shows evidence of a fabrication of the resurrection or a replacement of Christ’s teachings.
Scholars use textual criticism to reconstruct the most likely original text by comparing these manuscripts.
Motives and context
Early scribes were often devout believers, copying texts carefully for religious purposes, not political manipulation.
Altering texts about the resurrection in a way that contradicts the belief system would have been counterproductive for their community.
Corroborating evidence
The resurrection is attested in multiple independent sources: different Gospels, letters of Paul, and references in other early Christian writings.
Archaeological and historical context supports the reliability of the broad outlines of these events.
If the resurrection story had been invented or heavily altered, we would expect more contradiction or inconsistency in early independent accounts—but they show remarkable agreement.
Conclusion: While scribes could introduce minor variations, the overall evidence indicates that the words of Christ and the resurrection accounts were preserved faithfully enough to convey the original message. The core truths—His teachings, crucifixion, and resurrection—remain consistent across independent manuscripts.
If there is no God, everything is permitted, as all we have to guide us are feelings.
I see. Sorry I misunderstood. Your point that religion doesn't inherently motivate aggression, with Judaism as an example, is an excellent one. The only land they have fought for in their 4000 year history, that I'm aware of, is the little strip that is Israel.
God need us.
Mankind has spent thousands of years confusing the REAL from the IMAGINARY. Mankind’s long slog to figure out how his complex conceptual consciousness works continues into the modern world. Some among us believe the damnedest things.
Mr. Douthat’s swipe at Pinker’s “hair” reveals something deeper about Douthat’s mentality.
"Is a secular or a religious society more sustainable?"
This is quite a question.
Obviously it depends, to a large degree, on the religion.
How many gods are there? Hundreds...? Thousands...?
And every one of these gods has a different---often competing---point of view.
Aztec gods?
Roman gods?
I've read that a lot of gladiatorial contests were held during religious festivals.
Fairly current gods?
Martin Luther---a very religious man---was into one particular god. Can anyone find something that the most disgusting Nazi ever said about Jews which was worse than that which Luther used to howl?
Even Heinrich Himmler had his own offbeat set of gods, and a spooky old castle in which to worship them.
And how was it generally determined which gods to pray to?
Why religious wars of course.
(By the way, personal philosophy, combined with the fear of a bad conscience, sometimes keeps one in line.)
Praise to our lord Jesus Christ. Seek him and you WILL FIND HIM. God is Real.
The evidence is real. The life and resurrection of Jesus is documented better and consistently by separate witnesses, with events captured sooner after they occurred than any other of that time.
Why is it that the guy advocating religion couldn't restrain himself from constantly interrupting?
We need guidance from God to keep a moral and ethical code. Without God, one will fudge the secular rules from time to time, and increasingly turn to one's own self interest in making decisions. This won't happen to every godless person, but it will happen, increasingly, to society. In my town, there are no traffic cops. People increasingly run red lights. Hey, they're in a hurry and why not? Our self is weak, and we need a logical, externally imposed ethical and moral code.