I don't know what to think about Pinker's writing. While reading it i had so many ideas coming to my mind. My mind could not keep still, I had mixed emotions. At time I was agreeing with him and at time I saw myself disagreeing with him. Oh! my God this is so hard and complicated. I don't know how to speak my mind. I wish i could write in my language so i can better explain myself.
Anyway i grew up as a Christian with the belief that Pinker wrote: "Adam and Eve were punished for eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge, implying that they could have chosen otherwise, therefore freewill exists." This is what i grew up believing in, that as human we have the choice to choose if we want to do bad or good, but now i am not so sure when Pinker said: "Today, no scientifically literate person can believe that the events narrated in the book of Genesis actually took place. That means that there has been a need for a new theory of human nature, one not tied to fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible." So since i am not a scientifically literate person, i guess i can still believe in the Bible. I just don't understand why he would dismiss the Bible as a whole. Maybe you can use the Bible to explain some biological things.
For Apotemnophilia, i would think that it is a disorder. People are probably born with it and the environment they might grow up in might make them forget about it or it might enhance it. Of course we are born with some things and i think that's what Pinker is trying to say, but i don't think we should forget the impact of the environment on us. And also i believe in this thing called free will, for example i could be thinking about paying back people who have hurt me in the past, but i could decide not to do it just like Adam and Eve could have decided not to eat the fruit of that tree. When they ate that fruit humans started knowing wrong from right, so some humans still choose to do wrong even though they know what is right.
Pinker had some good explanations for the stand he took, but i think this issue is such a big one that it is impossible to know what is the best explanation for what makes us who we are. Your mind just spins trying to figure it out all at once.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
When Pinker was saying any "scientifically literate person can believe the events narrated in the book in the book of genesis actually took place" I believe he meant that an entirely literal interpretation of the bible is hard to take seriously. Believing in the messages and lessons that it contains is a far cry from believing that a little over 2000 years ago a woman sprouted from man's rib. If you can find the bible to back up real world biological evidence than power to you however, I don't think this is likely.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this issue is very difficult and challenging. It's incredibly difficult to talk about these issues because there truly is no real answer. The consensus is still out. There's no arguing that it's difficult, but the questions of who are we? why are we the way we are? are eternal. We should talk about them. Pinker brings forth new evidence and tries to provide an answer to these BIG questions. Of course he's not entirely correct, but at least he's working towards an answer.
Hi! I don't mean to seem as if I'm calling this out in your blog (its just one of many) that calls into question Pinker's quote on people who believe in the bible. While I do think the way he put his opinion is pretty crass, I feel like a lot of people are taking it a bit out of context. I may actually be doing so as well, since I'm only supposing that Pinker is an atheist, but I'd like to demonstrate a new way of looking at it.
ReplyDeleteIn my experience, many Christians see atheism as a belief system in itself. We believe that god (God) does not exist. But I find this definition to be inaccurate. Atheists don't believe in god (God). This may seem like that same thing, but there a subtle difference. Much like a Christian would probably say they don't believe in Shiva or Zeus, rather than saying that they believe these gods do not exist. (I'm not sure if that actually will make sense to anyone, but I don't know how to make it more clear)
So when Pinker claims that no "scientifically literate person can believe the events..." (you know the rest of the quote) He's looking at it from a similar view to what most people in our class look at the Hindu creation myth (that the universe was generated from the Word ॐ (Om)) or the multitude of religions who hold that we are the direct descendants of gods.
I don't really know if this will be helpful to anyone, but I wanted to write it anyways. I don't think Pinker was trying to be a bit a of jerk. He honestly may not have thought anything of it. Or I could be completely wrong. But I think those people (and like I mentioned, I am by no means referring just to you Alba) its important to try to read it from the perspective of someone who does not believe in the bible at all. (not that its possible to remove yourself from your own politics like that, its the open-mindedness that counts)