
Steven Pinker meets with students prior to his lecture. Photo courtesy of the Daily Northwestern.
As part of the revival of Northwestern’s Contemporary Thought speaker series, Steven Pinker visited Northwestern on Monday to give a talk based on his new book, “The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined”. While his talk was certainly thought provoking and brought together a number of different disciplines to attack a central problem of human existence, I thought there were a number of flaws in his argument, especially in his treatment of religion.
Pinker seemed to equate religion with superstition, citing the decline of both as a reason why violence has declined. He claimed that religious motives prompted about 10% of conflicts in world history and offered this, along with out-of-context Biblical approval of genocide, as proof that religion is a source of violence best to be discarded to the dustbin of history.
First of all, I doubt Pinker’s 10% figure. Even religiously motivated violent activities had secular causes as well. For example, while the Crusades were mainly an attempt to recapture the Holy Land for Christendom, they were also an attempt by the various popes to get the European powers to stop fighting one another by uniting them against a common enemy. This also increased the power of popes and religious authorities relative to political and military authorities.
As a history major, I can tell you that few events only have one cause, so to identify a percentage of wars throughout human history caused by religion is not a meaningful exercise. This is but one example of how Pinker plays fast and loose with statistics, citing numbers based on the broad sweep of human history while ignoring important qualitative distinctions in order to make his points.
Pinker, however, who is of Jewish origin but is a very public atheist, did present one identifiably Jewish concept in his account for why violence declined. He argued that humanity has both violent tendencies as well as tendencies like self-control and empathy. These practices, which control violence, are what he calls, borrowing Abraham Lincoln’s famous words, the “better angels of our nature.” This is akin to the Jewish concepts of the yeitzer hatov and the yeitzer hara, that good and evil inclination can be found within each person.
In rabbinic psychology, people are neither wholly good nor wholly bad, but rather a little bit of both. Pinker argued that circumstances determine which inclination will hold sway at any given moment, a notion very much in line with this rabbinic concept. So, in spite of otherwise anti-religious stance, Pinker’s analysis leads to a concept at the core of Judaism. Perhaps if he looked a bit harder he would realize this congruence and no longer equate religion with pre-modern superstition.










