Respond to Steve Pinker's Notion of Enlightenment

Steve Pinker's book entitled Enlightenment Now was praised by Bill Gates as one of his favorite. Who does not? The book was written elegantly with a very optimistic conclusion of the world. Pinker really change our perspectives of seeing our world, that has been often miss-leaded by the terror in social-media. Slavery, mass murdered and any sort of violences are declining and this happening more evidently since the enlightenment.

      Although his argument on how apparent Enlightenment has brought out a vivid progress in humanity, his argument on jettisoning religion out of our worldview so the impact of Enlightenment is more pervasive is kind of venture conclusion, as I would argue. There are still a dark ages sentimental in Steve's thought. Religion is the source of troubles and hence, dragging the moral progress, and becoming the obstacle to the dreamed human utopia. Contrary to his view, I argue that religion is the source of whereby progress of moral  humanity is blooming as it happening now, in the Western World. And here are the two main reasons:

• First, Christian religion is still the dominating moral value of the West.

     To say that Scientific rationalism of Enlightenment is the corner stone of rationality is to bring  the cart before the horse. Enlightenment is not the mere product of Scientific Rationalism, but come as the repel effect of Christian faith tradition, that is rational, as Tom Holland would argue. Although the enlightenment has provided the alternatives moral lens that slowly departing from God to autonomous human reasoning, we cannot deny that Western world today is still dominated by Christian values.
         The idea of universal human right, is not come from Greek nor modern Humanism but originated from Judeo-Christian Worldview per se (The idea of Imago Dei For instance). Moreover, Kant idea of human worth cannot be said as the pioneer for the notion of human equality. If the worth is based on possessing rational nature, it will exclude of people who no is no longer have it (mentally incapacitated). Hence, the enlightenment moral value is not sufficient to be a moral foundation. Thus, its better to say the moral progress in the world is caused by Christian Religion rather than the enlightenment as Raplh Allan Smith who concludes:

"As long as the West was primarily Christian, 

the moral foundations of the West

 were secure."

• Second. Without religion, morality will be Wild. 

          If the scientific rationalism become the objective standard of morality as Steve hope for then, there is a high possibility of humanity running wild rather than running mild for there is no universal law whatsoever. It will ended either in pragmatism or at best relativism, as consequences. If that were the case, for the name of progress, people can justified everything as we seen in the case of Hitler thus, Nazi cannot be condemned with any moral grounds. It makes us wonder, how can there will be a moral progress then?

        In one of the famous debate, Jesuit priest by the name of Frederick Copleston asked Bertnard Rusell on how he live morally? Russell answer was honest but also surprising as he says, it was simply a matter of personal taste, a feeling. It is very ironic. The most intellectual and rational figure, given an answer that is merely irrational to the answer of morality. Feeling and taste is not something that can be measured rationally, yet those are in the very heart of  scientific rationalism, if we would like to push further. Apparently, with religious framework in work, moral has it force.
   Religion provides the notion of "Oughtness" universally which consequently create more harmony than the myriad subjective standard of moralities being exercised. Even Sartre, the existentialist philosopher who believe in the total freedom of  morality and actions says that there is a kind of objective goodness, as he feels a strong obligation to help the starving Alegria children. Where does the feeling of the objective goodness come from? Well, for this case, we cannot help but let religion to answer.