![\"steven](\"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/steven_pinker2.webp\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The sad epilogue of cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker<\/strong>, once a leading light of scientistic atheism<\/strong>, now banned by the Humanist Society<\/strong> for the \u201ccrime\u201d of defending biological sex.<\/i><\/p>\n <\/p>\n From a symbol of Enlightenment rationalism<\/strong> to a disgrace among humanists.<\/p>\n That is the fate of Steven Pinker<\/strong><\/mark>, a renowned Canadian cognitive psychologist and long-standing intellectual figure in the landscape of atheist thought.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n For a long time, Pinker was one of the so-called knights of the “new atheism”<\/i><\/strong>, allied with Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and Hitchens in the epochal battle against religious faith.<\/p>\n In his book “Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress”<\/i> (Mondadori 2018), he claimed nothing less than that all of human history up to the early modern age was a chronicle of superstition<\/strong>, backwardness, barbarity, and relentless inhuman cruelty.<\/p>\n Then, wrote Pinker, suddenly in Western Europe during the early modern period, people rejected religion<\/strong> and began to civilize themselves until the salvific advent of the Enlightenment<\/strong>, the true watershed between the cruel past and the radiant future.<\/p>\n In 1997, according to the Washington Post<\/i><\/a><\/strong>, Steven Pinker even theorized the killing of newborns<\/strong>.<\/p>\n He wrote that \u201cthey possess no morally significant traits any more than do rats<\/strong>\u201d<\/i>, observing that \u201cseveral moral philosophers hold that newborns are not persons and therefore infanticide<\/strong> should not be classified as murder\u201d<\/i>. He accepted this view, maintaining that \u201cthe facts make it difficult\u201d<\/i> to legitimately forbid the killing of newborns.<\/p>\n For years, the well-known cognitive psychologist also fiercely fought his greatest enemy, the Christian geneticist Francis Collins<\/strong>.<\/p>\n It was insanely intolerable to him that Collins served as director of the National Institutes of Health<\/strong> in the United States\u2014not due to any lack of competence, but because \u201cCollins claimed to have come to accept the Trinity<\/strong> and the truth that Jesus is the Son of God<\/strong>\u201d<\/i>1<\/a><\/sup>S. Pinker<\/b>, cited in J.A. Coyne<\/b>, Steven Pinker on Francis Collins<\/i>, Why Evolution is True<\/i>, personal blog 11\/07\/1999<\/span>.<\/p>\n Furthermore, Pinker continued, Collins \u201cclaimed that God interacts with creation<\/strong>, designing the evolutionary process to ensure that human intelligence, morality, and Judeo-Christian religious faith would evolve\u201d<\/i>. Convictions he considered primitive and \u201cdeeply anti-scientific<\/strong>\u201d<\/i> since \u201cthe purpose of the scientific revolution is to abolish this animistic thinking\u201d<\/i>2<\/a><\/sup>S. Pinker<\/b>, cited in J.A. Coyne<\/b>, Steven Pinker on Francis Collins<\/i>, Why Evolution is True<\/i>, personal blog 11\/07\/1999<\/span>.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n After the epic failure of the intoxicating \u201cnew atheism,\u201d Pinker too became sober again<\/strong> and slowly repositioned himself on less fundamentalist ground.<\/p>\n Indeed, like many of his former comrades-in-arms, he has embarked on a new scientific battle: that against gender ideology<\/strong> and in defense of the importance of biological sex.<\/p>\n
\nSteven Pinker Against Religion<\/h2>\n
The New Battle Against Gender Ideology<\/h2>\n