What is interesting about this talk is that it changes the narrative of tolerance that Locke and Mill defended, in that for them we are tolerant of the tolerant, and instead subtly but importantly Pinker and Newberger change it to we are tolerant only of those who agree with our particular brand of humanism.
Pinker and Newberger defend reason in a very unreasonable way. They don't acknowledge that reason may be used by a wide variety of viewpoints - in particular plenty of religious thinkers are very happy to use reason, and are also very happy to subscribe to a tolerant attitude towards others.
However Pinker and Newberger insist reason legitimises only their humanist values - in particular they propose two grounds for values - self interest and empathy, initially empathy is felt towards those in our immediate circle - friends and family - but then through reason this can be extended to a wider and wider grouping.
Such a position is not unreasonable, but there is no reason to suppose these two grounds are the only legitimate foundation for our values. Being knowledgeable of philosophy they must be aware of the fact/value distinction and therefore know that it isn't possible to state values as facts or derive values from facts.
In fact although Pinker and Newberger sing the praises of reason, they fail to acknowledge that reason can circumscribe its own limits. It is clear that reason - or in particular logic - needs premises in order to derive conclusions, yet where does reason get premises from? If they are the conclusions of prior reasoning, then that reasoning must have its own premises, and so on in an infinite regression. This is really another way of acknowledging Godel's incompleteness theorems - which since Newberger wrote a book on Godel she should be aware of.
I would suggest that we emerge already "embedded" in a world of (proposed) facts and values, with their own reasons and justifications, some of which will of course contradict each other. It makes sense for an individual to use reason to try to make sense of this world. We can ask for consistency, evidence and logic to be used when trying to establish whether a position can be justified, and be tolerant of the journeys others are making in trying to arrive at their own conclusions.
We should treat others with respect and listen to the reasons they give for their views, if we ourselves want to be treated with respect and have others listen to us. It is reasonable to not prejudge the views of others, but to try to give as much weight and consideration to their reasons as we do to our own. We should always consider that we ourselves might be mistaken. We shouldn't adopt the view "I'd love to agree with you but then we'd both be wrong".
Pinker and Newberger don't adopt this attitude at all - for them the atheist humanist position is right because it is rational, and all other views - in particular religious views - are wrong and therefore irrational. For them "rational" becomes a coded word meaning "atheist humanist", if you don't subscribe to that view you are just plain wrong, you don't need to be listened to or understood except to the extent that you need to be told you are wrong.
It comes as no surprise that in 2014 Newberger was given the Richard Dawkins Award, and in 2013 it was given to Steven Pinker.
Is it any wonder then that such an unsympathetic attitude results in absurdly shallow and ignorant readings of alternate viewpoints. As Mill argued, toleration and the willingness to listen sympathetically and carefully to those we disagree with can help us to appreciate a richer understanding of truth. Genuine debate and discussion benefits both sides of the debate to refine and adapt their views in consideration of new understandings and realisations.
Sadly Pinker and Newberger will never know the joy, wonder and intellectual love found in such conversations.
