Essential Common Human Soul Thing

"The main problem is that blank slates don't do anything...When Locke implied that 'there's nothing in the intellect that was not first in the senses,' the appropriate reply came from Leibniz, who said, 'Except for intellect itself.'"

This excerpt from the article struck me because I used to absolutely believe that all humans are structured due to their cultural and environmental circumstances and that there wasn't a "universal human 'nature'"/"human self" that we all share. So I was on Locke's team.
Now, though, I think I much more am with Leibniz, and Pinker, though I'm not entirely familiar with where he's (Leibniz) coming from. To me, what's being said is that there is an essential human "intellect" (nature, soul, mind) that is in existence, is a part of any being, that, though may be affected by the outside environment, would and does exist without it.
I switched sides for a lot of crazy hippy reasons, but also because there are very clear scientific reasons for believing this as well. The example of the identical twins who are raised in entirely different environments, but who still have many, many similarities is a great example of how people aren't exclusively shaped by the environment they're in. And, earlier in the article it talks about how evolutionary psychology also refutes the "blank slate" thing saying, "There is a bedrock of human universals: ways of thinking and feeling and behaving that can be seen in all of the cultures documented by ethnography."

"...a belief in a life to come is not such an uplifting idea, because it necessarily devalues life on Earth," also resonated with me.
There has been eternal debate over the ethics of religion that will probably always remain. It was just an interesting side note to his argument, I think, and it was very blatantly and nonchalantly put.
I agree with his statement completely. I've believe that for a very long time, and it relates to science wars in that "real" science tries to come up with answers and facts regarding the beginning of the universe and religion doesn't, though it does (commonly) express an absolute knowledge about how the world was created. Then you have the agnostic people (like me) who embrace "not knowing," or denying an "absolute truth/answer" which is  a concept that the "science studies" side of the science wars were all about.

I'm a part of the science wars simply because I'm even engaging in conversation about these topics/people/ideas. I'm a part of a space that engages in putting "science," something thought of as typically factual, immune to cultural bias and politics, into a necessarily cultural and political realm.
 I'm also part of the science wars because I'm trying to come up with evidence for a conceptual idea. On the one hand, I'm with Pinker and I believe that there aren't any definitive answers to many things.