Yuval Noah Harari´s Books on homo sapiens

Introduction

In recent years, Finns have been busy reading Yuval Noah Harari's books on humanity: Sapiens. A Brief History of Humankind (2016) and Homo Deus. A Brief History of Tomorrow (2017). Harari, who has been awarded the Polonsky Prize for his creativity and originality in the humanities, has also been popular internationally and his works have been translated into at least 40 different languages – incuding Finnish.

Pros

The clear strength of Harari's works is, first of all, the fascinating, capturing and clear writing style. This makes his books accessible even for those who don't usually care about the academic works.

It should be noted, however, that despite their endnotes, Harari's works cannot be considered actual scientific works, but rather non-fiction books that are partly based on science. Harari's works differ from actual scientific publications, because Harari also takes a strong stand on issues regarding worldview and religion.

Another strength of Harari is the ability to summarize and see essential features in history and content-wise broad themes. It is refreshing to read the ambitious attempt to summarize the history of humanity, and indeed of the entire human species, in a couple of books. For example, in the Sapiens-book, Harari describes in a great way the creation of money and companies at the level of ideas.

Personally, I particularly liked how Harari brought out how before the art of agriculture, the life of the human species was not necessarily complete misery, but in many ways a life rich in nutrition and content. According to him, we did not domesticate wheat; wheat domesticated us.

The clarity and readability of Harari's books are also commendable in that they are not a sign of the author's simplicity – quite the contrary. Clarity and ease of reading are often a sign of the writer's exceptionally high intelligence – after all, he is able to put information that is difficult to understand and very detailed into a clear form. Academic works easy to understand serve not only scholars, but also makes science understandable for a wider audience. Obscurity instead, especially in publications intended for the general public, unfortunately often means that the author himself does not really have a grasp of what he or she is writing.

Cons

To counterbalance the initial praise, I also want to look at some areas of improvement. In general, what stands out most of Harari's books, is the negative tendency. Harari sees technological development, above all, as a threat. In the Homo Deus, Harari states that power in technological development may shift to algorithms. In such cases, we may be reduced to microchips, then to data and finally we may dissolve in the data stream.

However, Harari admits that another future is possible. In the light of my own life experience, the world has changed for the better thanks to technology. At least I wouldn't want to give up my current computer, audiobooks, medical opportunities, educational YouTube (as long as you know how to search), the internet, smartphones, vehicles that are becoming increasingly environmentally friendly, better building technology, etc.

Among other things, technological development has enabled Harari's work as a lecturer and writer in many ways. I admit, of course, that the threats created by Harari are possible. It is also true that technology has also had its downside, for example, in terms of environmental friendliness and people's happiness regarding social media.

I think, however, that technology could be compared to money: both are good servants, who can do a lot of good, but they can also act as instruments of evil. At some point artificial intelligence, for example, can develop to be both superior and malicious regarding humans.

Problematic religion

One problem in Harari's books is his somewhat simplistic and sometimes erroneous perspective on religions and the Middle Ages. When it comes to religious people, Harari draws a naïve picture. According to him, religious people, have traditionally not considered life sacred, but things above or behind earthly reality sacred. This, however, is very far from reality if you look at how many of the central world religions have at their core respect for life and seeing holiness in even the smallest created beings (e.g. the world as created by God, man as the image of God, the respectful treatment of even the smallest animals, etc.).

It is also important to remember that the very concept of the sacred is a religious concept. There is, for example, no specific concept of the sacred associated with doing science. Science is similar to technology or money – science can be used both good and evil. Science itself – just like technology and money – has no ethics, although universities pay attention to ethical issues.

Harari's negative and sometimes simplistic views of religions are also evident, for example, in how he deals with the concept of (immortal) soul. He presents the Christian concept of the (immortal) soul in ways that do not correspond its notion. According to Harari, monotheistic religions (including Christianity) distinguish humans from animals precisely in terms of the soul. However, according to him, laboratory experiments have shown that man has no soul.

These are an astonishing claims for several reasons. First, it should be determined which monotheistic religion Harari refers to? Religions, and even the internal beliefs of religions, vary a lot on this issue as well. 

It is also interesting how much he emphasizes the notion and centrality of (immortal) soul in monotheistic religions e.g. for salvation but seems to be oblivious to Christian notion on (bodily) resurrection. Harari does not refer, for example, to the Apostolic Creed, 1. Corinthians 15 or even the bodily resurrection of Christ. For Christian the final salvation meant (also) the resurrection of the body, not (only) the soul.

Even more problematic, however, is the idea that science can somehow study a matter of religious belief in a laboratory. It would be a bit like an astronomer looking into space with a telescope in the evening and saying that he does not see God there, so there is no God.

It is curious that the intelligent and educated Harari does not seem to be able to grasp the radical difference between physical reality and metaphysical religious concepts. On the one hand, metaphysical reality cannot be studied in "a lab", and on the other hand, metaphysical assumptions or beliefs should not affect the objectivity of science.

Harari's perspectives on the Bible are also odd. Among other things, he claims that according to the Bible, God created humans in their present form sometime in the last 10,000 years. The Bible, however, does not give timeline for a human species nor the universe.

Harari, therefore, draws a naïve and untrue picture of religion or religions. Nor does he elaborate on the significant differences between the different religions, but rather vaguely alludes to the downsides of religions when they support his argument.

In spite of this criticism, Harari's books sometimes even contain real gems related to the relationship between religion and science. According to him, at their best, science and religion both consider truth to be the most important thing. He also considers uncompromising search for truth as a spiritual journey that rarely remains within the boundaries of either religious or scientific systems.

I would like to add on Harari´s notion that there are also interesting themes where the two great ones – science and religion – intersect. For example, the notion of a human being is one classical and interesting intersection between these two. Science can explain humanity e.g. from a biological perspective, but religions try to ask to such existential questions as: Why are we here and what is our purpose? It also says something about the connections between science and religion that

It is also important to remember that in Europe modern science has born in Christian centuries old universities. I could even say that we would not have modern science and academics without Christianity.

Too Simplistic Idea of Middle Ages

A particularly interesting curiosity regarding the birth of science is Harari's often erroneous and very stereotypical view of the Middle Ages. For example, in Homo Deus, Harari talks about the Middle Ages as a state of turmoil.

In some sense, there is some truth in Harari's argument if one refers, for example, to medieval wars between Muslims and Christians or, for example, to mass migrations.

It is, however, worth remembering that the Middle Ages is a very long period that began with the fall of Western Rome in the late 400s and ended in the beginning of the early modern era around the mid-1400s. In addition to wars, the Middle Ages also included high-quality cooperation and education between Muslims, Jews and Christians, especially in Spain, the emergence of European universities, largely thanks to the Church, etc. Therefore, Harari´s view on the turmoil of Middle Ages is, unfortunately, too one-sided.

P.S.

Even though Harari's books contain unnecessary and factual bias, I welcome his works. They are a good example of the importance of education and profound questions even in the era of social media. The popularity of Harari's books is a sign that we may be living in the age of new becoming of rationality and interest in profound questions.

There have been some minor signs of this. Young men, for example, have had increased interest in myths, the Bible, psychology and the history ideas. Modern intellectual and academic thinkers or influencers, such as Harari or Jordan Peterson, have been refreshing proponents of these extremely interesting themes – although there has been some backlashes.

We certainly live in an interesting era in human history.