From Twitter:
“Hey Pat, I am sure you are busy with your new book release (congrats) but I just wanted to send over a podcast idea that I was thinking about today. I am a Catholic who has really enjoyed all of your philosophy and theology/scientific episodes! I have noticed that you sometimes bring in and debunk some of the philosophy of atheists such as Sam Harris and Dawkins. Well, I have a family member who lost their faith over the last couple of years and the book that seems to have had the most influence on him is Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari. It lays out this idea that humans have succeeded not by finding truth but by organizing behind “myths” and “fictional entities” that are useful, brought about only by evolutionary processes. Of course, within this category he includes God, the soul, and all world religions. I am not sure if you are familiar with this author but, from the sounds of it, he has shaken the faith of many with his reductionist look at human history. If you are familiar, I thought it would be a cool episode to hear you discuss! One philosopher I saw write an article on the subject was Francis Beckwith. Thanks again for all you do!” – Sean
Every once in a while I’ll get people asking me to comment on the book Sapiens. I typically avoid remarking about particular books or authors, because I’d rather focus on questions of worldview. Once we’ve got that figured out–that is, once we’ve got our metaphysics straight–we can cut through the noise on the lower levels, whether the petulant shrills of a Sam Harris or pterodactyl screechings of a Richard Dawkins. In other words, once we see that materialism is clearly untenable, we need not be taken in by any account–including Sapiens–which ascribes to materialist orthodoxy. We may still pick out some interesting tidbits, and perhaps even learn a thing or two, but we need not be sucked in by such an obviously erroneous thesis, nor accept the outcomes thereof.
Sapiens is a fairly typical example of what’s come to be known as evolutionism. Evolutionism is simply the theory of Darwinian evolution + metaphysical naturalism. We might condense that by calling it atheistic evolution, but I want to be as precise as possible before offering any critique. Evolutionism holds that only physical things exist (as Harari affirms, at least implicitly) and that everything about humans can thus be explained by the theory of evolution. In fact, everything about humans, and all other life, for that matter, must be explained by the theory of evolution, because that is really the only explanatory option for the metaphysical naturalist. Should evolution happen to be false (or even insufficient) in any significance sense–that is, either from common descent, or the mechanism of selection and mutation, or whatever–then it is hard to see what alternatives are left for the naturalist to choose from. This is unfortunate. Because the theist is not in such a position. Rather, a theist can (and should) be open to the evidence of evolution. Had God wanted to bring people about in that way, surely He could have done it, and would have had His reasons for doing so.
My critique of Sapiens, then, is not a critique on evolutionary theory, but a critique on a worldview that is in no way justified through any of the actual science which is a part of the current evolutionary paradigm, and that’s evolutionism. Here it is critical for people to understand that such a position is not actually science, but philosophy. What makes evolutionism evolutionism is what we might call a “metaphysical add on”, or the assumption–and, in the case of Sapiens, a wholly unwarranted assumption, at that–that materialism (or metaphysical naturalism) is true. And it is precisely because of this metaphysical add-on that Sapiens is prevented from being an otherwise important read, and so turns into a book that is simply riddled with a series of sophomoric philosophical mistakes.
[Point of clarification: there are many points in Sapiens I do, in fact, like and agree with, but are overshadowed by the larger, philosophical errors. For example, that if anything is a fiction in the course of human history, belief in “pure science” is surely one of them; or that science is ever free of pursuing political or ideological agendas and is forever, perfectly unbiased, honest, and pristine. Harari is great at exposing the falsity of that assumption. Further, his remarks of the damage done to society by undermining the family unit are also refreshing–and, admittedly–surprising coming form a person who seems to hold otherwise very left-leaning viewpoints. His attributions of this to the encroachment of both the state and market are worth considering, as well.]
The first and most pronounced of the errors committed by Sapiens is an impressive display of what is otherwise a very elementary logical fallacy, known as the genetic fallacy. That is, an attempt to invalidate the truth (or ontological status) of a belief, simply by explaining how that belief came about. This is what Harari does with respect to human rights, God, morality, the soul, and so on. He says that all these beliefs can be explained through the evolutionary process as useful myths that helped us to survive. The sly move in positing such an assertion as that is we might even grant that everything about how we come to hold such beliefs on Harari’s account is true (I really don’t think it is, but let’s grant it anyway), but that in no way would permit the conclusion that such beliefs are untrue. Evolution does not tell us that; it cannot even in principle do so. Because evolution by itself cannot tell us that what we come to know through evolution is either an invention or a discovery. That, again, is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one.
Perhaps an example will make the fallacy more clear. Suppose I told you the only reason you think democracy is a just form of government is because you grew up in America. Suppose that is even true; suppose that really is the only reason you think Democracy is a just form of government. The question: would that in any way show that Democracy isn’t a just form of government? Well, obviously not. Whether or not Democracy is a just form of government is a question that needs to be investigated independently of how that belief came to originate. Well, same with any other belief, including any/all beliefs that Harari’s supposes were formed over the course of human evolution.
What Harari has done, in essence, is attempted to show why people are wrong, without first showing that they are wrong. This, as C.S. Lewis once famously remarked, is the tactic of Bulverism, a totally invalid–and often self-defeating–form of argument.
But there seems to be an even deeper and more problematic irony in Harari’s supposition. He asserts that humans have survived because we are good at coming up with useful fictions (false but helpful beliefs), and that because such useful fictions (like morality) cannot be detected through the instruments of science… well, that is why they are fictions, because science can’t detect them. This is about as crude a display of scientisim as I have seen in a long time, and is supremely question begging. Is Harari really suggesting that the only way of knowing is the scientific way of knowing? That if something cannot be empirically verified that that something simply does not exist? If so, this again goes far beyond anything that evolutionary science tells us–goes beyond anything that science in any regard can tell us–and, in fact, would seem to undermine the very plausibility of science itself, if it so happened to be true.
For example, science can tell us nothing about logic or mathematics. Science presupposes logic and mathematics. Are we thus to conclude that because we can’t “find” logic or mathematics when we dissect a human being, just as, in Harari’s example, we can’t find “rights” when we poke our way through an autopsy, that there just is no such thing as logic or mathematics–that these are simply false but useful beliefs? If so, that seems problematic. Because all of Harari’s theory–though he himself has not made the impression of being a wholly consistent thinker, in this regard–depends entirely on making logical inferences from various pools of evidence. He assumes logic can tell us something real about the world, only to then venture a theory which would discredit the enterprise of logic altogether. That is, he is venturing a theory that, at bottom, would seem to discredit itself. The position thus undermines its own mines.
Further, the whole idea that science is the only way of knowing anything about reality is, again, a philosophical assumption, not something delivered via the hypothetico-deductive method. Harari’s criteria for knowledge (ironically) doesn’t meet its own standard. If we can only know things by science, then we cannot know that we can only know things by science, since there is no scientific test or instrument that could ever verify such a position.
These few problems alone I think are grounds enough to dismiss Sapiens not as a book of good science, but of shoddy philosophy. While there may well be some good science in Sapiens, the general thrust is one that is very much philosophically unjustified and extends far beyond what is in anyway justifiable according to modern evolutionary theory–which, it should be reminded–is really a theory in crises, as it currently stands. That examination, I will save for a later post.
In the meantime, if you’d like to read a more measured critique of materialism in general, all of which would apply to the general suppositions behind Sapiens, especially with respect to explaining belief formation and the phenomenon of consciousness, then I direct you to the following post:
Exploring the Mind-Body Problem: Part 1 – Consciousness and Materialism
Also, to the following podcast:
EP 235: God and Science, Near Death Experiences, and How to Suffer Well
– Pat
PS – The critique of Sapiens mentioned by the questioner of Francis Beckwith is also worth reading: https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2015/08/13/materialistic-dogmas-and-bad-conclusions/
we can easily cut through the noise on the lower levels, such as the petulant shrills of a Sam Harris or pterodactyl screechings of a Richard Dawkins
Really ! Maybe from your theist position but I would think in an open debate ( if they could or even cared to) you would end up on the floor in a fetal position
Considering how Dawkins continually refuses to debate any theist who’s actually taken a serious interest in the matter (William Lane Craig, for example), but instead decides to constantly poke fun at the most backward, unthinking religious believer who has zero interest, and little capability, to defend themselves; and further considering how many contemporary, academic atheistic thinkers themselves repeatedly condemn the philosophical hackery and polemic whining of the New Atheists, I’m really not that worried about it. But you’re definitely right on the second point. I’m sure they would have zero interest.
Please understand: There are many well-meaning and intelligent atheists. I’d really like to think I used to be one such person myself, before I seriously re-considered the God question and converted. But who knows, maybe I wasn’t. Either way, none of the qualifications just used can in anyway describe a Richard Dawkins or a Sam Harris. What you have with the New Atheists (with perhaps one or two exceptions) amounts to little more than a chorus of virulent and petty assertions, hardly distinguishable from a child in a temper, all directed at topics they ultimately have very little or even zero understanding of. I’m quite fortunate to have come up with the Old Atheists, and quite proud to say, because of that, I was never taken in by any of the pseudo-intellectual claptrap of books such as The God Delusion or the Moral Landscape. You should really be more critical of what you read. There are good, challenging, and worthwhile atheistic reads, to be sure. The God Delusion just isn’t one of them.
I’m not equating “Sapiens” with the Nazis, but the principle of throwing some truths in with some falsehoods reminds me of “The Big Lie” approach to spinning things. I’d like to see how many book reviews actually approach “Sapiens” through an objective eye to note whether it relies on a scientific argument or a philosophical one. Has anyone read reviews that do this besides this one?
I honestly haven’t read too many reviews of the book, Sandy, so I can’t say. But what you’ve pointed out is a general and increasing problem for many popular titles today that wind up in the “science” section: Often people are producing books of philosophy (sometimes good, other times bad) but labeling them books of science; and while such books may feature interesting empirical research (often they do), they are ultimately advancing philosophical assertions that get “smuggled in” as being part of that empirical research, when they are wholly distinct matters. This confuses people and can often cause them to arrive at certain conclusions when they otherwise shouldn’t, which is clearly the case with Sapiens. I’m not suggesting this was done intentionally; that, I have no idea about, and whenever possible, I always try to assume the best intentions of people. That is, ascribe the problem to ignorance before malice. Either way, the damage is still done, and once a book like this is out of the bag, so to speak, it then becomes very difficult to undue.
It may not be intentional (that’s difficult to say but I’m more pessimistic when it comes to these books) but I would argue you can be reckless in presenting your information to the point where you should well have known better and there’s lots of harm done in terms of spreading falsehoods as truth.
Pat, you know I enjoy when you take an argument and break it down through logic and critical thinking. This is no different and it’s something that’s really needed here as it seems like “Sapiens” is causing much confusion for people who are foundationally shaky when it comes to their faith and science. When I see something like “Sapiens” where it mixes truths, misleading information (or lies depending on your perspective), and faulty logic. I can’t wonder if there’s not an agenda to undermine people’s faith in God. What do other people think about this? For the record, I don’t have any problems reading the works of atheist writers. For example, I’ve read a number of books by Christopher Hitchens and think his reasoning is sound. His book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything is well-written and while I don’t agree with everything, he makes some excellent points of how humanity has tainted God’s teachings.
When it comes to getting information, you can pick up a history book and check its sources. On the other hand, a so-called science book like “Sapiens” is more difficult to verify because it’s easy to blend philosophy into scientific arguments and some people won’t catch the shift. Glad you pointed this out as I’ve been wanting to read it.