A Philosopher Examines Yuval Noah Harari

Some Comments on
Yuval Noah Harari, Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow (Signal, 2015)

Harari is clearly making a splash, with his books becoming bestsellers and being translated into multiple languages. First there was Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, asking where we have come from. And then Homo Deus, with the suggestive sub-title telling the reader that this book is about where we are going. And Harari keeps writing, though there is considerable overlap of themes in his books. I like the overall approach of Homo Deus – studying the past in order to be liberated from it, thus allowing us to reimagine the future (pp. 59, 396). The Observer says this about the author: “ Harari is a brilliant populizer, a ruthless synthesizer, a master story teller and an entertainer.” His Homo Deus is a delightful read.

The book begins with a reflection on the new human agenda (ch. 1). In the past, famine, plague and war were the top problems of the world. At the dawn of the third millennium, these problems have been largely solved, according to Harari. But humankind is ambitious, and so it looks for new goals. The new agenda of modern man is a sacred trinity – a search for immortality, bliss and divinity. I’m not so sure this is so new. Human beings have never accepted the fact of death, their lives have always been defined by a search for happiness, and they have always toyed with the idea that they themselves are gods. Nothing very new here.

Chapter 1 concludes with an outline of the book: “to go back and investigate who Homo sapiens really is, how humanism became the dominant world religion and why attempting to fulfill the humanist dream is likely to cause its disintegration” (p. 66). Harari boldly declares himself to be a humanist. He refers to Friedrich Nietzsche of “God is dead” fame (p. 234). Nietzsche too was looking into the future, trying to figure out what would happen after mankind had killed God, and he correctly predicted that this would leave them anchorless. But Nietzsche saw the death of God as a good thing, because this would allow man to become god. Harari paints a bleaker picture of the future, because he predicts that the death of God will be followed by the death of man – sort of. More on this later. At least Harari admits that humanism is a religion.

In Part I, Harari explores the rise and fall of traditional theistic religions in which humans accepted the idea of God and saw themselves as rulers over the universe, and hence superior to animals. Modernity gave up on the idea of a cosmic plan, and thus life has no script, no producer and no meaning (p. 200). Thus you have the rise of humanism where we ourselves create meaning and ethical rules (ch. 7). Harari provides a good summary of some of the key ideas of humanism – human experience is the supreme source of authority and meaning, with a focus on the individual and freedom (p. 247). He also explores the evolution of humanism into three branches: orthodox liberalism, socialist humanism and evolutionary humanism (p. 247). He correctly identifies a key tension within liberal humanism – if personal experience is the key good in humanism, what do we do when personal interests collide (p.224, 249)? I’m not sure Harari resolves this tension. But he is honest in identifying the humanist wars of religion (pp. 261ff). Then suddenly, we find that these wars have somehow dissipated and that in the 21st. century, liberalism “is the only show in town” (p. 267). Sorry, but this is rather hasty. God is not dead, as Nietzsche and Harari assume. In fact, religion is making a resurgence in many parts of the world. And there are continuing sustained critiques of liberalism.

I found the concluding comments of chapter 7 insightful. Harari is right in suggesting that all too often Christians have next to nothing to say about the emerging ideologies and technological advances of our day (p. 275). He is also right in suggesting that Christian thinking is all too often shaped more by outside forces than by the bible. I have found much contemporary theology to be shaped profoundly by Foucault, for example. Yet, as Harari argues, many Christians are oblivious to these outside influences, and when they become aware of them, they spend a lot of time desperately trying to find biblical justification for ideas that they have gotten from elsewhere. “The Bible is kept as a source of authority, even though it is no longer a true source of inspiration” (p. 276). A brilliant but sadly true diagnosis of some Christian thinking today.

But, it doesn’t have to be so, and for many Christians it is definitely not so. There are many Reformed and Evangelical philosophers who in the last few decades have been working on the idea of a genuinely Christian worldview that is shaped by the basic themes of the bible – creation, fall and redemption, and that can then be used to address contemporary problems. I believe that a Christian worldview is more coherent and can better address contemporary problems than can a humanist worldview. Humanism fails to come to grips with the radical depravity of human nature. Humanism also can’t overcome the relativism inherent in its approach to ethics. And, as already mentioned, it cannot overcome the tensions that result from its stress on individual autonomy.

I found Harari’s later chapters outlining the self-destruction of humanism to be particularly instructive and at the same time alarming. In Chapter 8 Harari argues that science is challenging our belief in free will and individual autonomy. Then in chapters 9 -11, he reviews the technological developments of the twenty-first century which are leading to the collapse of individualism because “external algorithms know me far better than I know myself,” and thus “authority will shift from individual humans to networked algorithms (p. 329). Intelligence thus becomes uncoupled from consciousness (p. 397). As a result, humans also lose their economic and military usefulness (p. 307). Indeed, we now realize that the experiences of human beings are of no more value than the experiences of animals (p. 387).

I appreciated Harari’s clear acknowledgement of Silicon Valley as the new religion, and the cosmic data-processing system the new god (pp. 351, 381). Belief in a personal God has now become a commitment to an impersonal “data religion” (p. 351). And Harari’s earlier humanism loses its personal dimension and is replaced by an impersonal “techno-humanism” (p. 351). It is an interesting progression. And it is a frightening progression.

It is here where we need to stop and ask about the assumptions that have led us to this spiral of dehumanization? Perhaps Harari’s humanistic agenda is itself the problem. Maybe there is a God after all. And maybe this God created human beings in his own image. Early in the book Harari reminds us that humans are merely animals (p. 66). Prove! He also informs us that science has shown that humans don’t have souls (p. 100). Prove! Even minds have been reduced to electric stimuli (p. 109). Prove! Then we are told that organisms are merely algorithms (p. 83). Prove! Later in the book Harari applies this formula to human beings and concludes that human beings are not really individuals but “an assemblage of many different algorithms lacking a single inner voice or a single self” (pp. 328, 381, 388). I reject this reductionistic and scientistic account of human nature. A Christian worldview resists any kind of reductionism. Interestingly, at the end of the book Harari seems to take on a more modest tone by expressing the hope that his analysis will at least have made readers raise questions about the key assumptions underlying his book (pp. 393f, 397). But it is clear that Harari himself does not question his assumptions. They are his dogmas, his mistaken dogmas.

Harari goes on to argue that “even if Dataism is wrong and organisms aren’t just algorithms, it won’t necessarily prevent Dataism from taking over the world” (p. 394). Here again there is an assumption that needs to be questioned. Harari is making a prediction about the future, but we all know that futuristic predictions can be mistaken, as even Harari admits (p. 58). Given Harari’s humanistic and deterministic framework there is of course nothing that will stop Dataism from taking over. Indeed, early in the book, Harari admits that while we are afraid of these developments, we can’t hit the brakes, because we don’t know where the brakes are (p. 51). But does this not again underscore the basic weakness of a humanistic worldview? Humanism has problems coming up with a workable ethical framework, beyond “what’s in it for me.” And that is not enough to put on some ethical brakes on Dataism. Within a Christian worldview ethics is grounded in a Creator God and human enterprises will finally be judged by God. And, God will eventually put on the brakes to the self-destruction of humanity. God created human beings in his own image, with dignity and freedom, and to be rulers over all the rest of creation. We have done a lousy job of fulfilling this awesome responsibility. And hence the need for redemption, also the redemption of Silicon Valley. So I am not as pessimistic as Harari. I have hope.

If you want to read a powerful analysis of our global crises (worldwide poverty, environmental degradation, and widespread terrorism), and despite all this a defense of Christian hope, I would recommend Bob Goudzwaard & Mark Vander Vennen & David Van Heemst, Hope in Troubled Times: A New Vision for Confronting Global Crises (Baker Academic 2007). Unfortunately, the authors don’t deal with the Silicon Valley crisis. See my review: https://elmerjohnthiessen.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/review-of-death-of-the-liberal-class-by-chris-hedges-and-hope-in-troubled-times-by-bob-goudzwaard-et-al/

There is another fundamental problem with Harari’s analysis of the demise of homo sapiens. He doesn’t really believe in their complete destruction. There is an elite group of “upgraded superhumans” that somehow don’t fall prey to the dehumanization that the rest of mankind experiences. They are of course the superclass, those in control of techno-humanism and data religion (pp. 307, 351). Harari reminds me of B.F. Skinner who also reduces most of mankind to pawns who are manipulated by a few master engineers who are the saviors of the world. But, I don’t believe in human saviors, nor do I trust them. The Psalmist warns us: “Do not put your trust in princes, in human beings, who cannot save” (Ps 146:3). Indeed, throughout the bible you find God challenging the arrogance of human saviors. Look at what happened to King Nebuchadnezzer as described in the book of Daniel (ch.4).

So, Harari is interesting, yes. Insightful, yes. But fundamentally mistaken.