Harari’s Sapiens on Religion
++ In which I discuss why I think Harari’s characterisation of religion + is inadequate because it’s too materialistic. +
+ ++ I’ve been slowly re-reading Yuval Noah Harari’s 2014 classic, + Sapiens, + which apart from being ridiculously over-scoped and hilariously + under-evidenced, is proving delightfully entertaining. +
+ ++ I’ve just finished chapter 12, covering the world history of all + religion in thirty pages. Of course, at that level of brevity, + there will be many deficiencies. But here’s some thoughts - not + terribly well organised - which stand out to me. +
+ ++ Hurari generally assumes a materialist metaphysic (a problem which + blights the book more generally). Nothing exists except physical stuff. + This gives him severe tunnel vision. As a consequence of this + restricting metaphysic, he is forced to adopt limiting accounts of what + the role of religion is in world history, and therefore what religion is. +
+ +++ ++ The crucial historical role of religion has been to give superhuman + legitimacy to [all social orders and hierarchies]. +
+…
++ Religion can thus be defined as a system of human norms and + values that is founded on a belief in a superhuman order. +
+ +
+ It might seem a little unfair to criticise Harari for giving a + materialist account of religion. Sapiens is, after all, a + materialist world history. +
+ ++ But this account is just one extreme example of how that project, to + give a materialist account of world history, will inevitably lack the + metaphysical resources to really understand the human story. +
+ ++ On Harari’s view, any human enterprise which attempts to understand + that which transcends direct human experience is at best an effort in + imaginative story-telling. All scientific theory, theology, ethics and + metaphysics either contorted out of all recognition into a pragmatic + fiction or is cast to the flames. +
+ ++ In particular, it’s a view which is incapable of taking seriously some + of the most important questions human beings have grappled with in the + course of their history. Those who know me won’t be surprised at which + ones I’m going to pick out: who was the being which made their covenant + with Abraham? How is that promise being fulfilled? And who the heck was + Jesus of Nazareth? +
+ ++ If Harari’s characterisation of religion is adequate - and the Abrahamic + faiths come under that banner - then those questions are reduced to + nothing more profound than Doctor Who fans arguing over ‘canon’. The + question of who God is becomes a mere tool for the organisation of + society, rather than a substantial and important question on a matter + of fact. +
+ ++ This is a shortcoming for its own sake: a materialist account of + religion cannot adequately account for the phenomenon of religion + itself. +
+ ++ But it is also a shortcoming even by its own lights. Without giving + serious consideration to the substantial matter of what Harari calls + ‘religion’ (which, to his mind, includes the Abrahamic faiths, + Hinduism, paganism, animism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Confucianism, + capitalism, communism and Nazism), even the material facts are + inexplicable. Why would, as Harari is keen to point out, out, people + fight and die over and over again for a fiction? +
+ ++ The material facts themselves prove that ‘religion’ as he construes it + is not window dressing to the real story of history. It cannot merely + serve as a mechanism in the churning of material history. It is itself + the centre of the story. +
+