In Homo Deus, his 2017 sequel to the world bestseller Sapiens, the Israeli historian and professor Yuval Noah Harari (who is himself an atheist) postulated that, despite their enormous contributions to human civilization and progress in the past (as well as human misery in other instances), traditional religions are becoming - or have long since become - a spent force in terms of creative potential, existing today in a primarily reactive mould.
Harari describes Communism and revolutionary socialism as a species of "humanist religion" that has also lost much of its creative spark. While describing liberalism as another variant of "humanist religion", he argues that it is still a vital force and the only viable game in town - although one that may undergo serious threat from technological advancement in the future and the rise of "Dataism". His prediction is rather alarmist in this regard, writing: "When genetic engineering and artificial intelligence reveal their full potential, liberalism, democracy and free markets might become as obsolete as flint knives, tape cassettes, Islam and communism." (278)
While "evolutionary humanism" - in his analysis, the third denomination of the humanist religion that arose in the 19th century - has largely, and rightly, been discredited by its extreme articulation in mid-20th century Nazi ideology, he likewise contends that it contains a certain vitalism that could re-emerge to challenge liberal ideas again in the future and that elements of it could become attractive again given the importance of Darwinian, evolutionary thinking to the modern world and the advent of transhumanism (courtesy of artificial 'upgrading' of the human body or DNA modification).
Here is part of his argument from pages 276-277 of the book:
Islam, Christianity and other traditional religions are still important players in the world. Yet their role is now largely reactive. In the past, they were a creative force.
Christianity, for example, spread the hitherto heretical idea that all humans are equal before God, thereby changing human political structures, social hierarchies and even gender relations. In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus went further, insisting that the meek and oppressed are God’s favourite people, thus turning the pyramid of power on its head, and providing ammunition for generations of revolutionaries.
In addition to social and ethical reforms, Christianity was responsible for important economic and technological innovations. The Catholic Church established medieval Europe’s most sophisticated administrative system, and pioneered the use of archives, catalogues, timetables and other techniques of data processing.
The Vatican was the closest thing twelfth-century Europe had to Silicon Valley. The Church established Europe’s first economic corporations – the monasteries – which for 1,000 years spearheaded the European economy and introduced advanced agricultural and administrative methods. Monasteries were the first institutions to use clocks, and for centuries they and the cathedral schools were the most important learning centres of Europe, helping to found many of Europe’s first universities, such as Bologna, Oxford and Salamanca.
Today the Catholic Church continues to enjoy the loyalties and tithes of hundreds of millions of followers. Yet it and the other theist religions have long since turned from a creative into a reactive force. They are busy with rearguard holding operations more than with pioneering novel technologies, innovative economic methods or groundbreaking social ideas...
They now mostly agonise over the technologies, methods and ideas propagated by other movements. Billions of people, including many scientists, continue to use religious scriptures as a source of authority, but these texts are no longer a source of creativity.
That’s why traditional religions offer no real alternative to liberalism...(277)
Firstly: do you agree or disagree with his view that religion is now almost entirely 'reactive' and has inherently lost its potential to be a source of creative inspiration for human development, or not, and on what grounds do you agree/disagree?
Secondly: what do you think about his argument that while remaining, in his estimation, vital and the only real game in town, liberalism - and its emphases on equality, liberty, the rule of law, democratic constitutionalism - could be undermined and even rendered obsolete in the future by genetic engineering and AI?
Thirdly: do you agree or disagree with his characterization of liberalism, socialism and Nazism as competing denominations of "humanist religion"? (I invite you to read up on why he argues this prior to answering this question, since I didn't have time to go over it in this introduction).
Harari describes Communism and revolutionary socialism as a species of "humanist religion" that has also lost much of its creative spark. While describing liberalism as another variant of "humanist religion", he argues that it is still a vital force and the only viable game in town - although one that may undergo serious threat from technological advancement in the future and the rise of "Dataism". His prediction is rather alarmist in this regard, writing: "When genetic engineering and artificial intelligence reveal their full potential, liberalism, democracy and free markets might become as obsolete as flint knives, tape cassettes, Islam and communism." (278)
While "evolutionary humanism" - in his analysis, the third denomination of the humanist religion that arose in the 19th century - has largely, and rightly, been discredited by its extreme articulation in mid-20th century Nazi ideology, he likewise contends that it contains a certain vitalism that could re-emerge to challenge liberal ideas again in the future and that elements of it could become attractive again given the importance of Darwinian, evolutionary thinking to the modern world and the advent of transhumanism (courtesy of artificial 'upgrading' of the human body or DNA modification).
Here is part of his argument from pages 276-277 of the book:
Islam, Christianity and other traditional religions are still important players in the world. Yet their role is now largely reactive. In the past, they were a creative force.
Christianity, for example, spread the hitherto heretical idea that all humans are equal before God, thereby changing human political structures, social hierarchies and even gender relations. In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus went further, insisting that the meek and oppressed are God’s favourite people, thus turning the pyramid of power on its head, and providing ammunition for generations of revolutionaries.
In addition to social and ethical reforms, Christianity was responsible for important economic and technological innovations. The Catholic Church established medieval Europe’s most sophisticated administrative system, and pioneered the use of archives, catalogues, timetables and other techniques of data processing.
The Vatican was the closest thing twelfth-century Europe had to Silicon Valley. The Church established Europe’s first economic corporations – the monasteries – which for 1,000 years spearheaded the European economy and introduced advanced agricultural and administrative methods. Monasteries were the first institutions to use clocks, and for centuries they and the cathedral schools were the most important learning centres of Europe, helping to found many of Europe’s first universities, such as Bologna, Oxford and Salamanca.
Today the Catholic Church continues to enjoy the loyalties and tithes of hundreds of millions of followers. Yet it and the other theist religions have long since turned from a creative into a reactive force. They are busy with rearguard holding operations more than with pioneering novel technologies, innovative economic methods or groundbreaking social ideas...
They now mostly agonise over the technologies, methods and ideas propagated by other movements. Billions of people, including many scientists, continue to use religious scriptures as a source of authority, but these texts are no longer a source of creativity.
That’s why traditional religions offer no real alternative to liberalism...(277)
Secondly: what do you think about his argument that while remaining, in his estimation, vital and the only real game in town, liberalism - and its emphases on equality, liberty, the rule of law, democratic constitutionalism - could be undermined and even rendered obsolete in the future by genetic engineering and AI?
Thirdly: do you agree or disagree with his characterization of liberalism, socialism and Nazism as competing denominations of "humanist religion"? (I invite you to read up on why he argues this prior to answering this question, since I didn't have time to go over it in this introduction).
Last edited: