Yuval Noah Harari is an Israeli historian, bestselling author, public intellectual, and secular prophet (or ‘futurist’ as they prefer to be called). Speaking out of his Darwinian naturalist worldview, Harari recently offered this message on “International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia”:
Here’s a transcript of the video clip, in which Harari draws a connection between Darwinism and “sexual liberation”:
Darwin is the kind of prophet of sexual liberation. If I think about the liberation of gay people, of LGBTQ people, then if you dig underneath, you eventually find Darwin. For centuries upon centuries, gay people were persecuted and oppressed because of this mythological idea about sex: that sex was created by God for the purpose of procreation, and if you use sex for anything else, you’re sinning against the purpose of the thing, so you must be punished. And then Darwin came, and Darwin said: in biology there are no purposes. Nothing has any purpose in biology. In biology there are only causes.
Where does this go wrong? Let me count the ways. Well, let me count three at least.
1. If Harari thinks “this mythological idea about sex” comes from Christianity, he’s mistaken. Christianity does indeed teach that sex was created by God for the purpose of procreation (Gen. 1:28), but it doesn’t follow that procreation is the only purpose of sex. In 1 Corinthians 7, the apostle Paul implies that sex within the bond of marriage is legitimate for the proper satisfaction of sexual desire. He makes no reference to procreation in that context. The Song of Solomon celebrates sexual intimacy and joy within marriage, again without reference to the purpose of procreation. Even if procreation is the primary purpose of sex, that wouldn’t make it the exclusive purpose. Just as eating food is both for nutrition and for pleasure, so marital sex is both for procreation and for pleasure.
2. But there is a deeper problem with Harari’s statements. He’s correct that Darwin effectively banished teleology from biology, but he doesn’t go far enough in drawing out the implications. His point in the video clip is that if sex literally has no purpose, we can use it any way we please. If our sexual organs have no purpose, there’s no right or wrong way to use those sexual organs; there’s simply no such thing as “sexual sin” or “sexual immorality.” Anything goes, in effect. But if he wants to apply that principle to homosexuality, he should also apply it to other sexual proclivities, such as pedophilia, incest, bestiality, and necrophilia. None of these sexual practices can be inherently wrong.
Harari is right that, given naturalism, “nothing that exists is unnatural.” For the consistent naturalist, nothing is ‘unnatural’ in a metaphysical sense, of course, but neither is anything ‘unnatural’ in a normative sense, because nature just is what it is. If nothing in nature has any purpose, then there’s nothing ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ about any configuration of natural objects, including human sexual organs. If Harari believes that nothing that exists is unnatural, he ought to be consistent and honest in spelling out the full implications: there’s nothing unnatural about pedophilia, incest, bestiality, necrophilia, or any other way that organisms of the species homo sapiens satisfy their sexual urges.
3. But there’s an even more serious problem for Harari: an epistemological problem, rather than an ethical one. If there are no purposes whatsoever in biology, then what goes for our sexual organs must go for all our other organs as well — including our brains. On Harari’s Darwinian naturalist view, our brains have no purpose either. Just as there’s no right or wrong way to use those things between our legs, there’s also no right or wrong way to use those things between our ears. Once you throw out any normativity in sexual activity, you must also throw out any normativity in cognitive activity. There’s no right or wrong way to think on Harari’s view. Anything goes, in effect. Yet the normativity of thinking is just what we call ‘rationality’. Put simply, rationality is thinking in the right kind of ways, and irrationality is thinking in the wrong kind of ways. Rationality is an intrinsically normative concept, but by dispensing with all teleology in biology, Harari unwittingly dispenses with normativity in cognition.
A defender of Harari might be tempted to respond, “But of course there’s a right way to use our brains. We should use them in whatever way helps us to determine the truth about the world. Rational thinking is just thinking that’s optimally directed toward truth.” Ah, but the moment you say “directed toward,” you’re smuggling teleology back into the picture. If our genitals are not “directed toward” any end or goal — the very point Harari wants to impress upon us — then neither are our brains. On the Darwinian naturalist view, our brains aren’t literally directed toward truth or anything else. If you use your brain to form false-but-comforting beliefs, that’s just as legitimate as using your brain to form true beliefs.
“But we can bestow purpose on our brains,” comes the reply. “I can choose to direct my cognitive processes toward the truth.” Sure, and you can choose to direct them in any other way that serves your personal goals and predilections. Congratulations — you’ve just endorsed radical epistemic relativism. Each of us gets to define ‘rationality’ as we see fit.
No doubt Harari thinks that his Darwinian naturalist beliefs are rational. I’m quite sure he considers my Christian beliefs (including my quaint ideas about purpose in biology) to be irrational. But if he’s right about the implications of Darwinian naturalism — and I believe he is — then he shouldn’t think that any beliefs are rational or irrational. Still, he can take comfort in this: if he’s right about the truth of Darwinian naturalism, then there’s nothing irrational about him believing things inconsistent with his Darwinian naturalism, because strictly speaking there’s nothing irrational about thinking anything whatsoever. What a relief!
“Nothing that exists is unnatural.” Now complete the thought: nothing that exists is immoral or irrational either.
All good points.
One comment: of course, the logic enlists to justify on person’s homosexuality also justifies another’s opposition to it in the same measure.
typo, “on” should be “one”