Why insist on such a broad definition of religion? I know it’s hard to define, but this definition is so broad it can include a vast array of things. You believe in gravity because you read a book about it, subscribe to newton’s laws and proceed to drop things move or jump without the expectation of flying away, while believing it’s not good to jump out a window ‘cause you’ll die thanks to gravity? Must be a religion. You read about metal working and the physics behind it (believing it is possible due to the laws of the universe and not human rules) then do metalworking with the intention of making money or something of creative value? Religion. You may object that a religion has to be a worldview, but Harari acts like the only reason the theory of relativity isn’t a religion is because it doesn’t have associated practice or values. Also plenty of communists are Christians or Buddhists (if the atheist kind), and who calls stoicism a religion?
Read the last paragraph of the second image. He seems to think there is no meaningful difference between religion and ideology, or at least his definition is the only one that can encapsulate all religions.
I saw that. If that’s the extent of it, his point doesn’t quite stand up to logic. You can’t say two things are the same if you only define one of them and only assume that the other has the same characteristics.
He probably just came up with a definition and ran with it, doubling down when some non-religions fell under his definition.
Fr I think that’s exactly it. One of those writers who has an idea and then applies it to every conceivable topic under the sun (and beyond) until he’s got enough words for a book. He’s clearly not starting with material reality and building a thesis based on his findings otherwise he wouldn’t say such bizarre things.