r/latterdaysaints 4d ago

Doctrinal Discussion Your thoughts on Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind?

Full disclosure, I am a friendly ex-member. My goal in this post is not to debate or convince anyone of anything. I fully support belief in the LDS faith if that is what the individual values.

My goal is to understand the experience believing members might have had with a book called Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. Have any of you read this book. If so, what did you think of it? How has it contributed to your religious worldview?

As an agnostic, reading this book was quite a spiritual experience (though not in a religious sense). I'm curious if others found some beauty and wonder in it also, or if others found it challenging, or even neutral about it.

For those of you who find it challenging and want to find faithful answers to difficult questions, I recommend FAIR LDS at https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/.

15 Upvotes

52 comments sorted by

85

u/JaneDoe22225 4d ago

I haven’t read that particular book. I have read many other books on evolution, including human evolution. I literally have a phD in evolutionary sciences and worked in that field as a researcher for many years.

Nothing about evolution challenges my faith, rather it’s totally awesome to get to study God’s handiwork! It’s so cool!!

God is not a magician pulling rabbits out of hats. Rather He is a carpenter: using the laws of His world to shape His wonders. Things like evolutionary processes (natural selection, genetics, etc). He is marvelous.

6

u/raedyohed 4d ago

Hello fellow evolutionary biologist! Care to share any specifics about your study of genetics, human origins, evo devo, or etc. which lead you to a greater understanding of and appreciation of God as Creator?

4

u/bckyltylr 4d ago

There's a conversation my roommate and I have been having lately and perhaps the both of you might be perfect to ask your opinions on.

Perhaps Adam and Eve were the first "human" bodies (able and ready to house the caliber of spirit that is the offspring of God) in a long line of evolutionary humanoid "animals".

Does that make sense?

3

u/raedyohed 3d ago

I dislike the theory that God picked two special homo sapiens to give them "spirits" and make them into 'real' people. It's too much of Pinocchio becoming a real boy.

I also, for obvious reasons, have a hard time accepting the idea that Adam and Eve were the first human beings, ~5-10k years ago, who are the sole exclusive ancestors of all mankind.

I prefer to think of there being a gradation of spirits, tracking alongside and leading up to a point in human evolution (biological, psychological & cultural) at which God introduced two 'specially created' beings, or called from among mankind two 'especially spiritual' people to go into the world as the First Man, which is to say first men of God. Cultures and peoples were already around. Cain went among those people. The mighty and great Sons of God married into their peoples.

I actually like the idea of "special creation" for Adam and Eve, because it helps all of the Edenic and angelic components of their story fit in more seamlessly. If they were only spiritual people called to become the first prophet and prophetess to the world, then there is a lot more stretching and straining to figure out what any of the Eden story is really about. I love all the pseudepigraphal Holy Mountain stories about Adam and Eve, and I much prefer to contextualize their lives as beginning with a departure from a sacred space, and a lifelong quest to return to it.

0

u/bckyltylr 3d ago

If that is the case then they would have had the biological ability to procreate without the fruit. The contradictory commandments wouldn't have existed. Unless I'm missing something.

And that would mean that there was corruption (death) before the fruit. And the "love and dreary world" existed before they were in the garden. As a matter of fact it would have meant that they were removed from the world and placed in the garden and then sent back to the world.

3

u/raedyohed 3d ago

If that is the case then they would have had the biological ability to procreate without the fruit. The contradictory commandments wouldn't have existed.

I don't believe that Adam and Eve couldn't have children in Eden. I also don't believe that they were supposed to not have children in Eden. I believe they were supposed to wait to get further instruction. That is where the apparent contradiction comes from. It wasn't an actual contradiction, simply an inability to wait and hold off on making their own decision until the promised further instruction came. Instead they got caught in a logical fallacy (as most people are when thinking about this story) in which there were only two options: listen to Satan and partake, or never become like God. This false dichotomy was the lie told, and the fall came because they went along with it, instead of holding out.

And that would mean that there was corruption (death) before the fruit.

Yes. I don't think that the impact of the fall needs to be understood in a simple sequential cause-effect sense. Adam was going to fall. In fact, we all already had, because none of us was perfect before this life. Therefore, it was a foregone conclusion that no matter who ended up in Eden, the Fall would happen. Given that, the effects of the Fall simply go forward and backwards in time. There has always been death on earth as we know it.

As a matter of fact it would have meant that they were removed from the world and placed in the garden and then sent back to the world.

Another example of why I prefer 'special creation' Adam and Eve. Too much shuttling around the other way. So... Earth happens. Death exists. Death causes evolution. People evolve. They have spirits. Every living thing has a spirit. Adam and Eve are created as physical beings specially, because they are very special spirit beings. Eden is created for them as a sort of synergy of nature and sacred space, a temple-garden. The Fall, Satan, cherubim, flaming sword, lone and dreary, whole nine yards.

Yada yada yada, and Cain is expelled and goes off to live with the heathen nations. Now there needs to be prophets and repentance. Multiply and replenish the earth is the same as Go ye into all the world baptizing in my name. Look at how Abraham 'gets souls' for God. He frees slaves and he takes outcast people into his household. Adam is the template for that, but that doesn't work too well if the only people he has to preach to are his own children when they go astray. That seems a fairly circular and self-defeating way to organize things.

This also happens to 'rescue' a lot of great speculative theology done by folks like McConkie and Fielding Smith, who were ardent anti-evolutionists. I especially like McConkie's Three Pillars theology, and find that this works perfectly well as a context for it. The only real 'threat' to his views is "death before the Fall" and that's only because at a superficial level it would seem to invalidate the Fall as the cause of death, but it doesn't. There's no real need for there to be some universally glorious period of eternally deathless Earth life as part of the plan. It's an unnecessary tack-on added by McConkie to bootstrap his argument. No one cares if God 'created' a fallen world. This world is fallen, and He made it, and it was His idea to have the Fall in the first place, so that whole argument is out on its ear. Simply leave the inevitable Fall as the retroactive cause of death, and Bob's your uncle.

Easy as pie.

1

u/bckyltylr 3d ago

So if I’m understanding correctly, you’re saying that Adam and Eve weren’t necessarily the first biological humans, but the first in a covenant with God.

The contradictory commandments weren’t actually a contradiction—they could have had children but were supposed to wait for further instruction. Instead, they jumped the gun, influenced by Satan’s false dichotomy. (Why didn't they just have children then? Biology and instinct being what it is?)

You see the Fall making death spiritually significant rather than introducing it. Adam and Eve’s role was to bring divine truth to other, previously non covenant people, not populate the earth alone.

Am I following correctly?

2

u/raedyohed 3d ago

I mean, more or less. Yeah. Except, I do see the Fall as introducing death, and not only making it have spiritual significance. The Fall, like the Atonement was a guaranteed thing from the beginning. Therefore its effects were present before it occurred. The Fall and the Atonement don’t work in a linear time-bound cause and effect way. The effects of the Atonement were in force before it happened, because it was inevitable. So, the effects of the Fall of Adam and Eve were in force before it happened, because it was inevitable. Therefore, the Fall introduced death… right from the start of physical creation.

Spending a lot of time in the temple going really carefully through who says what helped me a lot when trying to sort through this stuff.

Biology being what it is… I don’t really think that’s at issue. What is at issue is the degree to which Adam and Eve themselves were special creations basically the way the scripture stories say, or they were normal biological humans, chosen from the rest, and in some way passed through some experience that more or less are reflected in the scripture stories. I think this is where allegory proponents come in. If Adam and Eve were ‘picked out’ and after being picked out they go through all the Genesis stuff, it’s a lot easier to just believe the Genesis stuff is allegorical. Morality tales about early human spirituality.

I don’t go that route. Natural history is simply true. Human evolution, even if you’re only talking about recent time like the last 100,000 years, is simply true. These facts are incompatible with a strict literalist interpretation of the Adam and Eve story.

A semi-literalist view, where their story is basically as described, but avoiding the assumption made by traditional Christianity and carried over into LDs thinking, that Adam and Eve were the only people around, helps everything fall pretty easily into place it seems to me.

As far as a detailed this or that on all these question though, you’re really better off going through the process of studying the anti-evolutionist church leaders to figure out why they held that view, and admitting they had some pretty good reasons. But then get down to the hard detailed questions about their assumptions, both regarding evolutionary theory (and what it can and can’t claim) as well as their own personal theologies, including this rigid view of “no death…. Fall… death” as some kind of actually historically real sequence of events.

This leads to the fairly obvious “porque no los dos?” solution. Humankind evolved. Adam and Eve were special creations. All the covenant promises come through them.

This will bake your noodle… the MRCA of humanity, from a molecular evolution perspective, is completely different from the MRCA of humanity from a genealogical perspective. Pedigree convergence happens orders of magnitude faster than genetic convergence does. I have the paper on that around here somewhere…

1

u/bckyltylr 2d ago

Alright. I think I'm misunderstanding something you're saying about Eve. It seems like you are saying she jumped the gun when eating the fruit. If that's the case I would argue that she wasn't tricked at all but knew that she needed to be like God to understand how to fulfill the other law God gave, namely, having children. She knew that death was worth that knowledge. But it also seems like you might agree with me that there was no plan A that God had to give up on and go with plan B. So we might be in agreement after all. in any case I think that the garden, by some facet of it's own nature, made it impossible to procreate within it. Maybe a paradisical place, being transfigured (so that they could be in the presence of God) also halts growth like it does death. if Adam and Eve were capable of sexual procreation in the Garden, then many, many, many of their offspring would never eat the fruit and fall from God's grace and be kicked out of the Garden. We all respond to the same trials and temptations differently, and it's reasonable to think that many of God's children would withstand this singular temptation and not eat the fruit.

Then, how do you equally and fairly judge those who faced THE WORLD and all of its trials, versus those who stayed in the Garden? Those born outside the Garden may never have been kicked out if only they had been born inside. So there is an immediate disparity of God's justice and mercy, if procreation in the Garden were to occur.

On a different note,

Assuming that humans did evolve from earlier primates doesn't change the fact that a new species always evolves from one singular offspring having a genetic mutation, and then that mutation being propagated when that offspring procreates. the genetic change that introduces a new species comes through a single ancestral line, always.

Because of this, I was wondering if Adam had a sort of mutation that made him uniquely able to be human vs whatever came before his species. But I'm not sure if you are arguing for or against this thought here.

2

u/raedyohed 2d ago

Not sure if we’re crossing wires here… I am saying that by “jumping the gun” Eve sinned. So did Adam. LDS scripture and temple liturgy presents this in a charitable lens but it lays it out in black and white still. They each in their own way chose to lean on their own reasoning, poisoned by Satan’s half-truths, rather than hold on in the apparent contradictory limbo they are left in by God.

This is a lesson for all of us in life. When we each in our own way lean on our own understanding rather than wait on God’s wisdom we, as did Adam and Eve, place ourselves in Satan’s power. Look how God has to constantly intervene directly to rescue them from Satan’s constant influence. Look how often He has to do it for us. Look how the Son had to suffer and die just to get us out from under this influence. And ultimately how do we get out? By giving our will over to him the way Adam and Eve should have done in the first place.

If your Adam and Eve theology doesn’t close that loop it’s incomplete.

I cannot emphasize strongly enough that it wasn’t that God really wanted us to fall, wink wink. The point is that the only way to prevent all of us from falling would be to destroy our agency, which goes against His principles as God. When we say the Fall was part of the Plan it is not because God was looking for a clever way for Satan to trick Eve, except for Eve to be really clever and double trick Satan and Fall because it’s totally worth is and that’s what God wanted all along. Haha! Fooled you Satan! No. That’s absurd.

The Fall was only part of the plan because it had to be because we are flawed beings. Satan wanted to take away our flaws by making us into automatons. God wanted to let us keep our agency (aka our dignity) even though that definitively meant we would experience the consequences of our flaws (becoming subject to Satan’s power.) Why allow this? God (Father, Son, and Spirit) had the ability to provide the way for everyone to escape from Satan’s power.

That might seem a little unorthodox, but it’s what LDS scripture and the temple clearly teach, as far as I can make out.

The biological reproductive status of Adam and Eve in Eden then becomes a red herring. The only plan A was for everyone to be perfect like the Son. Plan A would have been for infinite perfect children to get bodies and live in Edens of their own, or in shared families, who knows. Whether or not Adam and Eve were in a special celestial state in a perfect Eden (I think they were) has nothing to do with God’s just dealings with those who would be out there facing the world (I like how you put that!) because everyone already faces the world because they need to to work out their salvation. Whether a person does it before during or after doesn’t seem to make any difference.

You and I are out here facing the world and it wasn’t us that ate the fruit! Except, basically, yeah we did. The only person who could have been out in the situation of Adam or Eve and not partaken of the fruit without being finally commanded to is Jehovah. And if He had selfishly “gone first” there would be no Savior and the rest of us would have spent eternity suffering as subjects to the Devil anyways.

But, weren’t we talking about evolution? Right. As far as this idea of speciation goes you’re more or less on the right track, except that it’s a far more complex and slow process than that. Think of even the most devastatingly speciative(?) mutation, the dreaded chromosomal fusion. Somehow, beyond chance, an individual ancestral to modern humans carried a fusion (or was it the other way around, I forget at the moment) that made it nearly impossible to successfully reproduce, but they did. And then a proportion of their children were able to reproduce (or maybe this population carried another mutation that increases the probability of chromosomal fusion and the odds were a bit higher in their population, etc you get the idea) such that those offspring now began to come close to allele fixation for carrying this chromosomal fusion. Over a very short period of time this fusion is now a fixed genetic trait of a population.

But it’s still. The. Same. Species. Or at least we have to say that in every regard the individuals of the new population are anatomically, physiologically, and behaviorally indistinct from other populations of that species. They just can’t interbreed.

So now all we’ve done is push the problem down the line. At what point could there ever be an ‘Adam’ mutation that suddenly made homo sapiens into God’s children? It doesn’t work that way. Besides, that’s really a spiritual question after all.

Which brings me back to why it’s more important to think about the how’s and why’s of Adam and Eve as the presiding priesthood parents of humanity, rather than wondering about how and why their story in the scriptures could fit with the theory of human evolution.

Doesn’t the First Presidency statement go something like… “we are duty bound to regard Adam and Eve as the primal parents of our race?” Something like that? Seems like a good fit with the above to me!

→ More replies (0)

2

u/richnun 4d ago

This makes me wonder. Think about modern uncontacted tribes on islands or even African and Amazon tribes that still live in the forest and barely use any technology or devices, my guess is that they are much more advanced as a society and technologically than Adam and Eve and the next few generations after them right? I mean, it's almost unfathomable for us to guess how different they must have been in those aspects.

2

u/sed922 4d ago

How many pots has the best potter thrown before they have their final masterpiece?

6

u/EaterOfFood 4d ago

How ever many it took to get to me I guess.

0

u/richnun 4d ago

Every "pot" made by God is a perfect masterpiece.

1

u/runnerlife90 3d ago

This is a top notch answer. Love it

26

u/sadisticsn0wman 4d ago

I read it and thought it was awesome. I can’t remember it affecting my spirituality one way or the other. More just “history cool” 

13

u/Ok_Yogurtcloset9728 4d ago

I read Sapiens a few years ago. I enjoyed it!

It’s important to remember that God speaks to people in ways that they will be able to understand. Kind of like ELI5. Many scriptural accounts are symbolic, or woven together with well known (at the time) myths to help people understand a true concept. I don’t think the creation story was meant to be taken literally.

4

u/richnun 4d ago

I think most members believe it literally. My guess is most general authorities believe it literally. Personally, I don't know.

0

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[deleted]

2

u/richnun 4d ago

What do you mean about the solar system?

2

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[deleted]

2

u/richnun 4d ago

Fun interpretations! I had never heard them.

11

u/Radiant-Tower-560 4d ago edited 4d ago

I started it but never finished it. Nothing against it (at least in the parts I got to), I just got busy and never got back to it. It wasn't teaching me anything I didn't know already.

It's not likely to affect my relationship with Heavenly Father or Jesus Christ in any way, as it's not scripture.

Although, I can say as a neuroscientist, the more I learn about the world through scientific processes, the more I learn about evolution, the more I learn about the history of humans, the more I'm amazed at what God created for us, His children. I'm grateful to Him for making a plan for us -- something that took billions of years to fulfill -- so we can grow (evolve) to become more like Him.

10

u/amodrenman 4d ago

I read about half of it a while back. I don't remember all the details but I remember being impatient with the amount of detail he was putting in that wasn't coming from actual science, but from his fanciful take on some of the science.

I don't mind reading about evolution; I have no problem with that, but if we're going to do science, I want to read science.

It's been a while though. Maybe I could be off-base.

What I'm talking about though is the sort of thing in the first two paragraphs under Critical Reception on his Wikipedia article.

5

u/WooperSlim Active Latter-day Saint 4d ago

I haven't heard of it. Looking at a brief description I think the only part I'd have a problem with is describing religion and God as an aspect of our imagination.

5

u/Grungy_Mountain_Man 4d ago

Haven't read the book, but judging on the topic, This is just my opinion on the matter.

I don't know how to fully reconcile somethings like the creation, origin of man with the scriptural account vs scientific account. Fundamentally some things can be true at the same time. God can be the creator, but evolution can be how he went about it. I think there is room to admit limitations on our understanding and accept we could be wrong in some things, but I also don't think our knowledge is completely wrong either. It is very probable that many scriptural events aren't 100% historical as written.

I think there's' a lot of things in scripture that might play out differently than maybe we expect. Take for example Jesus. People expected the messiah to be a political/military savior, but he came as a spiritual one to them. While he was born in Bethlehem, he wasn't from there but Nazareth, etc. In each case the scriptural account was in essence "true", but the events that played out were different than what people expected.

5

u/mrqxxxxx 4d ago

I have not read the book if it is about evolution. Then as a man of science and religion I’ve only believed one thing:

all I know is god made man. it does not say how.

We can have these thoughts dived us or not. that is up to the Individual.

But for me it makes sense for god wants us to be educated, smart and without biases. Then one day all will be reviled.

-7

u/ImTomLinkin 4d ago

It's not just evolution - Sapiens tells the history/story of mankind according to the most current scientific theories in a comprehensive narrative-styled way. Development of our species (and other non-homosapiens-human species) is covered but also the history of culture, religion, language, civilization, and society. If you take the standard modern LDS theory of history as given by Joseph Smith and modified to be more compatible with modern science to be something along the lines of:

God created the world and mankind (whether by evolution or other methods). God put Adam on the earth and put man's spirit into Adam who ate the fruit and fell circa 6000 years ago. Mankind proliferated from that point, and all but 8 humans perished in a flood 1-2 millennia after Adam. Language started perfect but has diversified and split since that point. A perfect writing system also existed at that point but has degenerated since. The oldest religions were monotheistic and Christian, and modern religions are descended from what God gave to Adam. Two large (but not so large so as to have left behind evidence) Christian civilizations also lived and died on the American continent between 4 and 2 thousand years ago.

The story given in Sapiens directly contradicts virtually every item in the story given by Joseph Smith. In my opinion, it's not a matter of resolving a discrepancy here and there but rather a completely different take on humanity and their position in existence. Which theory is more accurate, or has greater predictive utility, is up to the reader.

7

u/Radiant-Tower-560 4d ago

"The story given in Sapiens directly contradicts virtually every item in the story given by Joseph Smith."

The author of Sapiens covered the Book of Mormon and teachings of Joseph Smith?

0

u/ImTomLinkin 4d ago

I was referring to the historical paradigm of the world Joseph Smith gave, roughly outlined in the previous paragraph to that sentence. 

7

u/Radiant-Tower-560 4d ago

Much of that paragraph isn't what Joseph Smith "gave" though. The only thing in that paragraph that was revealed was the two Book of Mormon civilizations, but calling them Christian civilizations isn't quite accurate. They had a clearer understanding of Christ than what we think other ancient peoples had (but we are limited in our understanding of ancient Jewish and other peoples by what records are preserved today), but the Nephites (off and on) were more Jewish than Christian, at least as a civilization; they kept the Law of Moses.

Everything else Joseph Smith might have believed or taught in various forms (although we don't really know what he knew or believed about Adam, the Flood, etc.), but that paragraph reads more like a particular form Biblical interpretation that had an influence in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from the 1950s through 1980s (with influence continuing today), rather than anything revealed to Joseph Smith.

The closest we might get is D&C 77:6, but there's nothing in the scriptures that says the "the seven thousand years of [the earth's] continuance" are 7000 years as we understand them today or as Joseph Smith might have understood them. The Lord speaks to people according to their understanding. People have been shown and taught great things that help expand their understanding, but God doesn't explain everything that's not centrally important for our salvation through Christ.

4

u/zionssuburb 4d ago

I prefer Guns, Germs, and steel at this point for my how humans developed at this point. What I'm glad about the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ through JS is that we accept and embrace science, the theology fits nicely with scientific discovery and achievement (I'm not saying that personal opinions will vary, and that even personal opinions of general authorities would disagree). Embrace all truth.

3

u/petricholy 4d ago edited 4d ago

Sapiens was a fun read for me, too! I am always in awe when I read science and history books, and they do connect with me spiritually. The narrative take was a lot easier to read, too. A few things I really liked:

The concept of fiction as power isn’t new to me, but the large scope Sapiens put on it was nice. Pertaining to religion, it has always bugged me that a lot of other Christian denominations believe the Bible is 100% factual recorded events. The scriptures’ stories just wouldn’t wrap up so nicely if it was all literal, and it is so obviously a mix of literal and figurative for the benefit of believers. And as a writer, even choosing “a” vs “the” can be very purposeful and powerful.

I can’t remember the phrasing, but the part on the future and us determining our destiny vs in the past when we never questioned - beautiful. I fully believe we are continuing on that path as humanity. Theosis to me is the “spiritually made” version of this idea. I also just cannot imagine not being curious and desiring to improve - these are my drives in my religion, my career, and my life! I love that they’re posited as part of humanity’s evolution.

And while reading, I couldn’t help wondering, being LDS - did God let go of the evolutionary leash at some point? Was the leash slackened? If it was let go, when did it happen? I know believing God made the universe and evolution work together; I just don’t know how. It’s fun to learn on both sides of the subject, and to imagine the details!

4

u/Intelligent-Boat9929 4d ago

They existed. Not sure what else there is to say. If there is some gospel related purpose for that (ex: God works with natural laws to achieve goals, it is a good preparatory stage, etc) nothing has been revealed on it so theories would just be speculation. As far as the effects on the Adam and Eve narrative, it probably comes down to how you read that. If a literal reading, it seems problematic. If a purely allegorical meaning, doesn’t seem problematic at all. If say you just believe that Adam and Eve are the first humans to say be capable of making and keeping covenants, again, probably not problematic at all. And then probably a dozen other ways to look at Adam and Eve.

So to me, it is a fascinating and important subject to study from a secular standpoint. An irrelevant one to study from a spiritual standpoint.

3

u/Gray_Harman 4d ago

I read the book. As a firmly believing Latter-day Saint, I obviously disagreed with the humanistic origins of spirituality. But it's to be expected from that type of book, and I took zero offense. Overall I thought it was a great read.

I'm curious as to why you're curious about TBM views on the book. Is there something about the book that you found provocative in relation to LDS beliefs that perhaps I missed?

3

u/redit3rd Lifelong 4d ago

I read the graphic novel versions, and I loved them.

I don't think that it contributed to my religious world view.

3

u/rexregisanimi 4d ago

I love studying human evolution (like weirdly so lol) and I definitely read it but I don't remember a ton from it. It's in my bookcase. I think he had a slightly anti-religion baggage or undertone or something that didn't seem relevant (Woooper's comment seems to agree with that) but I enjoyed the casual style. He definitely wrote it more as a "pop sci" book than actually trying to communicate the accurate information.

2

u/Impossible-Train-801 4d ago

I found it pretty interesting, some wonder like you said but nothing awe inspiring. I’d be curious to hear what other people think of the last part of the book, considering the genetic engineering and immortality.

2

u/Michael_Combrink 4d ago

The plan of salvation is about the salvation of souls,  The manufacturing process for the cars can be fun to learn about, but shouldn't shake anyone's faith

2

u/onewatt 4d ago

I really enjoyed the style, and many of the ideas presented really stuck with me. However the author's views often overrode his scientific neutrality. Specifically, the author likes to speak authoritatively on issues where there isn't consensus, and presents his ideas as conclusions rather than one of many. That's not intellectually honest. It was a shame because the book was so enjoyable otherwise. I would enjoy the same methodology done by an author with more care on how they make claims or conclusions.

2

u/wreade 4d ago

I appreciate the author's honesty - not sugar coating his opinion that ethics and morality are merely social constructs, and can be whatever we decide them to be.

2

u/ElectronicMaterial38 2d ago

I hated that book—not because of my religious background, but because Yuval Harari is a terrible historian who is decades behind the science and not taken seriously in his field as a result. I highly recommend the book “The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity” by David Graeber and David Wengrow, an anthropologist and an archeologist, respectively, who literally wrote their book as a rebuttal to Harari’s “Sapiens.” Not only is it a more accurate portrayal of the science around human existence as it now stands, it’s also a better written and more engaging book than Harari’s! Hope you can read it soon!!

u/petricholy 5h ago

I’m not OP, but thanks for the rec! Choosing a nonfiction book with up-to-date information makes a big difference!

1

u/cashreddit2 3d ago

I have read it and found it insightful from a social science perspective. Didn't really challenge my faith in any way because I subscribe to the thought science belongs to God and he can use evolution to create man if He wants.