Yuval Harari, an advisor to Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum (WEF), has published a video of himself, on his YouTube channel, claiming that his same-sex attraction has made him a “much better scientist”.
Not a scientist in degree
Entitled "Q&A on Being Gay,” the video does not explain what makes Harari a scientist in the first place, failing to mention that his degree is a doctorate of philosophy, not of a STEM (Science, technology, engineering, or mathematics) subject.
Likewise, Harari’s teaching assignment at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, where he ironically tries to convince his students that the world’s first Hebrew, Abraham, was a fraud, is in history, not science.
Abraham is called a Hebrew (one who has “passed over”) in the Bible because he passed over from the side of idolatry to that of monotheism, earning him the merit of prophecy. Harari claims to present evidence that the history of the very people he teaches is fraudulent. What emerges from a review of his presentation is the conclusion that it is his evidence that is fraudulent.
Not a scientist in practice
Harari tells his audience,
When I was young I was told that all boys are attracted to girls and I believed that. It took me a long time to realize that this is just a story invented by humans and that the reality is that some boys love other boys and I happen to be one of them. It is a great wisdom to accept reality as it is, even if it contradicts the stories most people believe.
Not only is there nothing scientific about this reasoning, but it’s an exemplary use of the fallacious and deceptive straw man argument.
Resorting to a straw man
Merriam Webster defines straw man as,
a weak or imaginary opposition (such as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted.
The Bible, of course, never says “all boys are attracted to girls,” just as it does not say, “all people do not steal.” On the contrary, the Bible only prohibits activities for the performance of which an inclination exists within people.
Harari’s refutation of his self-generated straw man claim that the Bible supposes all boys to be attracted to girls thus proves nothing other than Harari’s insincerity. The reality he claims supersedes the Bible is actually the very reality assumed by the Bible in its admonishments to avoid acting on the reality of human drives.
Same-sex attraction not singled out in Bible
It is also worth clarifying that the Bible does not, in any case, prohibit attractions but rather acting on those attractions in certain cases, including adulterous heterosexual relations and even heterosexual relations within a marriage at certain times.
‘Big man in the sky’ straw man
Harari continues setting up fake, and rather unimaginative, straw men.
Similarly, many people say that there is a great big man in the sky who gets very angry if two men love one another. But this is just another imaginary story people invented … No big man in the sky becomes angry about it. The only ones who get angry are all kinds of priests and rabbis.
Who exactly was claiming the presence of “a great big man in the sky?” Certainly not the Book of Deuteronomy:
And you shall watch yourselves very well, for you did not see any image on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire. Lest you become corrupt and make for yourselves a graven image, the representation of any form, the likeness of male or female …
Harari doesn’t just ignore the Biblical statement that God does not have “any form,” and specifically not the form of a “male.” He describes for his listeners a fraudulent “big man in the sky” and claims for himself incredible “wisdom to accept reality,” a reality that every child attending Bible class already learns.
. . . their brother Lot said to them, “Will you not fear God? ... Must you, unlike [other] people, lust after males and abandon the wives that God has created for you? You are exceeding all bounds."
More importantly, today, the 11 countries where being gay is punishable by death are all majority-Muslim.
Is Harari, a professor of history, unaware of Islam’s approach to homosexuality? Or did he specifically say, “The only ones who get angry are all kinds of priests and rabbis,” because he was following politically correct protocol and not using the scientific method he claims to have mastered?
‘Sex for procreation only’ straw man
Having gotten used to creating straw men, Harari goes on, in this short video, to create a third:
The idea that sex exists only for the purpose of procreation is complete nonsense invented by priests and rabbis.
Harari provides no source for these “priests and rabbis” or their “invention”. He easily could have verified, though, that the Bible specifies conjugal rights for women that are independent of pregnancy and menopause.
Likewise, Catholic Answers informs readers that,
. . . the Church has never taught conjugal love was only for procreation. If that were the case, the Church would have always banned from marriage those couples . . . for reasons of sterility on the part of either spouse, not able to conceive.
Creation story mocked
Harari then attacks the entire Bible.
. . . all this is mythology. God didn't create humans and other animals. They evolved by natural selection.
In so stating, Harari tries to convince his audience that the scientific view of evolution is simple and unanimous, as it’s expressed in middle school text books prepared by professors, without a hint of the controversy at the university level, where difficulties implicit in the theory, including the development of complex organs such as eyes, have been hotly debated.
In his landmark publication The Origins of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Charles Darwin avowed that “to suppose the eye with all of its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberrations could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree possible.” Darwin went on to label this dilemma as the problem of organs of extreme perfection and complication.
While Darwin held out the possibility that eyes could have randomly developed, he tied his hope to whether,
science later establishes numerous, connected gradations from simple to complex in the fossil record.
Such gradations were never found and no logical reason has been proffered as to why plenty of remains of different species were fossilized and found while intermediate species, which would have likewise had plentiful opportunities for fossilization, were not.
The Christian Research Institute observes an additional difficulty with the idea of the gradual evolution of the eye: some optical components are counterproductive in the absence of components with which they work synergistically.
. . . it’s one thing to stretch credulity by suggesting that the complexities of the eye evolved by chance; it’s quite another to surmise that the eye could have evolved in concert with a myriad of other coordinated functions. Here’s a case in point. You have extraordinarily tuned muscles that surround the eye for precision motility and shape the lens for the function of focus.
Not only this, but consider the fact that as you look around there are a vast number of impulses that are traveling from your eyes through millions of nerve fibers that transmit information to a complex computing center in your brain, which is called the visual cortex. Linking the visual information from your eyes to motor centers in the brain is absolutely critical in creating a vast number of bodily functions that are axiomatic to the process of daily living.
With this coordinated development of the eye in synergistic fashion, the isolated developments would not only be meaningless they would be counterproductive … What Darwin once thought to be relatively simple actually involved staggeringly complicated biochemical processes that demand explanation. Evolution simply cannot account for this inexplicable Lilliputian world of complexity.
Such “complexity” should not be dismissed with a simple accusation that the Biblical account is “mythology”.
Eliminating the Opiate?
Without a scientific basis to Harari’s antagonism to religion, one must wonder from where it derives? While Harari spotlights the Bible’s prohibition of homosexual acts as central to his attack on religion, nearly all people violate biblical precepts at some point, such as the commandment not to gossip about others.
Could Harari’s war with religion reflect a deeper calling? Karl Marx declared,
Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. [Emphases added].
Marxism’s attack on religion is not confined to the pen. Communist revolutions are perhaps most dangerous to religious citizens, as exemplified by Communist China’s forced removal of a million Muslim Uyghurs to "re-education camps" featuring a “shoot-to-kill policy for those trying to escape.”
Marx’s desire to eliminate the opiate of religion was not limited to any one religion and extended even, like Harari, to the religion into which he was born, as expressed in his less known book, “A World Without Jews.” Though not Marx’s originally chosen title, the book’s contents match it well, amounting to one of the “classics of antisemitic propaganda."
Own nothing and not be happy?
The American Thinker connects the WEF’s Great Reset with Marx’s socialism:
One of the most powerful global wealth controllers, the World Economic Forum (WEF), has openly declared its commitment to socialism under the "Great Reset."
In fact, the WEF is quite up front about eliminating property rights, with a social media video listing eight predictions about the world in 2030, including:
You’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy.
With WEF advisor Harari’s record of fraudulent statements, one might be excused for worrying that the WEF may intend to fulfill only the first of those two sentences.