Thanks for your response. It is hard to take offence when someone makes sensible, reasonable comments without being offensive.

My complaint was more about the view expressed in the quote itself, rather than against Harari himself. His conclusion may be 'logical', but is it based on a correct worldview? The claim that this is what modern science teaches us is the problem. The various first nation people you mention may have had a better understanding.

Small point: is my translation hyper-literal? Homo means man, and deus means God.

I don't see how he is close to my position. He says that any supposed meaning is imaginary, an illusion, whereas I am saying that true meaning is real. These seem opposite to me.

I think your understanding of 'science' is superficial. We're not going to get very far on this without writing long essays. Briefly, however, 'scientists' often make statements for which there is no evidence. The most obvious is the claim by various neuroscientists that the brain is responsible for consciousness. This is another (false) conclusion, derived from “a purely scientific viewpoint”, just like in the quote from Harari.

It may not be conclusive, but there is plenty of evidence for the existence of entities inhabiting other levels. Your statement that there is “simply no material evidence” for their existence is true, but is a circular argument. Since they are not material, this statement does not add anything to the argument.

As you suggested, I have indeed seized on 'material'. Harari is not talking about the world as we can know it from evidence. He is describing the world as he sees it through the tinted lenses of his philosophical perspective.

The discipline of science is indeed hard. I wish that more people would pursue it, and not make metaphysical/philosophical statements and then call them 'science'.

Best wishes.