As Dr. Harari asserted not only that God is a fiction, but he also asserted that human rights are a fiction, a nice fairy tale with no basis in reality. Dr. Harari apparently believes that human rights are simply a made up story. He further explains that if you dissect a human there are no rights there. Instead, there is simply a physical display of anatomy and what is left of the biological processes. Thus, he concludes that the only place human rights exist is in the imagination. A mountain is a reality, countries and legal systems, heaven, God, are not based in biological reality, they are merely artifacts of the imagination. Thus, homosapiens have no rights.

If there are no human rights, then none of us have a right to protections under the law. Neither do we have the right to possessions or relationships, or our experiences, or our body, or our mind, or to our life. If this is the case, then it begs the question, does Dr. Harari have a right to live?

First, let's address the certainty, some might even say hubris, that Dr. Harari appears to project his opinion on human rights and even reality itself. The healthy skepticism of the ancient Greeks taught us empiricism and logic. Yet even logic and empiricism have an Achilles heal.

There is an often unspoken reality that underlies all, whether philosophical, religious, political, legal, ethical, or even scientific discussions and debates. This is the unfortunate reality that the original assumption or premise of every discussion or debate is always unproven. We accept, often unconsciously, the agreed upon unproven premise or assumption and engage in the discussion or debate.

Consider the scientific method and testing of a hypothesis or theory. Technically a hypothesis or theory can never be proven. We can only accumulate data that either supports the hypothesis or theory or does not support it. This in itself is often forgotten when the high priests of science push scientific theories as if they were scientific dogma. Still, in a perfect world science is an open ended continuous search for the truth relying upon the scientific method. Yet, the premise underlying the scientific method itself, and the view that a hypothesis can never be proven, is based on an unproven premise. Essentially, we come to an approximation for the truth and take a leap of faith on the original premise.