Thanks for your response Steve. I certainly agree that I approached the book with a bias, a bias against the physicalist worldview that this book represents. Would you agree that you approach my comments with a bias as well?

Regarding the rigorously enforced doctrine of physicalism. I have documented extensively in my posts on Medium how our cultural drivers of education, journalism, etc., closely reflect the physicalist belief system. No alternative that allows for transcendence for example can be taught in our schools because of the separation of church and state. But I have also made it clear that those of us living with this enforced view point do not necessarily agree. Physicalism says there is no transcendence, no god or God, no spirits, nothing other than matter and forces. Yet, over 90% of American’s believe in the afterlife, nearly three quarters believe in some form of transcendence and even a small majority of scientists and philosophers agree. Philosopher Taylor in A Secular Age calls our culture “cross pressured” because of this. I have called it cultural cognitive dissonance.

A major reason for my writing the critique of Sapiens was to point out how the physicalist belief system is foundational to the views he expresses. I find it most interesting in reviewing the comments on this post that for the most part those who take strong exception to my comments, such as yourself, do so because they agree with the physicalist belief system.