I certainly can expand. Here are some quotes (all from Chapter 6 except for #9 from chapter 7) that I found relevant to judging Harari's apparent philosophical leaning (I have not read the final section yet though):
1) Myths, it transpired, are stronger than anyone could have imagined. When the Agricultural Revolution opened opportunities for the creation of crowded cities and mighty empires, people invented stories about great gods, motherlands and joint stock companies to provide the needed social links
2) All these cooperation networks - from the cities of ancient Mesopotamia to the Qin and Roman empires - were 'imagined orders'. The social norms that sustained them were based neither on ingrained instincts nor on personal acquaintances, but rather on belief in shared myths.
3) Now let's examine the best-known myths of history: the Code of Hammurabi of c.1776 BC, which served as a cooperation manual for hundreds of thousands of ancient Babylonians; and the American Declaration of Independence of 1776 AD, which today serves as a cooperation manual for hundreds of millions of modern Americans....The Americans would, of course, say they are right and that Hammurabi is wrong. Hammurabi would naturally retort that he is right, and that the Americans are wrong. In fact they are both wrong. Hammurabi and the American Founding Fathers alike imagined a reality governed by universal and immutable principles of justice, such as equality or hierarchy. Yet the only place where such universal principles exist is in the fertile imaginations of Sapiens, and in the myths they invent and tell one another. These principles have no objective reality.
4) ...there are no such things as rights in biology.
5) From a biological viewpoint, it is meaningless to say that humans in democratic societies are free, whereas humans in dictatorships are unfree.
6) We believe in a particular order not because it is objectively true, but because believing in it enables us to cooperate effectively and forge a better society. Imagined orders are not evil conspiracies or useless mirages. Rather, they are the only way large numbers of humans can cooperate effectively.
7) There is no chance that gravity will cease to function tomorrow, even if people stop believing in it. In contrast, an imagined order is always in danger of collapse, because it depends on myths, and myths vanish once people stop believing in them. In order to safeguard an imagined order, continuous and strenuous efforts are imperative [paraphrasing, he goes on after this statement to suggest these efforts take the form of coercion/violence and the necessary existence of true believers]
8) People are unequal, not because Hammurabi said so, but because Enlil an Marduk decreed it. People are equal not because Thomas Jefferson said so, but because God created them that way. Free markets are the best economic system, not because Adam Smith said so, but because these are the immutable laws of nature.
9) Of course, not all hierarchies are morally identical.
Generally, #1-8 suggest that our belief in institutions, including legal systems and their moral content, are nothing more than mass delusions with perhaps some instrumental value in cementing a society together. That view holds the underlying moral principles that are expressed in a society are not real entities, hence the concept of moral anti-realism. A countervailing view holds that morality (and other considerations not strictly moral that underpin society, such as economic theory) represent objective knowledge about the world and are falsifiable. However--shockingly--Harari then states #9 above which confused me since that statement suggests that morals can be compared in an objective light (but he doesn't repeat this sort of statement later so either he is confused about what he's saying or he kludged the wording in this one case).
Now I will provide some details as to why I disagree:
#1: He makes no distinction between the types of beliefs that gods, nations, and business entities constitute. Gods are (I presume, #pascalswager) fictional entities that were invented but designed to be believed literally to exist by people. Nations have an identity and exist by virtue of the beliefs people hold about them (there is no further fact that defines a nation except for the existence of such beliefs). Finally, joint stock companies are explicitly understood to be legal inventions to facilitate certain forms of cooperation. These cases are not, in my view, directly comparable to one another, since the first (gods) is an actual delusion, the second (nations) actually exist given a more reasonable definition on what a nation is, and the last (joint stock companies) are human inventions to facilitate commerce and are explicitly instrumental in nature. What does it mean for a joint stock company to "exist" then? It means that if you embed such an entity in the framework of a society where certain legal and institutional norms are practiced, that such a company will have organizational advantages in operating compared to other feasible entities. That's not a "myth", it's a technique or strategy!
#3, #7, #8: Wow, he is being so cheeky juxtaposing the 1776 BC/AD dates! Taking #3 and #8 together, he is saying there is no meaningful difference in truth content between the Code of Hammurabi and the Declaration of Independence (which is an odd choice to make since the Declaration does not codify any law, but I'll proceed all the same). Here is a non-rigorous test of your proclivity towards moral anti-reality: do you believe that no moral progress was made between Hammurabi and Jefferson? Harari seems to suggest that since people of each era wouldn't agree on moral issues that there is no fact of the matter. That would be a very weak argument for the anti-realist perspective, but Harari never actually argues moral anti-realism effectively; rather, he merely presupposes it throughout his writing.
A second problem with this section is it takes each moral code as a fixed system of belief. I don't know about the evolution of Hammurabi's code but the Constitution was designed with a mechanism for change (Amendments) specifically built into the document! In other words, the Founding Fathers knew that their views could be mistaken and hence need to be modified in the future. That is why I lumped in #7: he cites coercion and true believers as necessary components in preserving his "imagined orders" but ignores the most critical component of post-Enlightenment thought which is that beliefs are falsifiable. Thus, there are not just true believers and non-believers but skeptics as well, and all of this brings about periodic shifts in beliefs from those that are less accurate to those that are more accurate. This fact means anyone who believes in a moral code should also believe that they could be wrong about any component of their belief. That doesn't mean that moral truth doesn't exist, it means our knowledge is just never perfect and never fully tested (which is true of all scientific knowledge as well).
#4 Well there are no such things as cells in physics, so is biology in doubt?
#5 Same fallacy as #4 but this one sure is a howler! (At least I think so but I haven't slept much in a couple days). The reason different academic disciplines exist is to describe phenomena at different levels of organization. I get the impression that maybe more than being anti-realist, Harari is actually just a strict reductionist (at least to the level of biology since apparently that's one of the disciplines he studied). I also wonder if Harari believes in consciousness, since the brain is nothing but neurons and chemicals, and those nothing but atoms, etc.
#6 This isn't so bad since it almost admits entities like I describe with respect to the joint stock company example.
So this may sound as though I don't like the book, but the main disaster in my view was Chapter 6 where this nagging phrasing annoyed me and detracted from the main thrust of the discourse. I have a personal problem with moral anti-realism because if that view is correct, it makes me feel nihilistic and depressed but that's just a crazy personal reason of mine to favor realism!
Finally, I am also disappointed he adds nothing to the harder questions raised by his review (the causes of the Cognitive Revolution and an explanation of why the Scientific Revolution occurred where/when it did). Now I'll brace myself for the alleged craziness of the last section!