I was listening to a recent speech that Matt Dillahunty gave in Australia (listen here if you’re interested), and in part of it he brought up the story of the Tower of Babel, found in Genesis 11. It’s a story I’ve thought about several times since leaving Christianity. I don’t recall everything Matt said about it, though I know I’ll be making some of the same points he did. I haven’t been a Christian for about 5 years now, and it’s sometimes hard to imagine that I ever believed stories like this one, though I definitely did. And a number of other conservative Christians do as well.
A few days ago, I asked my wife if she remembered what God was angry about in this story, and she gave the same reason that I thought: God was angry because people were being prideful. In case you’ve forgotten, the crux of the story is that several generations after the flood, mankind was growing numerous, and they all had one common language. They decided to build a tower that would reach Heaven (see how prideful?), so God put a stop to it by confusing their language. This caused the various groups to split up, each person going along with whomever could understand him or her.
However, after looking at the details a bit more, it turns out that my recollection was a bit off. First, the people weren’t actually being prideful at all. Instead of trying to build a tower to Heaven — God’s abode — they were just trying to build a tall one to make it easier to stay in one geographic area:
Now the whole earth had one language and the same words. 2 And as people migrated from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. 3 And they said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly.” And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar. 4 Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth.”
— Genesis 11:1-4
The phrase “in the heavens” is just talking about the sky, not the realm of God. For just a moment though, let’s pretend that they really had been trying to reach God with their tower. Why would that be such a bad thing? Doesn’t the Bible repeatedly tell us to seek after God? Furthermore, would they have succeeded? On September 12, 2013, Voyager 1 actually left our solar system. In all those miles, it didn’t bump into Heaven. No earth-based tower would ever run the risk of reaching God’s home. So not only were the people not attempting that, even if they had been it wouldn’t have succeeded, and it actually would have been flattering toward God.
So if God wasn’t angry at them for being prideful, why did he confuse their language and force them apart? The next few verses give us the answer:
And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of man had built. 6 And the Lord said, “Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another’s speech.” 8 So the Lord dispersed them from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. 9 Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth. And from there the Lord dispersed them over the face of all the earth.
— Genesis 11:5-9
Essentially, God was just being a jerk. He was like a kid stirring up an anthill. I mean, God forbid (literally) that people advance technologically, right? Wouldn’t want them discovering things like the germ theory of disease, after all. And why prevent wars by keeping people within the same culture? Much better, I guess, to create different cultures so mistrust and bigotry can form. Furthermore, if this was such a problem at the time, why hasn’t he stopped us again? We’ve figured out ways to overcome language and culture barriers now. We’ve done so much more than just “build a tall tower.” God’s motivation in this story simply makes no sense at all.
However, if you step back for a moment and stop trying to view this as literal history with an actual god, things become clearer. Imagine living thousands of years ago and trying to make sense of the world around you. You think the world is flat and that the sun revolves around it. You don’t understand the cause of thunder storms, earthquakes, or volcanoes. You can’t imagine how animals and humans got here without some kind of creator. And if there’s a creator, why didn’t he make life easier? Why does he allow disease and starvation? There are so many difficult questions that just have no answer. And so people began to formulate answers as best they could. It’s easy to see that one of those questions may have been “why didn’t God (the gods) give us all the same language?” And so they came up with an answer.
Looking at it from that perspective, it’s much easier to understand how a story like this came to be. These people were dealing with the world as they saw it — and to them, the only reason they could think of for God not wanting everyone to have the same language, is that they would accomplish too much. They had no idea that humanity would one day find a way around that problem, rendering their explanation invalid.
Speaking as someone who grew up believing that stories like this were actual history, I know how easy it is to just go along under that assumption without question, especially if those around us believe as we do. It’s not stupidity; it’s either isolation and ignorance, or it’s stubbornness. We can help the isolated and ignorant by just being available to discuss these things when they come up. And with the Bible, there are plenty of examples to be found.
Finding Truth 
@ABlacksmanagain
Not a problem. I usually don’t have the chance to comment very often anyway.
This may come down to how we define naturalism (materialism). Since both an eternal mind or an eternal universe have no beginning I don’t think they require an explanation. They would just be “necessary” as philosophers would say. If we define naturalism as “everything that requires an explanation has a natural explanation” then there is no problem.
If we define supernatural as “the involvement of an invisible, intelligent entity” and we tried to say that an eternal universe required a supernatural explanation then I think we would have to apply this criteria to the eternal mind as well.
LikeLike
“The only person whose intelligence I have questioned on this blog is yours and that is only because you were being such a prick. Unless you can be a little more civil, I too am done conversing with you.”
Gary, people like Mike resort to these tactics when they don’t have a defense of their beliefs. He’s also an Internet Troll who gets off on doing fly by’s . He respects no one and receives respect from no one.
I’m a little surprised he surfaced here again after he had been asked to leave / banned last time. Of course he has to keep changing his name because being banned must be commonplace with him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“There is a big difference between calling a belief silly and calling a person silly or stupid.”
Fell free to lie to yourself and those who support you but I have seen you insult the intelligence of people not just beliefs so thats pretty much a straight up lie
” What baffles me is how such intelligent people can believe such silly superstitions.”
Thats not engaging or debating thats just resorting to rhetoric. in the absence of answering any counter point to your argument its pretty much the “tell” of a person that hasn’t got a very good thought out one
“The only person whose intelligence I have questioned on this blog is yours and that is only because you were being such a prick.”
Your word for anyone who effectively takes apart your arguments, I take it as a compliment and a sure sign of a hypocrite since anyone that resort to derogative name calling instantly loses the right to be heard on the issue of civility.
” I too am done conversing with you.”
tears are flowing down my cheeek. My entire life hangs the balance. You are that important
LikeLike
“Unfortunately for you the child born to Isaiah is not named emmanuel. If that child was who was meant then his name would have been Immanuel as the prophecy indicated…yet there is not indication he is ever called that name but a completely other one……epic fail.” – ABlacksmanagain
interesting. if this is how you see, if you see the name being a literal part of the “prophecy” then jesus is also an epic fail. brilliant work, genius.
i disagree, however. Immanuel, “god with us” was intended be an indication of god’s providence. “By the time the child did this or that, god would have provided for his people…”
It’s just a simple reading of the text. What makes much less sense, if we’re using our context clues and letting ISaiah speak for itself, it is clearly not talking about a baby born 700 years later. it makes zero sense.
Why trust matthew anyways? he cant count (his genealogy), he credits Jeremiah with a quote of Zechariah, and he says that jesus rode on two donkeys at the same time during his triumphal entry. oh yes, and the dead coming back to life – that no one else recorded because, you know, no big big deal.
I was under the impression you were a christian, but you only think mary was a virgin prior to her conceiving and you think the messiah must be literally named “immanuel.” are you jewish or what?
LikeLike
“I know you are, but what am I?”
That’s what most of this dialogue has become. It would be nice to see more substantive conversation from all sides. I imagine most people on the sidelines have stopped reading by now.
LikeLike
“This may come down to how we define naturalism (materialism). Since both an eternal mind or an eternal universe have no beginning I don’t think they require an explanation.”
Ah but not so fast. Naturalism/materialism depends on the idea that one thing leads to another – that reality works by process. Once you take that away you no longer have naturalism. I mean you can still try and use the word but its no longer naturalism as we know it. Science meets an immovable road block and there’s no figuring it out. The candidate for ultimate reality therefore does not obey naturalism
“They would just be “necessary” as philosophers would say. If we define naturalism as “everything that requires an explanation has a natural explanation” then there is no problem.”
You are looking at naturalism from an explanation standpoint whereas for it to be real it has to practically operative so its more about – does this work? and it doesn’t at the point where there are no more causes or processes
“If we define supernatural as “the involvement of an invisible, intelligent entity” and we tried to say that an eternal universe required a supernatural explanation then I think we would have to apply this criteria to the eternal mind as well.”
You’d have to get more into what you mean by the eternal mind but at this point my argument does not necessitate any particular supernatural entity it s just argues for a supernatural entity or more succinctly that the universe is ultimately dependent on a super (beyond) natural cause
LikeLike
“Its your priori that the mere mention of anything that cannot be materialistically explained is absurd. most of the population rejects that and believe not only does God exist but he can act.” – ABlacksman
not at all, just unlikely, as everything i’ve experienced has a natural, not a supernatural, cause. Just like if someone told me that they saw big foot. They may have seen something, they may have seen something they thought was a big foot, but without seeing myself, i doubt their claim. Now, if they told me they saw a deer, sure, i can buy that. This really makes perfect sense. and i would assume that you’d act the same for any other religion’s claims, or any claims where the fish seem just too big… or, maybe you’re a gullible fool and believe anything, i really dont know – I can only tell you with certainty how i view such tall tales.
“This is why I have called on multiple occasions for parties here to deal with the issue of ultimate causation in an infinite reality. Some have got a taste for where it logically ends and run like said scared puppies. Like a domino chain you cannot claim to have dealt with what is natural and what is supernatural until you deal with the problem of the first domino falling over and what caused it..” _ ABlacksmanagain
we’ve spoken about it, if you recall. i know that since you claim to not read all of the comments it would have been easy to miss, but it was discussed. For me, maybe the universe or multi-verse are eternal. maybe there were god(s) who created, maybe they were all knowing and all powerful, and maybe they werent. maybe something created our creators, and on and on. maybe there’s a first cause scenario that I havent even considered… neat.
But dont let yourself off the hook, I recall you being asked numerous times, and recall you failing to answer numerous times, how if we were all to concede that there was a creator, how that must then mean that it was your creator. How? take us from “god of the first cause” to the god of the bible.
and can you show how reality is infinite?
I am more than happy to discuss this with you.
LikeLike
“interesting. if this is how you see, if you see the name being a literal part of the “prophecy” then jesus is also an epic fail. brilliant work, genius.”
the great thing for a person that cannot think very well is that he always thinks he’s up on the argument no matter how badly the facts show he is flopping . Fact: Jesus is called by many people Immanuel. There are even multiple songs he is called such. Now go ahead and wow us with how many times the child born to Isaiah is called immanuel?
In short you have no point you almost never do but you always think you do
“i disagree, however. Immanuel, “god with us” was intended”
Now whose rewriting the Bible to suit himself? Who cares what you disagree with? the prophecy clearly states “and he shall be called”
its not even worth my time engaging you further when you can’t even process the obvious words in the prophecy
LikeLike
“Science meets an immovable road block and there’s no figuring it out.” -ABlacksmanagain
I can see where you’d think this, but we dont know that’s correct at all. Newton thought there was no explaining how the celestial bodies stayed in their orbits, but now physicists explain quite well how gravity does it naturally.
this doesnt prove or disprove god, it just shows that science has a track record of figuring things out that were once thought, by very very bright minds, to be impossible to understand.
there may come a point where science will simply have no other place to go, but so far that hasnt been the case, and we all see the effects of it. tangible effects. in religion we see the effects of people’s belief – there is a difference.
LikeLike
“the great thing for a person that cannot think very well is that he always thinks he’s up on the argument no matter how badly the facts show he is flopping.” _ ABlacksmanagain
agreed. we all maintain hope that you’ll grow out of it.
. “Fact: Jesus is called by many people Immanuel. There are even multiple songs he is called such. Now go ahead and wow us with how many times the child born to Isaiah is called immanuel?” – ABlacksmanagain
another FACT is that those people call jesus that, and wrote songs about “Immanuel” is because they stopped reading Isaiah at chapter 7 and readily swallowed what matthew was peddling without investigating it for themselves. They read the translated word “virgin” and saw where matthew said jesus was born of a “virgin” and they were brought up in a society that contained a lot of well meaning, but ultimately ignorant people who believed and taught that jesus was born of a virgin just like Isaiah said.
are we going off of tradition or what the bible says? where in the bible does it say jesus was ever called Immanuel? the verse in matthew just recites what isaiah said about the kid born in isaiah chapter 8.
LikeLike
“are we going off of tradition or what the bible says?”
it says he will be called Immanuel and he is called Immanuel by millions over the years. The end. You can twist and gyrate and try and claim its because of the square root of whatever number you chose. he IS called Immanuel.
that horse is dead. You don’t believe in resurrections 😉 …so move on
“I can see where you’d think this, but we dont know that’s correct at all. Newton thought there was no explaining how the celestial bodies stayed in their orbits, but now physicists explain quite well how gravity does it naturally.”
Son, leave the big thinking to the big kids. Dave and i were talking about infinite past and you are talking about Newton a few hundred years ago. If you think Science will one day find an explanation for an uncaused cause you are hopelessly lost.
but……..have a great day!
LikeLike
ABlacksmanagain,
I’m just reading Isaiah, and not stopping at Chapter 7, then leaping to matthew. just read Isaiah in his full context. You’ll see that it’s not my problem, it’s just what isaiah was talking about. take it with him, if you like.
and if we say it must be a literal name, then how about the philosopher immanuel kent? everyone who knew him, called him immanuel. we can call anyone immanuel, but if a person’s actual name is immanuel, then everyone calls him that.
the “being called immanuel” is a very weak reason to say that isaiah was talking about jesus, because a few conditioned people began calling him immanuel a hundred or so years after his death.
LikeLike
“Son, leave the big thinking to the big kids. Dave and i were talking about infinite past and you are talking about Newton a few hundred years ago. If you think Science will one day find an explanation for an uncaused cause you are hopelessly lost.” – ABlacksmanagain
correct. newton was one example. you may not have read my entire comment – I allowed that there may one day be a point where science will hit its limit, it’s just that we arent there yet, and that there have been naysayers like yourself who have been shown to be wrong.
it really doesnt matter, as it has nothing to do with the bible. Maybe there was a first cause, science currently shows it wasnt as the bible paints it. Maybe there was a creator, by something doesnt need to be created (as you seem to maintain), but that still doesnt validate the bible. this is a simple concept. if you’re here to show the bible is indeed from god, speaking on theoretical physics does nothing to support the bible. you may as well be saying that “4+4 does not equal 6, therefor the bible is from god.” it doesnt follow, not matter how interesting it is.
maybe you should show how deflating a first cause or no-cause theory does anything to support the bible? then show how a creator god means that the bible is from that god, even if such a creator god could be proven.
if not, maybe we can discuss what passages within the bible say, and how that measures up with itself and with what is known ion science, history and archaeology.
and people today who misunderstand isaiah’s “prophecy” do call jesus “immanuel.” you’re right. that does not prove that isaiah was talking about jesus. it makes zero sense in isaiah’s context. I wish i had crayons to draw it out for you, i just do not not. jesus was not names immanuel, and since some of us call Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz, “immanuel”, it still works just as well for him as it does jesus.
LikeLike
“Thats not engaging or debating thats just resorting to rhetoric.” – ABlacksmanagain
LikeLike
“Whatever you might claim a divided world religion without him as the focus is a much better scenario for God than a united one. It makes complete sense.” – ABLacksmanagain
LikeLike
“Unfortunately for you the child born to Isaiah is not named emmanuel. If that child was who was meant then his name would have been Immanuel as the prophecy indicated…” – ABlacksmanagain
“it says he will be called Immanuel and he is called Immanuel by millions over the years. The end. You can twist and gyrate and try and claim its because of the square root of whatever number you chose. he IS called Immanuel.” – ABlacksmanagain
I dont mind watching goal posts move. It’s okay. neither were names immanuel, although some people were named immanuel (immanuel kent the philosopher being one of them) but both, as well anyone I guess, can be and have been called immanuel.
Isaiah 7 still says what it says, and chapter 8 still says what it does. it doesnt have to be an argument, it’s written there for anyone to read.
LikeLike
“Au contraire. You are on a blog populated by a number of atheists and there are many atheists who contend that we need to offer proof of a creator’s existence. NO need to accomodate ourselves only for you. Besides rationally the options for The creator are not very diverse. Unless you believe God would hide himself in some cult ineffectively reaching the world then you really have only three options of which Christianity is the most logical conclusion (at least for non Jews).” _ ABlacksmanagain
it seems like you’re using some form of reason. If you take that further you may ask that if god doesnt want to hide himself, then why “display” himself in a book that is widely contested, written by men so that it is only the claims of men?
and I guess you’re agreeing that there is no proof of you god other than the bible, and well, we only have so many available options, so why no the bible?
I guess we’re discussing why the bible isnt it. “NO!”, “NUH-UH!” and “yOU’RE STUPID!” or “YOU DONT KNOW ANCIENT HEBREW!” arent as good of defenses as you may think. so proof of your god and proof that the men who wrote the bible should be trusted at their word is still a reasonable request… especially when the book you believe in make bold claims, has contradictions, failed prophecies, and scientifically retarded statements. Like hares chew a cud.
“BUT THAT WAS WRITTEN BEFORE THE SCIENTIFIC TERM ‘CUD’ WAS MADE!” “HARES EAT THEIR POOP, SO THAT’s WHAT IT MEANT!”
barbecue poop is so much more like the stuff the other cud chewers eat than the poop the pigs (bible says dont chew cud) eat…. (this only one example)
muslims would say the same thing in defense of their god, religion and koran, and have just as much supporting evidence. They can even claim to be the fastest growing religion. it doesnt mean anything, but that usually doesnt stop a believer from using something to argue for their cause.
“Yes I have read some of your banter against the NT but it only holds up well for the likes of Nate and bitter alleged ex Christians. Most of the Christian world is not too troubled by it. i’ve taken apart several of Nate’s sure contradictions in my previous excursions here. ho hum” _ ABlacksmanagain
except you havent.
LikeLike
@ABlacksmanagain
I’m not taking that away. I’m saying it could go on forever. There would be infinite causation in both the “past” and the “future”. I cannot prove or disprove this, but just because our brains don’t handle infinity very well does not make it impossible.
The point where there are no more causes or processes is never reached in an eternal multiverse or oscillating universe.
From the way I see it there are at least 4 options available:
(1) An eternal mind exists which created our local universe
(2) An eternal universe exists which spawned our local universe
(3) A mind exists which had a beginning which created our universe
(4) A universe exists which had a beginning (could be ours or one that led to ours)
I don’t like (3) or (4) because anything with a beginning begs the question “what caused it to begin?”.
With (1) we have a conscious mind that never ceases to think and with (2) we have unconscious particles and forces that never cease to fluctuate. There is no “ultimate cause” for the infinite fluctuations or infinite thoughts, they are just brute facts in these two theories of reality.
LikeLiked by 2 people
KC, if Gary really wants to know more about “Mike” and his obnoxious, abrasive behavior, he need only to go to Nate’s post of last year, “Letter to Kathy (the Bible Has Problems)” and scan down to find some of his comments.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here was Ark’s well-phrased response to him:
The Arkster gets it right once in a while.
LikeLiked by 1 person
it’s the same as the argument for god. there must have been a beginning, so god was that beginning and god needs no cause.
it could be correct, but it’s just words. Mike says science will never be able to confirm or deny this. fine, then it’s just words. some people want to act as if the inability to know is some victory for their religion, but it’s nothing. it’s moot. cant prove it, touch it, taste it, smell it, see it, test it, count it – then it begins to look a lot like the imaginary, as all you can do is imagine it.
“but something had to be the first cause” okay, maybe, but so what? how does that come close to proving or even being evidence for the bible? Just because the bible is an available option?
I very much enjoy reading about it and talking about it all. either way that discussion ends up, though, it lends no validity to the bible’s claims.
LikeLike
“it makes zero sense in isaiah’s context.”
it makes lots of sense because isaiah’s context flows onto chapter 9 where a light/person comes out of Gallilee that is to be called mighty God, everlasting father and a slew of other names that coould and would only be logically heaped on God himself.
“and people today who misunderstand isaiah’s “prophecy” do call jesus “immanuel.” you’re right. that does not prove that isaiah was talking about jesus.”
and did I claim simply because jesus is called Immanuel that proves that he is the one?
this is exhibit A on how malformed your logic is and why I will officially now be totally ignoring you. You cannot follow basic flows of logic and its just too torturous to have to teach you to think logically as an added burden of discussing things with you
You proposed the child born in Isaiah 8 as the child in question
I negate it because he is never called immanuel (one of the conditions in the prophecy)
you then claim because your proposition is negated that I am claiming that the mere naming of someone as Immanuel makes the them the subject of the prophecy
Too utterly silly
NO it negates your proposition. its a single but required condition. It does not claim that that is the sole basis but as usual such a simple understanning of logic will fly right over your head
Officially being totally ignored at least for the next few days
LikeLike
Science differs from theology in that it builds its case one puzzle-piece of facts at a time until a picture forms, instead of leaping straight to “goddidit.” When the picture finally emerges, if it ever does, it will be an entirely naturalist one – no gods need apply. Just look at how far we’ve come in the last century alone.
LikeLike
Has anyone seen how Christians harmonize the 15 generation difference in the genealogies of Matthew and Luke? If every generation is 20 years, that would mean that Joseph was 300 years older than Mary. How can that be explained away?
LikeLike
“You cannot follow basic flows of logic” – ABlacksmanagain
one of us cannot.
“its a single but required condition.” – ABlacksmanagain
right. and there are other conditions, like being a sign to Ahaz the king, which jesus was not. and a few other conditions that isaiah’s kid fulfills in that regard, as pointed out in chapter 8.
and reading chapter 8, while isiaiah doesnt call the kid “immanuael” (is there a passage that calls jesus “immanuel”?) he does allude to it several verses. you’d just have to read it on the tail of chapter 7. but you were invited to mensa, you should know this.
I think one of your problems is that instead of looking at the bible as several books compiled over a long period of time, you’re taking it as one book, along with the presupposition that it’s god’s book, that there is a god and that his son is jesus. why do you think that?
when looking at isaiah, what he wrote and his audience, jesus makes no sense. no one even thought that it may allude to some distant future savior until Matthew made the claim. and matthew, dont forget, is this THE idiot of the gospel writers, making several errors. I can list a few again, if need be.
LikeLike