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 
“newton was one example.” – Newton noticed certain perturbations, William, in the orbits of the planets, that if extrapolated, indicated that over time, the planets would ultimately fly out of their orbits. Today, we know that these are self-correcting, but Newton decided that comets were actually angels, swooping down from heaven, to correct those orbits. Since Newton was the Einstein/Hawking of his era, his conclusion could well have held. Fortunately, reasonable minds are not so easily satisfied, and rather than accept such nonsense as fact, science moved on until, finally, the actual mechanisms were determined, and they didn’t involve angels. So it will ultimately be with every explanation for naturalist events currently attributed to supernatural processes.
The wise man says “We don’t know the answer, so we’ll have to look harder for evidence.” The theist says, “We don’t know the answer, so an obscure little desert storm-god, YHWH, first known to be worshiped by the nomadic, goat-herding Middianites/Kenites in the south of the Levant in the 13th century BC, must have done it.“
LikeLike
“Isaiah 7 still says what it says, and chapter 8 still says what it does.” – The apologist’s most oft-used phrase: “But what the Bible REALLY means is….”
LikeLike
“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”.”
You are missing that that doesn’t matter at all. Infinite has no end so when you say infinite causations you are still saying there is no ultimate cause. You can go on forever and ever but if a process has no beginning and reason for itself is just not what people refer to as natural. if today something happens and it actually has zero reason for happening that would be considered by any reasonable practical definition to be miraculous. it certainly would not be considered a natural event. Now I guess we could try to redefine natural as anything that happens in our universe even if it has no cause but then we might as well go right ahead and redefine miracles as possibly being a part of our universe for the same said reason
” just because our brains don’t handle infinity very well does not make it impossible.”
Well we have been talking as if infinity past is even something the human mind has to try and grasp when infinite past is not even a given or even has the slightest evidence for its existence. I’ve been reasoning within that proposition to examine it but not necessarily buying it because it really has nothing to suggest its real. If you are thinking that theism requires infinite past you would be wrong. Christianity and Judaism propose a god outside of time not one within an infinitely old universe, Christianity requires him creating time not being subject to it.
“The point where there are no more causes or processes is never reached in an eternal multiverse or oscillating universe.”
well You are trying to envision getting there or attempting to get there but failing. An infinitely old universe has no beginning its not merely a problem with getting there. the start point does not and cannot exist. So still there is no cause and naturalism is defeated
“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 thes””
Unfortunately 2 is kind of sneaking back in process into universe that has no ultimate beginning. Essentially the “fluctuations are dependent on processes but the processes not only does not have a start point but given infinity has an infinite chain of of uncaused causes (such are the vagaries of infinities – we cannot isolate single points. we can try to pick a point but there is always an infinite more points behind it).
Again the problem I am addressing is that of natural processes within an infinitely old universe . Unless you or some one can come up with a way to claim that a process can be natural but have no reason or cause the whole idea of naturalism is defeated and even if you do come up with such a stance it does nothing but redefine reality to allow for events that have no ultimate explanation so the idea of miracles become rather blase.
P.S, whats even more paradoxical to your brute force fact of a universe that operates by the process of fluctuations is that though such a universe would have the property of process as it “fluctuates” it does not ultimately operate because of processes
LikeLike
from nates post “Prophecy Part 6: Tyre”
Mike Anthony
May 7, 2014 at 3:34 pm
“do you? what are your credentials?
Seminary training.
ABlacksmanagain
May 18, 2015 at 4:17 pm
“wasnt your degree in seminary? I think the references was in real college degrees.”
NO it wasn’t
well, i stand corrected. he never said he had a degree in seminary, just “training.” my memory isnt perfect, but i knew something about seminary had been mentioned by mike.
trained in seminary, what’s your degree in? it doesnt matter, I guess.
LikeLike
“Has anyone seen how Christians harmonize the 15 generation difference in the genealogies of Matthew and Luke?”
This Christian as well as many others I have read do not consider genealogies to be necessarily exhaustive. They often skipped generation or several generations particularly ones just for showing the line of ancestry.
” If every generation is 20 years, that would mean that Joseph was 300 years older than Mary. How can that be explained away?”
simple. My answer above and the fact that you are off the deep end if you think generations are always each 20 years long. Generations are dependent on how long people live and die and when they have children.
Where are you drawing this 20 year thing from?
LikeLike
There’s a wide range of ages in which people can have children. The problem to me isn’t so much the differences in the number of generations — it’s that they have completely different genealogies altogether, yet both claim to go through Joseph.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“it’s that they have completely different genealogies altogether, yet both claim to go through Joseph.” – nate
right they are different, then the same, then different again…
they simply do not match, and both simply cannot be accurate. any efforts to rectify this, is pure conjecture of the sort that “rectify” any contradiction.
LikeLike
“They often skipped generation or several generations particularly ones just for showing the line of ancestry.” – ABlacksmanagain
this is true, but it doesnt hold for matthew or luke. When you say :jesus, the son of David, and the son of Abraham” then yes, but when you’re listing everyone as direct linje proof, but omit just a few, that’s different – for obvious reasons.
And with matthew, he’s making a case for the perfect numbers in between, but he only reaches his perfect number by skipping a few people and counting David twice…
if we can count certain people more than once if we like, and toss out a few others, then we make any number, in any linage appear and call it “special.” it’s just not.
LikeLike
It is mind-boggling the number of twisted, convoluted harmonizations that Christians have concocted to maintain the compatibility of these two genealogies. Check out this Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus
Christians start out with the assumption that their god exists and that the Bible is inerrant, and then attempt, by any means, to fit the evidence into that a priori bias. Yet the evidence that their god (not just any Creator god) exists is so pathetically poor. For some unexplainable reason, they cannot see it or at least admit it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ABlacksmanagain
Yes. I’m saying there would be no ultimate cause.
It is what we call eternal. No beginning and no end. It does not have a reason because it does not have a beginning.
But this would be something “happening”, whereas an eternal universe or eternal mind would never “happen”, it would just exist.
This is fair. Thank you for reasoning along with the proposition.
Well, this is just my opinion, but it seems to me that to be outside of time is to be within a reality where nothing ever happens. If you can create time then you are performing an event. But events can only “happen” if you have time within which to do so.
If there is no cause then there is no reason to wonder whether it is a natural (non-intelligent) or supernatural (intelligent) cause. The cause just does not exist.
I don’t think naturalism claims that “everything has a cause”, it just claims that “every cause that exists is basically natural (no invisible entities controlling it)”.
It’s not an event that has no ultimate explanation it’s existence itself which has no ultimate explanation. The real question for this would be “Why do things even exist?” I don’t think this question can be answered by naturalism or supernaturalism.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Yes, I think you’re exactly right here, Dave. The other question is “what is nothing?” Or maybe a better would be “what is the ‘default state’?”
Typically, we assume that the default state of things is absolutely nothing: no invisible gases, no force fields, no elements — nothing. But that kind of ‘nothing’ has never been demonstrated to even exist. So how do we know that’s the default state? I think this is what Krauss’s book was driving at — or at least, that’s how I understood part of it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think one of the problems is that naturalism exists in rules, where supernaturalism doesnt. Anyone inclined to the supernatural side has no boundaries – they can claim that their supernatural force is all powerful, all knowing and eternal. It needs no cause, can use natural laws but inst bound by them and can do anything, even the absurd, even it appears counter to reason, their supernatural force can do it and knows best.
But unlike naturalism, this supernatural entity can not be tested, cannot be verified in anyway. and the most they know of this thing, are from claims written down by people who claimed to have special insights regarding this supernatural thing.
the natural is observable, repeatable and testable and knowable.
the debate on supernaturalism only survives because you cant point to something and say, “look, there it isnt,” and it goes and on and on, not because of evidence or reason, but because the nature of the supernatural is only limited to one’s imagination. since anything is possible with it, they actually think it’s a viable possibility.
it’s an utter waste outside of entertainment value.
but again, if we assume god did it, how do we get from there, to the god of the bible is that god?
So far, the explanations of that is: “the bible exists, so it’s an option.”
good. let’s examine the bible to see if we can find it trustworthy. other than that, what is there?
LikeLiked by 2 people
The discussion above is why I do not refer to myself as an atheist, rather an agnostic naturalist. By doing so, I avoid having to debate Christians on the “overwhelming evidence” for a Creator. I get to skip that endless debate and jump right to the weak link in the Christian belief system:
“Prove to me that Yahweh-Jesus is the Creator.”
The Christian usually then responds with: “The Resurrection of Jesus proves that he is the Creator.”
I then ask for the evidence for the historicity of the Resurrection…and what do I get:
1. The story as told by four anonymous, first century authors, writing decades after the event, in a foreign language, in far away locations, three of which plagiarize much of the first, with the last part of the story chock full of discrepancies.
2. The eye-witness testimony of a manic-depressive Jewish Pharisee named Saul-Paul regarding his “heavenly vision” of seeing a talking light on a lonely desert highway.
3. Plus a lot of assumptions and second century hearsay.
And that’s it.
And they expect me to believe that some first century Jewish prophet is the Creator of the Universe??? They are delusional.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“But this would be something “happening”, whereas an eternal universe or eternal mind would never “happen”, it would just exist.”
things Happen all the time in this universe. Do you see everything just existing in eternal states now? In your fluctuating universe fluctuations happen. That’s the point. A process having no cause is not a natural event not without special pleading. You’ve yet to make even half a case for that.
“Well, this is just my opinion, but it seems to me that to be outside of time is to be within a reality where nothing ever happens. If you can create time then you are performing an event. But events can only “happen” if you have time within which to do so.”
actually no. If you have no action taking place then you have no time. Practically the action is what creates the passage of time. if you froze the action of everything in the universe time for all practical purposes has stopped. You are merely assuming the naturalistic construct that an action cannot be instantaneous but happens by a process but you are at the same time paradoxically admitting that the “fluctuations” or what causes them has no process by which they are derived.
As some cosmologists have tried to explain in discussions of this universe (in discussions of the big bang) you technically can have time beginning and you would be incorrect at talking about what was before time. A clock at 12 am can start to move (but not by any natural process) but if its the first tick of the clock it would not be appropriate to talk about what preceded that 12 am
the “moment” (for lack of a better term) of now does not need a passage of time. its instantaneous. Theist believe God is in a perpetual state of now. From his perspective he is in the now. It is not a “world” that relies on natural processes in part because natural processes are not logically maintanable in any construct including an infinite old reality, Turtles all the way down doesn’t work for natural processes without them gaining supernatural quality. We might as well just live with it. An “I am because I am” in some form is inevitable. The irrationality the trying to pinhole natural processes into such a mix is illustrated by An infinite chain of dominoes. Not only isn’t there a first domino that starts to fall you end up having momentum that comes from nothing…..zip.
“If there is no cause then there is no reason to wonder whether it is a natural (non-intelligent) or supernatural (intelligent) cause. The cause just does not exist.”
and as I have tried to explain to you a few times that’s besides the point. The question is that of natural processes. You have still yet to explain how a process is natural if it has no beginning when all natural processes we see have beginnings. You actually have infinite levels to explain naturally
“I don’t think naturalism claims that “everything has a cause”, it just claims that “every cause that exists is basically natural (no invisible entities controlling it)”
and a cause that does not exist is visible? perhaps you need to think about it a bit more because all events in an infitinitely old universe ultimately have no cause so there is nothing that meets your exclusion and nada is visible since the cause does not exist.
“It’s not an event that has no ultimate explanation it’s existence itself which has no ultimate explanation.”
Sorry but that distinction has no merit (to be honest its just verbage) especially for any materialist ( not claiming you are one) that maintains all existence is based on events. It pretty much a duck and run. You live in a universe that is filled with natural process events making up our and the universe’s existence so the issue is events having no ultimate explanation. You can’t just throw that out the window when those chain of events point logically to non natural process conclusion. We are here by a serious of events. As logical beings we can explore the necessary conclusion of a reality based on events and like it or not that logical conclusion is that events are not all caused by other natural events.
” The real question for this would be “Why do things even exist?” I don’t think this question can be answered by naturalism or supernaturalism.”
You are free to explore any question you wish but to me its somewhat meaningless. things exist. I am more interested in the how not the why. MY point is not a philosophical issue but a practical one of what infinitely old realities means for natural processes. They make them totally untenable and irrational as the basis for reality.
LikeLike
“Yes, I think you’re exactly right here, Dave. The other question is “what is nothing?” ”
Sorry Nate thats just a shell con game. We already know what nothing is. Its a word defined in dictionaries. Its that which does not exist. to claim nothing has abilities properties or even laws is just nonsense. Skeptics and even some scientists don’t get to change the meaning of words to try and con the public
Now if you want to say (second half of your post) that there has always been something then that’s fine but the word nothing is not in question and if were a bible passage that tried that hueey you’d be all over it
LikeLike
I disagree, Mike. You can call it semantics, but I’m just trying to illustrate that saying “nothing” (the strict definition) is the default state of things is an assumption. That’s why this argument is a bit meaningless — none of us knows what the ultimate explanation of our existence is. Some people believe it’s a supernatural explanation, and others don’t. Some of us, like me, don’t actually care a whole lot one way or the other. But as William has repeatedly said, none of that really matters when it comes to Christianity. You still have to demonstrate how you get from supernatural first cause to a specific deity.
LikeLike
“As logical beings we can explore the necessary conclusion of a reality based on events and like it or not that logical conclusion is that events are not all caused by other natural events.” – ABlacksmanagain
now logically take us from here to the bible being from god.
because like it or not, it’s just a collection of claims that men made a long time ago. the fact that it exists is not proof that it is accurate. the fact that people believe it, is not proof that it’s accurate.
supernatural started it all. okay. how does that get us to god of the bible?
LikeLike
“The Christian usually then responds with: “The Resurrection of Jesus proves that he is the Creator.”
Finally we agree on something. (I know. the moment will be fleeting) If resurrection by itself proved a party was God then everyone that was raised in the BIble would be God
Perhaps start asking other Christians?
(not me since you have already stated I am to be ignored and having read enough of you you would not be able to con me that you would have any intention of having a balanced conversation or give a flying leap about “finding truth”)
either that or you could stop disingenuously pretending that the Internet is not available to you to find Christians that do not give that as their sole answer
LikeLike
“I disagree, Mike. You can call it semantics, but I’m just trying to illustrate that saying “nothing” (the strict definition) is the default state of things is an assumption.”
Nothing is nothing Nate spin on pin all you wish. Its crapola to consider the definition for a word up to questioning to suit your or Krauss argument. if the Bible argued that nothing was in fact something elsewhere you would be jumping joyously to claim its a sure contradiction (and egads! you might actually finally have one 😉 )and we both know it. Not mind reading. history of your blog reading.
” But as William has repeatedly said, none of that really matters when it comes to Christianity. ”
Of course it does because a central tenet of yours and your small band is that miracles as priori are absurd. Its all over your blog though I see you trying to deny it (and other realities)World views have everything to do with that . If you cannot logically maintain naturalism as a basis for reality then it takes way from your assumed Priori.
“You still have to demonstrate how you get from supernatural first cause to a specific deity.”
and you have to justify your obvious priori and stop begging that you can wave your hand saying that doesn’t matter to escape engaging on the issue of worldview. I give Dave props for at least trying to address a substantial issue. Something you have never even tried to do.
In debates and discussion that has any integrity to them you don’t get to just wave your hand and say that issue doesn’t matter because I say so. Suck it up and deal with the issue because it has clear and obvious application. A great deal of the incredulity that people believe the Gospels is based very much on the idea that Miracles are on the face of them to skeptics absurd. Fromm that alleged priori your and your merry small band then gets to claim a higher level of proof is needed because of the miraculous nature of some Biblical accounts.
so its not just an important issue its foundational to determine logical not assumed levels required for proof.
LikeLike
Sometimes believers will say anything to maintain that the bible is of god and that jesus is his son/him. and as evidenced above, when asked direct questions that they either do not like, cannot answer or always fail to see, they’ll avoid answering altogether and juke about while simultaneously blaming the questioning non-believer for being “unobjective”, “disingenuous” or or “stupid” or “arrogant” or whatever else they can think of – anything except a rational answer.
why, ABlacksmanagain, do you believe in jesus, if you do, and how do you get from a guessed supernatural first cause to jesus, lord and savior?
LikeLike
Mike, please demonstrate with testable evidence that before the Big Bang, there was absolutely nothing. Also, please demonstrate with testable evidence that the cause of the Big Bang was supernatural.
If, as I suspect, you can’t demonstrate it, then your points are conjecture. This is exactly what I was trying to say with my recent comments about “nothing.” We don’t know enough to reasonably discuss it, much less argue about it, so why not move on to something more substantial?
As to miracles, I don’t have an a priori objection to them. If I did, I never would have been a Christian at all.
LikeLike
– is nothingness the default state? how do you illustrate this? and when this is the question, why argue about the definition of “nothing?”
– I dont discount miracle outright, as i have said before. I just question them since I have never seen one. that being the case, and since I am not typically a gullible person, i’d like to see some evidence instead of claims in an old book that contains its share of problems. is this really difficult to comprehend?
– could it be a presupposition that miracles are real?
– if we do allow for there being a first cause and that it must be supernatural, please take us to how you are arrive at the bible is from god and his son is the man jesus.
dont wave your hand and ignore these. this blog has always been a discussion on the bible. you want to make it about first cause and supernatural beginnings. cool, we can discuss it with you. it only will boil down to “i think this and you think that” as there’s nothing you can point to. and regarding special pleading, that is all that supports your god. why not gods? why all powerful? it’s pointless to discuss, and it only holds merit when illustrating that there are so many possibilities… so, back the to the bible… I know you really dont want to discuss this, because this where even you realize there’s nothing of substance – it’s just a huge leap, with eyes squeezed shut, hoping it’s correct, while shouting that you know it is, you know it is.
LikeLike
Incidentally Nate. While you are instructing others on what they have to demonstrate. Any idea when you are going to get around to demonstrating from the actual text where the verses in question in your post mention anything about technological advances? Or were you assuming making bricks and constructing buildings was a technological advance even though the text indicates they already knew how to do that?
Just figured we would clear up what this post is about since its been all over the place with sans any supporting text as to its central premise from you.
LikeLike
Are you kidding? It was in my initial post, and in a comment I posted yesterday. But here it is again:
If it’s not talking about their technological advances, what’s it talking about?
LikeLike
“Just figured we would clear up what this post is about since its been all over the place with sans any supporting text as to its central premise from you.” -ABlacksmanagain
says the guy who claims god confused the languages because he was afraid they’d use the tower for pagan worship… and that’s in verse?
what a douche.
LikeLike