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, really doing all you can to keep from answering the obvious questions like,
– if there was a supernatural first cause how do you get from there to the god of the bible?
– how do you know that nothingness is the default state, or that there was ever a time of nothing?
LikeLike
“Mike, please demonstrate with testable evidence that before the Big Bang, there was absolutely nothing”
I don’t believe there ever was nothing Nate. So why would i? Do Christians believe that once there was no God and therefore nothing? try and make some sense. That however does NOT mean that there is any question about what nothing is which is the point I spelled out to you and the very center of what Krauss who you referenced tries to pull of.
“Also, please demonstrate with testable evidence that the cause of the Big Bang was supernatural. ”
Super natural mean beyond natural Nate – if you actually look the word up. The universe is strictly speaking within what we call nature. IF you want to claim that natural extends beyond our universe then its you that need to present some evidence that even going beyond, before and outside of our universe “natural” still applies
If as I suspect you can’t demonstrate that beyond our universe is actually still a natural explanation then your points are TOTAL conjecture.
LikeLike
You’re just playing word games. You and I both know that when you talk about supernatural, you’re referring to something that’s basically magic. Gods, etc. Please demonstrate that it/they exist.
LikeLike
“Super natural mean beyond natural Nate – if you actually look the word up. The universe is strictly speaking within what we call nature. IF you want to claim that natural extends beyond our universe then its you that need to present some evidence that even going beyond, before and outside of our universe “natural” still applies
If as I suspect you can’t demonstrate that beyond our universe is actually still a natural explanation then your points are TOTAL conjecture.” – ABlacksmanagain
any speculation about the beginning of the universe is speculation, ABlacksmanagain.
but okay, let’s say there is a supernatural beginning to the universe.
1. how does that mean 1 god?
2. how does that one god mean god of the bible?
LikeLike
what’s not conjecture, is that the bible was written by men, compiled by men, translated by men, and distributed by men and defended by men.
It’s also not conjecture that those men try to defend it because of the errors it contains.
the origins of the universe… conjecture. ironically, speculating on it is just a fruitful as basing one’s faith in the bible.
LikeLike
“Are you kidding? It was in my initial post, and in a comment I posted yesterday. But here it is again:”
Not kidding whatsoever Nate. Either I am as blind as a bat or you are (fair enough you know where my vote goes). Go ahead show me in your quote where it mentions technological advances. should be easy to bold it for me since its right there
” 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.
Gen 11:5-6
Let me cut to the chase and state the obvious. Its NOT THERE. theres ZERO Mention of technology or even acquiring knowledge in the text. Your full of nonsense. You accuse Christians of reading things into passages but don’t blink to do the same if it gets you to a conclusion you wish to get to.
“this is the beginning of what they will do” in no way shape or form tells us what actions God was looking to avoid them doing. You made it up clear out of your head. You assumed it against all context. Since God is every were concerned with sin there is no reason whatsoever to think he would be anti technology for anti technology sake and not have in focus actions of sin (and NOWHERE in the text is it said he scattered them just for building but for what they might do next).
Daniel studied all kinds of things In Babylon with God’s approval and blessing, Luke was a physician, practically every field of science was initiated by a Jew, Christian or Muslim. NADA none of them saw studying technologies or advancing human knowledge within the construct of their religion as violating god’s directives and a great deal of them would have known the story of Babel
furthermore the action of building the tower shows no technological advance. they already knew how to make bricks. You’ve done some hack jobs in the past but this right up there with them
You want to direct people on what they need to show and demonstrate within comments? Try doing the same in your posts first.
LikeLike
Mike, are you accusing God of a non sequitur? Are you suggesting that when he sees mankind building a huge tower and makes the statement “this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them” it has nothing to do with his decision to confuse their language and scatter them? Is that really the argument you want to make?
LikeLike
“furthermore the action of building the tower shows no technological advance. they already knew how to make bricks. You’ve done some hack jobs in the past but this right up there with them” – ABlacksmanagain
actually, making a tower is quite different from making a brick. making a multi-story structure is very different from making a single story structure.
the tower shows advancement is engineering and construction. it’s technical.
you weren’t a lawyer, a mathematician or an engineer…. did you really get a degree? political science?
but again, if that absence of a specific term bothers you so, why then do you argue that god confused the languages because of potential pagan worship? nate’s position at least has something going for it, yours has even less. it is literally at absolute zero.
really though,
1. how does that mean 1 god?
2. how does that one god mean god of the bible?
LikeLike
smoke and mirrors
LikeLike
I mean, mike, you’re right, it’s a pretty dumb thing to get upset about, which is part of the reason we’re skeptical over it.
but clumping up in one place isnt wrong either, but the text seems to show god didnt want that. making a name for yourself, okay, maybe they were prideful. confusing their languages didnt stop pride or gathering, or tower building… really anyway you look at this text, it just doesnt make sense for a perfect all knowing god to do this when it creates other problems and does nothing to really curb the issues beyond immediate short term.
but whatever.
the biggest thing mentioned in this thread that has the least support in the text is the argument that god did this because of pagan worship at the top of their tower. where’s that in the text?
You want to correct people on what they need to show and demonstrate from the biblical text? Try doing the same yourself first.
LikeLike
a natural first cause is no more conjecture than a supernatural first cause. even so, let’s say supernatural.
1. why does that mean just 1 god?
2. why does that 1 god have to be all powerful and all knowing?
3. why would he want to have people write us a book for him?
4. assuming any of the above, how do you get from any of that to the god of the bible?
without answering this, you not only appear to be cowering away, you render the whole discussion about first cause moot, in a blog devoted the bible. but let’s discuss it if you like.’
I think the bible is man made. And I have stated why on a blog that does so more than i. if you think it’s from god, please show why?
LikeLike
Dear Nate, William, Dave, and Arch:
Here is your problem: You have been blinded to the truth by an evil spirit. In order to break this evil spirit’s spell over your brains, you must get down on your knees, right now, and pledge total submission to an ancient middle-eastern deity named Yahweh-Jesus. Until you do this, you will never see the wonderful and completely accurate insights that “Mike” is trying to share with you as he attempts to explain the Gospel with you of his loving Savior Jesus.
LikeLike
“Mike, are you accusing God of a non sequitur?”
NO Nate I am accusing you of doing a clear and obvious hack job on the text (and at this point of having no clue what a non sequitur is)
“Are you suggesting that when he sees mankind building a huge tower and makes the statement “this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them” it has nothing to do with his decision to confuse their language and scatter them? Is that really the argument you want to make?”
Can you read Nate? Its as clear as day that the action is being taken to stop what they might do next not merely what they had done. ITS RIGHT THERE STARING AT YOU IN THE TEXT. Why it has something to do with the building of the tower is that it demonstrates they will be capable of doing other united things too but the passage whether you spin, whine ,beg or plead does NOT say that its to stop technological advances and given the clear context of the Bible would have more to do with sin than advancement. You are embarrassing yourself and making it clear how much you will defend the twisting of text to suit yourself.
Nothing about the text indicates a technological advance. We have no knowledge that this was even the first time a multi story building that had been built (unlikely) . though its reasonable to think they might have been wanting to build the tallest building a taller building does not necessitate a technological advance and certainly none of the total garbage you wrote about finding cures for diseases or faster than light travel.
Why won’t you address yourself to showing where in the text it states it was to stop men from having technological advances? Obvious…because you know you can’t so instead youtry and run away into asking me silly rhetorical questions.
Better to just fess up and admit you are adding your assumptions to the text. Its a far more honest approach.
LikeLike
Riiiiiiiight…
LikeLike
Good News nate.
If you were trying to find a picture that describes how your in laws will look at you when you tell them your quoted text proves its talking about technological advances
YOU NAILED IT Bro!!
rofl.
LikeLike
“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.” – Exactly!
LikeLike
“The Christian usually then responds with: ‘The Resurrection of Jesus proves that he is the Creator.’” – By that logic, wouldn’t the resurrection of Matthew’s zombies prove that they were the creators?
LikeLike
“By that logic, wouldn’t the resurrection of Matthew’s zombies prove that they were the creators?”
Arch, there are 10 resurrection stories in the OT & NT. Doesn’t that put Christianity into Polytheism if they were all creators ? 🙂
Of course many Jews already think Christianity is Polytheistic because of the Trinity.
LikeLike
I wondered how long it would take him to get around to the phrase, “hand waving” – it used to be his stock in trade, that, and twisting scripture into pretzels to get it to mean what he wants it to mean.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ABlacksmanagain
We could say there are fundamental conditions or properties that would keep quantum particles in a constant state of flux. We can call them constants or laws or forces or “I Ams”. I wouldn’t claim these are based on natural processes, but are brute facts or “necessary” conditions that could not have been any other way. Perhaps this is not naturalism based on your definition, but it does not include any intelligent beings operating in the background which is my understanding of naturalism.
It’s not an event.
I don’t consider this special pleading because the alternative scenarios are just as theoretical and include “necessary” conditions. Alternatives: An eternal mind exists necessarily or a mind outside of time exists necessarily or the universe just popped out of nowhere necessarily. So either way we are faced with assuming some kind of brute fact about reality. I think you may agree with this when you said “We might as well just live with it. An ‘I am because I am’ in some form is inevitable.”
The problem I see with God being stuck in a moment is that everything he does is done simultaneously. I don’t see how conscious thoughts can exist in this state.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“A process having no cause is not a natural event not without special pleading.” – It sounds like he’s saying that the existence of his god involves special pleading.
LikeLike
“The most constant threat to a Worldview carefully constructed of “revealed” truths is reason. In a reasoned world, the idea of truth is dynamic. It hasn’t been revealed once and for all, and so opening the doors to new ideas and concepts is part of every day life. Reason distrusts revelation in the same measure as it is distrusted by revelation. It “relies on observation, reflection, critical thinking, and testing by experimentation, and it builds on what is learned in this way from generation to generation to expand knowledge and understanding.” Ideas based in reason don’t shy away from the demand for proof; either they have it or they find it. And if ideas can’t be proven, they are set aside without threat of destabilizing the whole worldview.
(Gretta Vosper , Amen)
LikeLiked by 2 people
“We could say there are fundamental conditions or properties that would keep quantum particles in a constant state of flux. ”
I am not getting the progression in your explanation thats just changing the word fluctuations to flux. Those are still events for which you are claiming a constant process of change
“We can call them constants or laws or forces or “I Ams”. I wouldn’t claim these are based on natural processes, but are brute facts”
The laws yes the fluctuations no. They are not brute facts. They follow from a process that has no beginning in your argument. Whatever causes this change or flux is non existent. Further they are not merely brute force laws they are following on from a previous state to the present state and yet in your framework of an infinitely old universe no state can ultimately be set for the laws to determine the outcome that follows it. Its a beast of dilemma but its a necessary consideration again due to the vagaries of this undertermined as real infinite status you are invoking.
its like a swinging pendulum. Sure you can claim that laws govern the way it swings but the laws operate upon the state of the pendulum – its position, speed and effects of gravity. IN a infinite turtle-all-the-way-down infinite universe the law has no set point of position or speed to start with.
How do we know its going to be swinging to its full height to the right in a second? well because of its position presently to the left and so forth and so on but in your infinite universe scenarios there is no set location to plot from.
So saying the laws are eternal doesn’t even get you out of having to answer the still remaining issue of the natural process that the laws are acting on.
” or “necessary” conditions that could not have been any other way. Perhaps this is not naturalism based on your definition, but it does not include any intelligent beings operating in the background which is my understanding of naturalism. ”
well like I said you can always TRY to redefine the term naturalism but no naturalism is and has not been defined merely on the basis of of “no intelligent beings operating in the background”. To illustrate that point there have been a few scientists that have claimed life may have been seeded on our planet by an intelligent civilization. Now that is is no way main stream and is presently on the kook fringe but would that mean they are invoking a supernatural theory? Nope not if the civilization was within our universe and thus a part of our universe. Nevertheless it would still be an “intelligent beings operating in the background” so your definition does not even work.
Naturalism relates to nature and by nature we mean our universe and what and how it operates based on laws and cause and effect. Science is entirely based on cause and effect which is a process. if we can;t repeat something then its not good science. Our ability to repeat is heavily dependent on cause and effect. To be honest The situation beyond the issues of infinite universes is actually worse for you as i alluded to when Nate tried to beg I should prove what i don’t believe.
The best science presently indicates you don’t live in an eternal universe. the best science still says this universe has a beginning and will have a death so the only hope of a materialist is to invoke multiple universes but in that case he is shooting right outside of nature (our universe) to explain our existence and yet almost hilariously continues claiming in the next breath that anyone else (such as religious people ) who point outside the universe/nature for explanation is illogical.
“The problem I see with God being stuck in a moment is that everything he does is done simultaneously. I don’t see how conscious thoughts can exist in this state.”
There are no issue with that you are just circularly envisioning that God must think like you do in step by step process. Further Special relativity has indicated time may flow faster or slower or even come to a stop for someone approaching the speed of light while the rest or the world flies by in regular time. we don;t know very much about such circumstances but we do know how times flows in natural processes and you have still yet to show how a natural process makes any sense without a beginning.
It doesn’t matter how it is spinned . Ask the guy on the street or in a lab if a ball floating in the air appears to him that has no explanation but “that it is how it must be” and he is unlikely to agree that its a natural event just because theres no intelligent being operating in the background. Claiming a process can still be natural without having a beginning is nothing more than special pleading. There is not a single drop of evidence of such a process anywhere in science. Even QM is dependent on initial states. The fact that materialists can claim it for themselves puts religious and even people who believe in miracles on absolutely equal footing.
LikeLike
“.” – It sounds like he’s saying that the existence of his god involves special pleading.”
It would to you arch but try and keep up. Christians don’t believe God is a process much less a natural process. Caught up on the recent findings of a Davidic monarchy yet? better to just play Ostrich after your blunder of relying wholeheartedly on what he told you eh?
LikeLike
@Mike
Ask the guy on the street or in a lab if a ball floating in the air appears to him that has no explanation but “that it is how it must be” and he is unlikely to agree that its a natural event just because theres no intelligent being operating in the background.
To be fair I think if you ask someone 2000 years ago about lightning they’ll say lightning is not a natural event. Same thing for volcanic eruption etc.
I do agree about the special pleading about universe without cause, but can’t we say the same for God that is by definition uncaused? However, the reason for this special pleading is just that we don’t really have perfect understanding of how the universe began, just like how someone will argue with me till cow comes home that it is Thor that is angry hence lightning happened.
LikeLike