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 
” A process having no cause is not a natural event not without special pleading.
It’s not an event.”
You are right its not an event a process is a whole set of events so i see no point to your claim that its not an event beyond objecting to the singular
“I don’t consider this special pleading because the alternative scenarios are just as theoretical and include “necessary” conditions.”
Thats not the basis of it being special pleading. the basis for it being an obvious special pleading scenario is that you are still trying to sell a natural process as being one without a cause and natural processes are sequence based. One thing leads to another and proceeds from another. that is not the case in an infinite old universe scenario.
The HUGE difference with alternative scenarios is they are not begging they are nevertheless “natural”. The special pleading on your part is insisting against logic that such events/processes would be natural. It presents a quality to visible testable nature that is not shown to be a quality of nature anywhere. IF that is not special pleading then nothing is. Even theist do not claim that an uncaused God is nevertheless natural. logical yes natural to this universe no.
” 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.”
Of course those are not equivalent. With the eternal mind or even laws of nature you have a basis for reality. Claiming that the universe pops out of nothing or nowhere ascribes an illogical imaginary power to nowhere or nothing. In case you are wondering laws of nature proceeding from nothing natural and not flowing from something else physical but existing and even being mathematically logical is so close to What the church teaches about the nature of how God created the universe as to be indistinguishable.
SO what do you have? a reality that is uncaused not matching how the universe presently works, a reality that is logical in structure even to the point of being mathematically deduced and a reality that is capable of intelligent thought in various forms – and to boot since the best science says this is not an eternal universe we live in you end up having to go outside the universe for answers anyway
So All viable options have logical structure, all viable options are capable of or potentially capable of intelligent thought, all viable options are eternal and have I am that I am qualities and all roads lead to a reality outside of our present universe
So close to the concept of theism in all cases materialist should hush themselves about calling religious idea or people idiots. However most of them including parties here cannot think worth a lick to see it.
LikeLike
“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.”
Sorry Powell but first of all thats kind of irrelevant. the discussion I am having with Dave has to do with infinite past not present phenomenons we don’t have explanations for. IF you are claiming science will one day figure out that everything has a cause forever into infinity then you are just not getting the discussion.
Secondly the idea that every time a lightningbolt fell people thought a miracle had happened is just not supported by the facts but it makes for great sound bytes for atheists to claim. people believed as many still do today that the laws governing such thing are under the domain of God but the idea they all thought every time rain fell and a thunderstorm was moving through that it was a supernatural event that was taking place is just balderdash. Most founders of today’s science fields were theists who went looking and found how things like lightning worked. they expected to find reasons and rationals beyond just – ooh thats a miracle or supernatural.
“do agree about the special pleading about universe without cause, but can’t we say the same for God that is by definition uncaused?”
See my responses to David above. My claim for special pleading is not that Dave invokes an uncaused cause its that he is begging that uncaused causes are nevertheless natural. Uncaused causes are inevitable logically but claiming they are natural is something that Even theists do not claim
” 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.”
Seriously how many people within the last two thousand years claimed that. I fear You’ve bit into legend and materialist sound bytes not reality
LikeLike
@mike
hmm… I think I see what you’re saying and perhaps you’re right about the sound bytes and legends. You have any readings about this that I can look into? My understanding is that indeed people of old do think that every single lightning strike is deity related – Asian mythology (of which I’m from) actually state that there is indeed a thunder god that is patrolling the skies killing those who are immoral, and lightning is there so that the thunder god can see in the dark.
LikeLike
“Ideas based in reason don’t shy away from the demand for proof; either they have it or they find it.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
ABlacksmanagain,
I never took the tower of babel story to mean that god wanted to stop technological advances. In fact, reading from the KJV I always took it as god almost looking at rascally children with a bit of pride, “whatever they imagine, I will not keep from them” or however it’s exactly written.
But with nate’s write up, i think he did quite well. I saw it as addressing all the possible ways someone might say, “but well, it really means this, god actually did it for that…” and indeed, with the wording the way it is, if someone thought god didnt want them to reach heaven, then it’s not hard to see why others might think it was because god didn’t want them getting too far ahead technologically.
sure, it didnt end technological advances, but neither did the tower end pride, or building high, or whatever. there was even still pagan worship in high places… so confusing the languages at the tower didnt do anything long term except make people move have a reason to despise one another – but people likely would have moved on when they needed more space or food, and could have found other reasons to hate each other, so it still makes one ask, “what?”
there are so many interpretations of the bible, that nate’s write up seemed to be addressing as many as he could think of at the moment. And if he missed any or anyone disagreed, that’s what the comment section is for.
dont think god wanted to stop them from making technological advances (which a tall tower would have been) because the text doesnt support it? okay. I can even agree with that. But getting on a high horse over it, when offering a theory about pagan worship on top of the tower is just unfair and a fine example of hypocrisy – as there is even less in the text to support tower top pagan worship. the text at least speaks on technological advances, but i havent seen any hint to pagan worship on the tower of babel.
and guess what, everyone here agrees that god halting tower construction over technological advances is a silly thing to do. so why belabor it?
maybe you can elaborate where you read “tower top pagan worship” in gen 11.
as far the beginning. it’s all a guess. so, It could literally be anything. If one says it has to have been an intelligent mind that created it all, that exists outside of natural laws, then what stops anyone from saying that it was an unconscious, unintelligent eternal force that exists outside of many of the natural laws, or exists withing the natural laws, some of which just have yet to be identified? at some point, any conclusion involves special pleading. It is only limited by imagination.
so again, why only one god?
why the god of the bible?
I suspect though, that you prefer to discuss theoretical origins because there;s no way to verify or refute what you guess. having to actually answer the bible means delving into things that can be checked, verified and refuted.
It’s easier to be obnoxious, I guess.
LikeLike
Maybe this is where some of the breakdown is occurring. Mike, when people talk about naturalism, they’re not just talking about this specific universe that we find ourselves in. They’re talking about natural processes as opposed to intelligently-driven processes. No magic, in other words. This is why a multi-verse theory is still a more “natural” explanation than a god-based theory. Now, you’re free to complain that it may not answer the “first cause” problem, but you can’t really say that it’s supernatural.
The other main problem is that you’re dogmatically limiting the field of possibilities when it comes to whatever preceded the Big Bang, when you have no way of knowing anything about it. The rest of us are talking in terms of “maybes,” but you’re not. That’s why I think this discussion is rather pointless: we just don’t know enough about the subject to argue about it. Neither do you — I’m just not sure that you realize that…
Not trying to be inflammatory or insulting, by the way. Just trying to explain why the points you’re making haven’t been compelling to the rest of us.
LikeLike
I don’t know, William… even in the KJV, God seems to be saying that he’s concerned about what mankind will be able to accomplish if he doesn’t put a stop to it:
I think i see where you got that impression — in verse 6 where he says “and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.” But I don’t think he’s saying this approvingly; instead, I think he’s giving it as the reason why he should act. In other words, “if I don’t put a stop to it, they’ll be able to accomplish anything they put their minds to.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
i certainly get it. you may be right. but even if not, the text certainly supports that much, much more than pagan worship at the top of babel’s tower.
that just came way out of nowhere.
i mean, pagan worship in that tower is just as a fabrication as saying, “god didnt the people of babel playing dice while base jumping from the tower, with parachutes provided by the extra terrestrials. yes, there is just as much textual support for that and for the tower becoming a haven for pterodactyls, as there is for pagan worship up there.
just not a single verse, or any hint regarding it. total fantasy. a fabrication of a sick mind, that was likely scarred from an early childhood experience with pornography. I weep for such men at night, wishing their god was real so that i could pray to it on their behalf.
LikeLike
nate,
and at the time I formed that opinion, I was a christian, trying to make sense of the passage. you could be correct looking at it more closely now. in some ways i dont care as much as to what the specific reason was, as so far none of them make sense.
least of all, the idea that god stopped them because of pagan worship – absolutely nowhere in that text. whoever dreamed that up was really grasping in a desperate sort of way.
LikeLike
“Maybe this is where some of the breakdown is occurring. Mike, when people talk about naturalism, they’re not just talking about this specific universe that we find ourselves in. They’re talking about natural processes as opposed to intelligently-driven processes. ”
🙂 Like I said to Dave you can try to desperately to redefine naturalism but its to no avail and a futile exercise. Naturalism refers to nature and with all certainty nature denotes that which we experience around us in this universe not in some reality that we can never breach or study and run tests. Any other dancing around because you don’t like the implications is just poppycock. and I might add pretty obvious poppycock too that even a child can see through. You know people are in trouble logically when they have to try and redefine words such as nature against all common sense and usage.
“Now, you’re free to complain that it may not answer the “first cause” problem, but you can’t really say that it’s supernatural.”
I not only can say its supernatural its what the word means. you really are having a problem with understanding terms aren’t you Nate? Super means beyond nature.Nature despite your spinning on the head redefinition refers to nature and yes that would be this one (sigh so obviously). Invoking universes outside of our own to explain origins in this universe is no different whatsoever from Theism
“The other main problem is that you’re dogmatically limiting the field of possibilities when it comes to whatever preceded the Big Bang”
I am not . You are. You not only have not visited this pre physical reality or mutiverses you dare to claim you know but also what and who is not in them – and/or that they operate naturally. I have made no other point but that the materialism you so love and cherish and makes you warm at night doesn’t hold up logically and that going outside this universe is going beyond any nature we know to invoke a supernatural. Thats not dogma and evidenced by your twisting what the word nature means to get out of it – its just common sense
“The rest of us are talking in terms of “maybes,” but you’re not.”
The only thing that I am talking about at this time in absolutes is that all roads lead for reality to have a supernatural cause. WHY ? because thats where the logic undeniable leads. Please also desist from being an hypocrite. You and yours claim often in absolutes that there is no evidence for theism/Christianity when what you really mean is you will accept no evidence that leads 90%+ of the world to believe in God
” That’s why I think this discussion is rather pointless…….I’m just not sure that you realize that”
I don’t think you realize that I don;t really care what you consider pointless so you can wave it aside and not have to deal with it. Its immaterial to me. Thats always been your MO as an avoidance tactic. The only thing you have now added to it is a gymnastic pretzel move to redefine what nature is because . Seh la vie
So lets get a couple things straight. I am posting on your blog again because you couldn’t live up to a simple gentleman’s agreement not to have mention or conversations about me in my absence NOT because I feel you have any authority or gravitus (or frankly even a wide readership- what is it 10-15 regular posters??) to determine what is or is not compelling. I’ve pointed you no arbiter of truth. Sorry but I must say you’ve proven pretty conclusively your belligerence and ignorance by continuing to claim that a passage that never mentions knowledge, learning, wisdom or ideas at all is a proof text for it being about knowledge. SO its really two options
A) you can allow me to post and have conversations with people willing to engage not only subjects you approve of without butting in because you refuse to deal with them by any other means but fanciful redefinitions and handwaving (sorry Arch requested the phrase) or
B) You can ban as you usually do when you have your points dismantled. Only this time since you could not live up to a simple gentleman’s agreement you will have to change the way you moderate your blog to get compliance. I lived up to my part and you didn’t so I feel no obligation to comply a second time.
I prefer B by the way if you are taking my vote. More free time and i sensed no lost not posting to your small clan over the last few months
But regardless don’t even dream of getting my respect when you post such nonsense about this passage having any evidence of technology in it and then follow it up by redefining nature to be other realities outside of our own. Good night even theists you claim contort and spin admit that when they refer to other realities they refer to the supernatural. Your last few posts show you have no shame.
LikeLike
LikeLike
“i certainly get it. you may be right. but even if not, the text certainly supports that much, much more than pagan worship at the top of babel’s tower.
that just came way out of nowhere.”
I saw this as I was posting to Nate SO I wll respond.
FIrst of all if you are ignorant about a subject just ask (in the future when I may oblige to read you more).
Pagan worship using tall buildings is not out of nowhere.
1) its a reocurring theme in the Bible referred to as high places
2) it is well known and established that such towers were used for religious/astrological worship in that area and in that time
3) It was the chief reason to build tall towers in sparsely occupied areas. You might have noticed William that sparsely occupied areas do not build upwards because ahem…they have no need for additional space like In New York. they go horizontal instead of vertical
4) babylon later became a place for such local worship using towers (but the fact that they were dispersed was effective in it not overtaking the whole planet’s population)
I realize you cannot help yourself as a rubber stamper to try and bail Nate out of his obvious ad blatant twisting of the text but logically (which is all I care about not your opinion) claiming that what is supported by historical, biblical and logical context is out of nowhere is pure nonsense.
BUt please do carry on
LikeLike
The definition of naturalism is pretty vague, merely explaining that it is devoid of the supernatural, meaning it is controlled by natural processes, not a supernatural intelligent mind.
if you want to demand that a first cause must be supernatural, then fine. what now?
you prefer being banned, so that you can avoid having to answer the next logical question after origins, which is, “if there was a supernatural origin, how does that lead us to the god of the bible?”
all of your posts show you’re scared to really talk about the actual subject, lack the honesty and intellectual acuity to actually discuss the facts, but instead resort to name calling, whining, and juking.
dont get me wrong, i dont mind it. it’s quite a show, watching you tie nooses around your own neck, but i am not sure if you really know this or if you’re actually oblivious to it.
again, like like in the letters to kathy posts, let’s say there is a supernatural origin. How does that mean:
1. 1 perfect all powerful god?
2. the god of the bible?
LikeLike
“The rest of us are talking in terms of “maybes,” but you’re not.” – It takes a special kind of insecurity to not be able to take, “I don’t know” for an answer.
LikeLike
“I think i see where you got that impression — in verse 6 where he says “and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.” But I don’t think he’s saying this approvingly; instead, I think he’s giving it as the reason why he should act. In other words, “if I don’t put a stop to it, they’ll be able to accomplish anything they put their minds to.”
WHich leads to another problem with your post that adds even more problems for you to actually back up with even a semblance of evidence
Ummmmm where is this great anger from God in this text as you claim?
I see an assessment of the situation, a passage that has no emotions clues or words such as “anger” “the Lord was wroth” but instead has a cool assessment of what may take place in the future and a rather mild solution to make sure it doesn’t. The people go to other parts of the world where they have more space to themselves and can develop freely their own countries
The earth does not open and swallow them
No pestilence is unleashed
Its all rather lame and tame.
The only emotion I see oozing out is yours and your great hatred of the concept of god contrived and read into a text that doesn’t have any rage at all
I am telling you this is probably the finest example of what I have stated is in almost all your writings. Pure hackery of the text to get to where you want to go
LikeLike
I never thought I would be defending Mike, but I am defending why his theory is plausible. And yet when you continue to read below , you could also make a case for technology.
The Mesopotamian ziggurats were not places for public worship or ceremonies. They were believed to be dwelling places for the gods and each city had its own patron god. Only priests were permitted on the ziggurat or in the rooms at its base, and it was their responsibility to care for the gods and attend to their needs. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziggurat)
Regardless, the Babylonians were the first to fire clay. There is other evidence of the use of clay for daily living. Axe heads of clay have been found, as has weaponry in the form of sling bolts and bullets, also found were nail-shaped objects made of clay, thought to be used as pestles or as a tool for tanning (http://janestreetclayworks.com/2011/02/16/the-history-of-bricks-mesopotamia/)
Such ziggurats may have been the inspiration for the Biblical Tower of Babel.
Not sure why this became such a huge issue as there is nothing definitive either way.
LikeLike
“The Mesopotamian ziggurats were not places for public worship or ceremonies. They were believed to be dwelling places for the gods and each city had its own patron god.”
In this case the ziggurats in particular were not Towers of Worship as Mike is claiming about tall buildings but dwelling places for their Gods as there were many of them.
LikeLike
“Pagan worship using tall buildings is not out of nowhere.” _ ABlacksmanagain
in the story of the tower of babel it is… unless you want to povide the verse…
“1) its a reocurring theme in the Bible referred to as high places” – ABlackamanagain
in much later places. hay, having sex with Bathsheba is also mentioned as wrong later in the bible. maybe god didnt want those in babel having sex with bathsheba on the tower. or he didnt want a rock pushed off it onto abemalec’s head yet.
“2) it is well known and established that such towers were used for religious/astrological worship in that area and in that time” – ABlacksmanagain
how do you know this? It’s not in the bible. if you’re getting it from secular history, that is interesting, because secular history shows that other nations already had other languages before that time, kind of undermining the whole biblical story of language origins.
“3) It was the chief reason to build tall towers in sparsely occupied areas. You might have noticed William that sparsely occupied areas do not build upwards because ahem…they have no need for additional space like In New York. they go horizontal instead of vertical” – ABlacksmanagain
according to gen 11, the tower of babel was built because the inhabitants wanted to make a name for themselves. nowhere does it say because they wanted to worship pagan gods.
and if we just think a little bit, we’ll see that towers can only be built so high by brick, and especially ancient brick. And even if they could build towers as high as those in New York – where do they get their food? from people who live outside the cities who grow and raise it… which means people have to spread out. it’s a natural process. as populations grows, people move to have the amount of land they need to use the restroom, grow crops and raise livestock. this is a basic concept.
“4) babylon later became a place for such local worship using towers (but the fact that they were dispersed was effective in it not overtaking the whole planet’s population)” – ABslackmansagain
later. the key word is “later.” where in gen 11 is it? Gen 10:5 shows there were other languages 2 or 3 generations after the flood. maybe they resorted to pagan worship that soon after such wrath from god, the text just doesnt bear it out. it’s literally nowhere in the context of the tower of babel. literally, completely absent.
“I realize you cannot help yourself as a rubber stamper to try and bail Nate out of his obvious ad blatant twisting of the text but logically (which is all I care about not your opinion) claiming that what is supported by historical, biblical and logical context is out of nowhere is pure nonsense.” – ABlacksmanagain
you’re insane – is that your problem?
pagan worship in the tower of babel is literally and completely nowhere in the context of the tower of babel. have you even read gen 11? I think your understanding of “logical” is not natural – and it’s certainly not “super.”
LikeLike
And yet it would be plausible that the Bible God wouldn’t want them to build a tower as a dwelling place for other Gods. Now we’re back to jealousy
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I see an assessment of the situation, a passage that has no emotions clues or words such as “anger” “the Lord was wroth” but instead has a cool assessment of what may take place in the future and a rather mild solution to make sure it doesn’t. The people go to other parts of the world where they have more space to themselves and can develop freely their own countries” – ABlacksmanagain
you know what else isnt there?
any reference to pagan worship.
LikeLike
“In this case the ziggurats in particular were not Towers of Worship as Mike is claiming about tall buildings but dwelling places for their Gods as there were many of them.”
ziggurats were temples and shrines. claiming that they are not towers associated with the worship of God’s is just assinine. Anywhere where a God was to dwell and priest were to attend was a place of worship. I would say the inner temple of The Jewish temple was a place of worship even though few were allowed access to it. Why? because it was if even to the priests that attended it.
LikeLike
yeah, if god wasnt agree, must not have been any pagan worship going on. good point, ABlackmansagain.
LikeLike
“Such ziggurats may have been the inspiration for the Biblical Tower of Babel.” – Seems like someone may have mentioned that earlier —
LikeLike
that is, “angry”
LikeLike
” Now we’re back to jealousy”
I know. Every man that doesn’t want his wife sleeping with another man should be totally ashamed of himself.
rofl
LikeLike