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 
“but despite your efforts, it’s still pretty clear that you were saying that “young woman” always meant virgin back in Isaiah’s time. My rhetorical question was illustrating the stupidity in saying that when isaiah was obviously not speaking about a virgin young woman, as the young woman was pregnant – which always, always means “NOT A VIRGIN.”
it illustrated how poor of a point you made.”
I guess I should read you every now and again for entertainment sake. That was pretty hilarious. You are completely lost but think you have a point….rofl
Isaiah was not at all talking about a pregnant woman but a woman that was GOING to CONCEIVE William. Check your basic biology teacher. Women are pregnant when they conceive not before .
so when Isaiah says an alma WILL conceive the pregnancy and conception is yet future and the word alma is not referring to a woman then pregnant
You only illustrate how bad you are at reading a text and understanding it – as you say LOL indeed!!!
LikeLike
when was the tower of babel supposed to have happened in the bible?
In gen 10:5 it has Noah’s great-grandsons dispersing by their own nation and language – so was that before or immediately after the Tower of Babel?
I would assume after, if we’re going by the bible.
or if before, I guess they were the ones whom the people in babel wanted to make a name for themselves for?
what a story. it’s so obviously a story. I’ve even heard young children (elementary aged) who grew up in conservative churches express their reluctance to believe this story is credible. but the bible says so, so it must be true.
if there’s another reason for believing this silly story, I’d like to hear it so that i can consider it.
– God kills all the people, except for 8, in a global flood.
– the 8 people begin to repopulate
– The descendants of those 8 decide to build a tower and make a name for themselves.
– god sees the tower and confuses their languages so that they scatter.
– That’s how we have different nations and languages
i mean, it makes the most sense out of any other possibility.
LikeLike
Dear readers of this blog: Support higher education funding in your state!
More people than ever before are going to college in the United States, and studies have found that people who attend college tend to be more liberal, less intolerant, and less religious. Why? College students come into contact with people outside their own ethnic, social, political, and religious communities. Exposure to the views of others makes people less dogmatic and more tolerant of diversity.
Increasing levels of college education and easy access to divergent views on the Internet will one day doom religious fundamentalism. Let’s help speed that process along!
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Increasing levels of college education and easy access to divergent views on the Internet will one day doom religious fundamentalism. Let’s help speed that process along”
Seeing as how people such as myself have been going to college, earning degrees and have been doings so for decades you might want to come up with a back up plan there sparky
The percentage of theists still relegates atheists to less than double digits
LikeLike
“Isaiah was not at all talking about a pregnant woman but a woman that was GOING to CONCEIVE William. Check your basic biology teacher. Women are pregnant when they conceive not before.” – ABlacksmanagain
wrangling? are you a cowboy now? very true. my point still remains, and it is still stupid to say that “young woman” means “virgin” for a woman who has conceived. you’re not saying that she was only a virgin until she conceived are you? as in, mary was a virgin before she had sex and got pregnant with jesus out of wedlock?
besides, isaiah was clearly talking about the boy born in Isaiah Chapter 8 and the young woman that gave birth to him. she wasnt a virgin, by the way. As a student of biology, you’d know that when a woman conceives, it means she’s the opposite of a virgin.
“so when Isaiah says an alma WILL conceive the pregnancy and conception is yet future and the word alma is not referring to a woman then pregnant” – ABlackmanagain
I am still laughing, really. brilliant work, detective! LOL. you got me. but the passage still clearly talks about the woman and boy in the very next chapter of isaiah, a woman who was NOT A VIRGIN when she conceived. at some point, all women are virgins before they conceive – but they are no longer virgins once they conceive.
is this what you meant all along?
you know, i still dont think Isaiah was talking about mary or jesus, and anyone with a rudimentary reading efficiency can see he was talking about the woman and boy in Isaiah chapter 8, but if your position is that mary was only a virgin “before she conceived” then that certain makes much more sense than “Virgin giving birth.” is this what your position is?
“You only illustrate how bad you are at reading a text and understanding it – as you say LOL indeed!!!” – ABlackmansagain
LOL. you’re too much. I guess you’ve been given enough rope…
LikeLike
“Seeing as how people such as myself have been going to college, earning degrees and have been doings so for decades you might want to come up with a back up plan there sparky” – ABlacksmanagain
wasnt your degree in seminary? I think the references was in real college degrees.
LikeLike
“The percentage of theists still relegates atheists to less than double digits” – ABlacksmanagian
and “few there be that find it.”
I’m not really an atheist though. and if you were to divide all the christians into their denominations and sects, you’d no longer have majority.
LikeLike
A recent Pew poll shows that 23% of Americans now classify themselves as “no religious affiliation”. This does not mean that all these people consider themselves to be atheists, but it does mean that the number of Americans who identify as “Christian” has dramatically declined. Only 70% of Americans in 2015 refer to themselves as Christian.
And the news gets worse for Christianity in America. The younger generations are leaving the Church in droves. A recent study in the Southern Baptist Convention revealed that 80% of SBC churches had two or less baptisms of someone under the age of 30 for the entire year. Membership and baptisms in all major denominations in the United States continue their year after year decline. Will America become like Europe where the majority of churches are empty and many are now used as museums or even restaurants?
We can only hope!
LikeLiked by 1 person
You would be correct, William.
Spending four years learning how virgins can have babies, humans can walk on water, and decomposing, bloated corpses can walk out of their mausoleums is NOT a form of “higher” education.
LikeLiked by 1 person
William I can’t correct your stupidity on the use of Hebrew language. I mean if someone could hold you down and administer sense to you I would assist in the intervention (or at least make a paypal contribution) but no matter how you thrash about in desperation Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy regarding a future pregnancy so your point is devastated no matter how hard you try to save yourself from the embarrassment. the almah is not pregnant until the prophecy is fulfilled.
therefore citing her later pregnancy as proof of how almah is used is just stupid. Almah is overwhelmingly used as unmarried maiden and even culturally most of those were virgins and its also the only thing that fits as a sign from God
Duh dud and ……..duh.
LikeLike
“wasnt your degree in seminary? I think the references was in real college degrees.”
NO it wasn’t. Going for another record on how often you can be wrong within an hour. Since you already are the present record holder I admire your commitment to excel at what you are good at.
LikeLike
“A recent Pew poll shows that 23% of Americans now classify themselves as “no religious affiliation”. This does not mean that all these people consider themselves to be atheists, but it does mean that the number of Americans who identify as “Christian” has dramatically declined. Only 70% of Americans in 2015 refer to themselves as Christian.”
I am totally devastated at that 70% majority status. Should we switch with atheists? Is it like Limbo? the better the lower you go?
Only?…..ROFL.
stop it……. the laughter is hurting my sides.
LikeLike
” Will America become like Europe where the majority of churches are empty and many are now used as museums or even restaurants?”
We see you Europe and raise you china. Might as well fold laddie. You are losing.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10776023/China-on-course-to-become-worlds-most-Christian-nation-within-15-years.html
LikeLike
“William I can’t correct your stupidity on the use of Hebrew language. I mean if someone could hold you down and administer sense to you I would assist in the intervention (or at least make a paypal contribution) but no matter how you thrash about in desperation Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy regarding a future pregnancy so your point is devastated no matter how hard you try to save yourself from the embarrassment. the almah is not pregnant until the prophecy is fulfilled.
therefore citing her later pregnancy as proof of how almah is used is just stupid. Almah is overwhelmingly used as unmarried maiden and even culturally most of those were virgins and its also the only thing that fits as a sign from God
Duh dud and ……..duh.” – ABlacksmanagain
so it’s not your belief at all that mary was a virgin when she conceived jesus?
and while I am not a hebrew scholar, I do agree that the text in isaiah is pretty clear, that a young woman will conceive and have a son. the young woman gave birth to her son in isaiah chapter 8.
look, it’s matthew who thought mary was a virgin. take it up with him. he knows even less about the hebrew language than i.
I can accept a woman was a virgin before she had sex, of course. And now that you’re conceding that was only what isaiah was getting at, then I guess I can see that too. I still think you’re twisting the passage, but it certainly makes more sense than “a virgin will give birth to a baby.”
LikeLike
ABlacksmanagain, arent you mike, of the famed “letters to Kathy” era?
I had thought you said you had been to seminary. honest mistake if I was wrong. I’ll go back to check when i get time.
what’s your degree in?
LikeLike
ABlacksmanagain, how old are you?
and i am truly interested in what your degree was in.
I really thought you had once said “seminary.” but it’s not? liberal arts? certainly not law, not with your handle of the socratic method…
LikeLike
How can we naturalists have a coherent conversation with people whose worldview is based on the whims of invisible ghosts and ghouls? It is becoming more and more clear to me that such conversations are a waste of time…but I still enjoy the food fights for some reason.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think he has a B.S. in BS.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“and while I am not a hebrew scholar, I do agree that the text in isaiah is pretty clear, that a young woman will conceive and have a son. the young woman gave birth to her son in isaiah chapter 8.”
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.
LikeLike
“I think he has a B.S. in BS.”
the only one that thinks there is such a thing is the sole graduate of the imaginary program. Its somwhat of a misnomer though – when you say “I think”
LikeLike
“I have debated the issue with Rabbis and they were unable to answer several points I raise in such debates” – Doubtless with a great deal of eye-rolling and walking away shaking their heads.
LikeLike
Imagine your reaction if some one in your small town started claiming that he had been born of a virgin. It would be the talk of the town! He would soon become the laughing stock of the county! Every place he went people would ask him to explain…again…how his mother had been impregnated by an invisible ghost.
But we see none of this in the Gospel of Mark, the first gospel written, and the gospel from which Matthew, then Luke, and probably then John used as a template for their stories about Jesus. If there is any kernel of truth in the gospels regarding the life of Jesus, it is most likely in Mark.
But no one asks about Jesus’ virgin birth in Mark’s gospel. No one ridicules Jesus for being the son of a virgin and a ghost. In fact, there is no mention whatsoever in the Gospel of Mark of a virgin birth!
Isn’t that a problem, Christians?
LikeLike
“Doubtless with a great deal of eye-rolling and walking away shaking their heads.”
Not at all. I never mentioned your name once.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Imagine your reaction if some one in your small town started claiming that he had been born of a virgin.”
We have no indication Jesus went around saying
“My name is Jesus I was born of a virgin”
“But no one asks about Jesus’ virgin birth in Mark’s gospel. No one ridicules Jesus for being the son of a virgin and a ghost. In fact, there is no mention whatsoever in the Gospel of Mark of a virgin birth!
Isn’t that a problem, Christians?”
Nope….not even vaguely All gospels have something another doesn’t have.
do your points ever get better?
almost all of your argument (and William’s) rests on personal incredulity arising ultimately out of your worldview. Not only have hundreds of millions found the gospels to be viable but you run away like scared puppies anytime anyone asks you to justify an anti supernatural stance in light of reality being ultimately unexplainable on purely materialistic terms.
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.
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..
Will that seem like gobblygook to you? Sure because you are a light thinker and a great deal of what i just referenced goes right over your head.
LikeLike
“If the cyclic universe or multiverse theories are being considered then they are said to be eternal. Since they are eternal (without beginning) they do not have a cause, similar to the eternal conscious mind theory. In all of these theories we have an infinite chain of events (mindless processes or conscious thoughts) which may seem impossible, but could still be true. I have yet to see a good argument for dismissing the idea of infinity existing within reality.”
Sorry Dave I almost missed responding to this. the problem with an infinite chain of events is that it violates completely materialistic claims that everything has a rational naturalistic explanation. When you invoke infinite in the past it is no different from saying no cause and no complete start middle and end process therefore no explanation whatsoever..
A process that does not have a beginning is begging bread to be considered a natural process and yet really that is the argument a materialist is really making – reality is a natural process that does not have a beginning.
So the problem is not so much with infinities its with infinite processes/chain of events – they have no rational naturalistic explanation. it is because it is , the process of cycles is because it is and every single force in present operation comes from no ultimate origin.the whole universe and everything in ends up with an unexplainable supernatural quality
Now that applies to laws and rules of how the cyclical universe operates as well. They too have no reason or complete process. They are part of reality, mathematical ordered in nature and apparently (since we exist and are part of the cycle) possess the potential at intelligence.
The Bible has a definition of God that is close to this = I am that I am
so the huge divide between where the atheistic reality ends up and the theistic reality ends up is almost a singular disagreement on nothing but – is the I am that I am intelligent or non intelligent?
To dig deeper since nothing at all has an explanation or is bound to a rule of having one we have no idea whatsoever what is impossible or impossible. Even QM phycists claim that given the right Odds a dragon could appear out of a collider or as Krauss does say in one of his youtube videos a human could appear out of thin air, SO then what is the proper definition of supernatural and why if the universe allows for this is a miracle to use WIllaim’s claim “absurd”?
IF you live in a universe that does not have rational ultimate explanations it completely changes the claims of what is natural and what is supernatural and it renders the bias against anything that does not have a naturalistic explanation as somewhat silly –
after all – all of reality in that case has no naturalistic explanation.
Thank you by the way. i am grateful that at least one person here is willing to think on the subject whether agreeing or disagreeing.
LikeLike