The Fallacy of Biblical Stories, Part 5: The Tower of Babel
Welcome to Part 5 of the biblical fallacy series. Today we are looking at the ancient skyscraper wannabe, the Tower of Babel. It's an ancient construction project that is supposed to explain the existence of different languages in the world, from a biblical perspective. It also supposedly occurred after the Great Flood and Noah's Ark event as depicted in the bible (See Part 1 of the series). Just like with the other parts of the series, I will be looking at the evidence for the Tower of Babel and determine the veracity of the story based on the evidence. So the Tower or Babel story goes something like this:
The ancient Babylonian versions of Donald Trump wanted to work in real estate and build a really big tower. This was going to be a really big tower. The biggest tower anyone has ever seen. A real bigly, bigly tower. Let me tell you, nobody was going to have a tower like this . This tower was going to be terrific! So, the Babylonians began work building a tower tall enough to "reach to the heavens." Well, God apparently did not like their ambition, as they thought if they could build the tower, they might not need God. After all, God seems to like his creations to be co-dependent. So rather than his usual method of mass smiting, God (channeling his inner Loki) decided to have a laugh and instantly have them all speak different languages. And since they did not seem to have blueprints to follow in building it and rather went by telling each other what to do, they simply abandoned that particular pork project. So they simply left and dispersed around the world. Never mind the possible psychological impact of suddenly speaking a different language than you did before.
So there it is. A megaproject abandoned because they could no longer speak the same language. I wonder how many shekels that set them back? Let's look at the evidence and see if the Tower of Babel was really a thing or not.
1. Size of the tower: So, for a tower to "reach the heavens," it must have been really tall, right? Unfortunately, the bible doesn't specify the dimensions of the tower. So we have to rely on secondary accounts (that should be a red flag regarding the story right there). According to Bibleview.org , the tower was 90 meters high or about 300 feet. That's it! The tower was actually smaller than modern skyscrapers (by almost half). By definition, a skyscraper is a building taller than 150 meters. By comparison, the Great Pyramid of Giza is just over 146 meters. The tallest building in the world, the Burj Khalifa, is 828 meters (2,717 ft). That's 30x the height of the Tower of Babel! Yet, God didn't seem to have a problem with the construction of that building, the pyramids of Egypt, or any other tall structure. But he took issue with the tower of Babel? That simply doesn't make sense.
2. The materials used in construction: Building such a tower might require quality materials for construction. Well, one would think so. But the only building materials used for the tower of Babel was mud bricks and tar (not roofing tar, which most might be familiar with). That makes sense, as those materials were probably plentiful in the region and easily manufactured and assembled by hand. Many ancient structures were constructed with the same methods. So what is the issue with mud bricks? Actually, nothing really. Mud bricks, if crafted right, can be quite strong and support a lot of weight. The major obstacle to a brick tower would be the lateral forces of winds at higher elevations. Weathering forces would also be an issue, but probably not immediately. There is a way around the lateral force issue: build the tower with a wide base and incrementally narrowing as it is built up, just like a pyramid. The Tower of Babel was probably constructed like a ziggurat (a step pyramid), which was an ancient architectural design and already existed at that point, as there were many such structures constructed such as Etemenanki in Babylon. So it is possible that a tower made of mud bricks can be constructed high enough to “reach the heavens,” but only if it has a base large enough to provide stable support for the entire structure. Otherwise, the whole thing will topple once it gets too high.
3. Architectural and human limitations : There is a reason why tall skyscrapers are not built out of mud bricks: they will collapse. There are two reasons for this. First, as I previously stated, the higher a structure gets, the greater the wind speed it must endure. As a ziggurat was constructed higher, its walls would still need to be thick enough to withstand the winds. This in turn requires a larger base to support the walls. Not to mention more time and material would be required for construction. I suppose if the base was miles in length and width, it could support an ever expanding height with thick enough walls to eventually reach heaven. But there is no archeological evidence to support the existence of such a large tower. According to Archinect , a tower of only mud bricks would require walls to be 150 feet thick once it gets to 500-1000+ feet in order to endure the 300+ mph winds at higher elevations. The second reason is the soil base. As the tower gets taller, more mass is pressing down on the soil base. The soil may not be able to withstand the immense amount of pressure being exerted on it. There is another factor one may not have considered: the human limitation. Ancient people not only had to craft all the bricks by hand, but they had to carry the bricks up the tower, which might become increasingly labor intensive as the tower rose higher and higher. That’s like asking someone to carry a stack of weights up dozens, if not hundreds, of flights of stairs. They didn’t have cranes or other modern construction equipment. I’m not saying they couldn’t do it per se. Only that it’s highly unlikely they would have been able to. Especially if they reached higher altitudes. At 8000 feet, people start suffering from altitude sickness, as the air starts to get too thin to breathe. That might make carrying bricks quite difficult. Then there’s the issue of the aforementioned winds and increasing cold at higher elevations. See, God didn’t have to do anything. He could have sat back and waited until the people passed out from oxygen deprivation and hypothermia. Assuming the wind didn’t blow them off the tower. That might have deflated their ambition.
4. Inspired by Babylonian structures : Like many biblical stories (some of which I covered in the first 4 parts), the Tower of Babel seems to be inspired or taken directly from another source or myth. In Babel’s case, it is probably from the aforementioned Etemenanki of Babylon, which was dedicated to the Babylonian god Marduk. There are also many other ziggurats present in southern Mesopotamia, where the Tower of Babel was supposedly built. Now, there may have well been a “Tower of Babylon.” But it is not likely how it is depicted in the bible. In other words, it’s just a story based on real events or structures. Namely, ancient people building large pyramids.
5. Humans learned to be multilingual : A major point of the Tower of Babel is that God made people speak different languages so the tower could not be built. It’s also supposed to be the explanation for all the different languages in the world (only in religion, right?) That seemed like a short sighted and temporary measure by God, as humans have learned to speak and translate multiple languages. Today, getting a workforce composed of individuals with different languages to cooperate and build a giant tower is not quite the obstacle it was in ancient times. And modern humans have already constructed very tall buildings. In effect, humans outsmarted God and beat the limits He set on us. Perhaps the only thing preventing us from building an actual Tower of Babel is the cost. Oh well, I suppose there are some things humans can not overcome. And that’s monetary limitations.
6. Languages gradually change over time: The idea that people suddenly started speaking different languages does seem rather absurd. Did god give everyone instant knowledge of the linguistic translations? And why would people who suddenly spoke different languages just scatter all over the world? No one could figure out what the other was saying where they were, given enough time? Modern humans probably became physically capable of our level of language about 100,000 years ago. According to the Linguistic Society of America ,
researchers suspect that the special properties of language evolved in stages, perhaps over some millions of years, through a succession of hominid lines. In an early stage, sounds would have been used to name a wide range of objects and actions in the environment, and individuals would be able to invent new vocabulary items to talk about new things. In order to achieve a large vocabulary, an important advance would have been the ability to 'digitize' signals into sequences of discrete speech sounds - consonants and vowels - rather than unstructured calls. This would require changes in the way the brain controls the vocal tract and possibly in the way the brain interprets auditory signals (although the latter is again subject to considerable dispute).
So given the vagueness of the actual Tower of Babel itself in the bible, coupled with the architectural and physical limitations associated with constructing a tower tall enough to reach Heaven, and what is known about the physical and neurological processes involved with language, it is highly unlikely there was ever a biblical Tower of Babel, nor did humans suddenly start speaking entirely different languages spontaneously. The biblical Tower of Babel seems to be based on earlier myth coupled with actual structures.
Tags
Who is online
72 visitors
Here is Part 5 of the Fallacy of Biblical Stories series. Sorry I took so long to publish this one. But as we can see, another biblical story just doesn't quite add up to science and logic.
Nicely done, an enjoyable read based on your style.
Thank you. I'm glad you enjoyed it.
Well I’m not going to discuss the issue here where you are judge, jury, and executioner as to what that disagrees with your view point gets deleted or not, but I did post about the issue elsewhere....
I see you're going full meta right off the bat! Feel free to disagree all you want. But unless you can support your position with evidence in a civil and rational manner, then your disagreement is little more than mere opinion and not worth any serious consideration. As to what gets deleted, just follow the CoC and you have nothing to worry about.
[deleted]
Wrong. The CoC is clear and applicable to all. If you think I or anyone else is being unfair or erroneous in ticketing or deleting something as a CoC violation, then the proper course of action is to message the moderators to review it. Improper moderation by an article's author is also a CoC violation. So if I flag and/or delete something as a CoC violation, I specify the violation itself or explain why. If you want to appeal it, then either make your case and/or go to the mods for review. But don't think you have special privileges or something!
[deleted]
See 3.2.16
Excellent!
What remains of the story, after your excellent demolition of any pretense of "strict veracity," is a fine parable . Which is undoubtedly what the author(s) intended, right from the start.
The Tower of Babel is a very good example of how a strict reading of the Bible is in complete contradiction with the Bible's intent.
Bibliolatry !
Biblical stories work only if they're taken as parables. But some people regard them as literal. That's when there's a problem.
It's also in complete contradiction to logic and scientific evidence.
''The Tower of Babel'' is this a biography of Trump?
Sorry Gordy it was just too good to pass up. Please delete it if you don't want it in your article.
No worries. It's all good, Lol
Trump is a great American President. He’s a great leader who protects individual rights, religious liberty, and economic freedom. The Tower of Babel is a progressive left construct, concentrating all power over all three in a central government that becomes their de facto religion. Thanks for giving permission for a Trump comment to stand and be on topic....
Trump is not the topic and clearly the humorous intent of the previous comment eludes you. You're just attempting to troll at this point!
That much is abundantly obvious. But if there is anything to suggest it was an actual, literal event, I'd sure like to see the (real) evidence for it. But I'm not holding my breath either.
As Sandy says though once a seeder allows a topic such as Trump to come up at all, he’s on topic for the rest of this seed.
Nope. I’ve got it covered in my Christians are last acceptable targets of discrimination seed.
No, the author can determine what the topic is or is not. This article is about the Tower of Babel. It is not about Trump or politics. I hope that is clear. I let the Trump mentions pass, as they were offered in a humorous and non serious manner. But any further comments about Trump is off topic and will be dealt with as such. Is that understood? Now, if you want to discuss the article itself or offer something pertaining to the legitimacy of the Babel story, then feel free to do so.
Since you refuse to address the topic here or demonstrate how Pat is wrong, your statement is meaningless.
The Tower of Babel in the bible is a fable that's unable to disable the label that it's unstable.
Now say that one 3 times fast
I can't even say it one time slowly.
Homina homina homina
It's a very clever tongue twister
grits!
[deleted]
... such comity and civility. gtfo.
I see you're incapable of engaging in a civil, rational discussion without repeated CoC violations, while proving me right in the process.
An aspect that always strikes me about this little tale is that God halts the tower because he is worried that human beings will think themselves capable of anything. So He intercedes (another example of violating free will) and stops this project cold by changing everyone's natural languages. A very radical move.
Yet as time goes on, human beings have produced accomplishments far greater then the tower of Babel. God seems to be cool with these.
People should not take the Bible literally and not take it to be divine. View it as words of creative ancient men with agendas.
Indeed. Why would an omnipotent god feel threatened by his "children" showing ambition or striving to be greater? Doesn't every parent want that for their children? To have their children surpass them, even in some way? I would think a parent would be proud if their child could accomplish something great.
I alluded to that in the article. What makes the Tower of Babel so different or special compared to other, greater accomplishments? If God was worried about humans "reaching Heaven" with a tower, why is He ok with NASA sending humans into space (the actual "heavens")? If being able to actually reach space doesn't give one a collective "we can accomplish anything," I don't know what does.
If people were smart, they would.
Seems to be a recurring theme. Adam and Eve were cast out of Eden for daring to eat the fruit that would give them knowledge.
You've noticed that too, eh?
Yeah. I mean the nerve of people wanting to be "educated" or learning new things. That just goes to show God wanted A&E to be stupid and subservient. I guess some things don't change.
It's a bit more specific than "knowledge." It was knowledge of good and evil. Big difference. Everyone pretends it was against knowledge of any kind so that they can make God seem unreasonable. The most obvious reason for denying us that knowledge is that we can't handle it, as history has amply shown us. So, in light of what was actually said and intended by the command, and the obvious fact that we have done about as bad as we could do with the knowledge of good and evil, I think it was pretty obviously for our benefit.
God seems unreasonable for two key reasons regardless of how one defines knowledge:
How anyone can view that as reasonable is beyond me. God sets them up to fail and punishes their entire progeny (100 billion human beings and still counting) forever; simply because they, in their (God given) naïvety, disobeyed Him with a seemingly harmless act.
So, he didn't want them to know right from wrong, but punishes people for doing wrong?
Seems reasonable.
So how could A&E know whether they were doing good or bad by disobeying God if they didn't know it was wrong (or "evil") in the first place? That begs the question of whether, hypothetically speaking, would A&E have disobeyed God if they already knew good from evil (or right from wrong, depending on the point of view)?
So A&E do wrong without actually knowing they're doing wrong, even though God knew in advance they would do wrong, but God punishes them anyway? In a rather sever manner too, I might add. Yeah, that's real reasonable! >sarc<
And yet, even without that initial knowledge, A&E still did a bad thing. It seems ignorance is just as bad as knowledge in that respect. The only real difference is, one either knows they're doing good/bad or they don't. But either still happens anyway.
While the discussion about A&E is fascinating, perhaps it is best left for the A&E discussion in Part 2 of the series.
Maybe God didn't want humans to know right from wrong because of the number of times they were going to be committing incest, genocide, etc. I'm sure some of them were decent enough people that they found killing an entire population (except maybe the virgin girls, sometimes) to be a bit distasteful. Those folks might have been better off without a sense of decency to trouble them.
A good reason not to take the Bible literally, IMO. Concepts of good and evil tend to be a bit...confused.
God could have saved us all anday himself a lot of time and trouble by not putting the "forbidden fruit" in the garden to begin with. So god shouldn't be surprised or upset over how events played out. But he still blames us for his own failings.
Sounds like a sociopath
Given how God acts or reacts in the OT, psychopath might be a more apt description.
Life of ease teaches us nothing, only through adversity and failure do we learn.
I agree.
Your observation is tacitly arguing that God planned for Adam & Eve to disobey and that He planned to then banish them from Eden and impose a life of adversity for them and all of their progeny.
If so, then that is what I referred to as a 'set up for failure'. What's the point of dangling Eden if God intended all along to create a world of adversity so that we could all learn? Eden, per this view, was never a real option for Adam & Eve.
If anything, that makes Eden a cruel joke played on A&E.
That seems to be carried out in many sects to this day. Despite that many of these stories have been proven as naturally occurring instances people still hang on to the bible version as their proof.
Not only do they hang on to the bible or belief, they reject or ignore anything which might contradict the bible or belief, most notably logic and science. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty (and laziness).
To include the bible itself.
Some do seem to either ignore or not recognize the logical contradictions in the bible. Especially if it maintains their own narratives. For example, God is angry and surprises Adam & Eve disobeyed him, even though god (supposedly omniscient) knew exactly what would happen ahead of time, as he himself set the events in motion. Certain theists will ignore that and make excuses for it, all the while burying their head in the sand when the logical inconsistencies is pointed out.
And within that same scenario it does away with the "all forgiving" god because he / she / it / shim kick them out of the garden instead of forgiving them.
Some people can't even agree on that. Some describe god as "all-loving" or all forgiving while others describe him as vengeful and such. Maybe god has a split personality?
The mere existence of "hell" debunks that.
The stories of "the great flood" and Sodom and Gamorrah back that up.
Yeah, pretty much.
Not to mention the 10 Plagues of Egypt or Adam & Eve.
I'm thinking for Part 6, I'll look at perhaps the biggest biblical story fallacy of them all: God himself. But I'm always open to suggestions, if there's a particular story you would like to discuss.
Samson & Delilah
Daniel in the Lions den
Thanks for the suggestions. I'll look into them.
Making the sun stand still.
Talking Donkey.
Virgin birth.
flaming bush and the supposed origin of all moral laws (10 commandments)
global flood (if you hadn't already)
Gordy has done the flood already.
The Wedding at Cana or are you just doing Old Testament?
I covered the flood, in Part 1 .
That would be a good one, as there is science to explain it.
Isn't that from Shrekk? Lol
I've shied away from the NT, as that is more of a narrative concerning Jesus. However, the Virgin birth itself might make for an interesting discussion.
I've often discussed the 10 Commandments when the topic covered "morality." Besides, George Carlin covered the commandments far better than I ever could. The possibility of the burning bush might be more speculative than anything. But I'll look into those.
"26 Then the angel of the Lord moved on ahead and stood in a narrow place where there was no room to turn, either to the right or to the left. 27 When donkey saw the angel of the Lord, it lay down under Balaam Shrek, and he was angry and beat it with his staff. 28 Then the Lord opened donkey’s mouth, and it said to Balaam Shrek, “What in da hell have I done to you to make you beat me these three times you ol' Ogre?”.
29 Balaam Shrek answered donkey, “You have made a fool of me! If only I had a sword in my hand, I would kill you right now.”
30 Then donkey said to Balaam Shrek, “Ain't I your donkey, which you always ride'n, to this very day? Have I been in the habit of doing this to you before? You might have seen a housefly, maybe even a super fly, but I bet you ain't never seen a donkey fly.” - Numbers 22:26-30
Nice verse. Lol
But I think for the next part, I'll focus on the sun standing still. At least that has some science which can back it up or refute it. Stay tuned.
You've got to look at the concept of Lilith.
Indeed. We can't have ippity women thinking they're equals, right? >sarc <