Fight the Good Fight of the Faith: Joshua in History

Wow, it has been quite a long time since I have had a chance to write. I apologize for being MIA for so long. It has been quite a busy past few months while my senior pastor has been on sabbatical, and I have barely had enough time to get done what I have needed to get done for my family and church over the past few months, so I have just let writing fall to the wayside. I still do not have a lot of time to write presently, but I have also recently finished a sermon series at my church (GCPC), and it should give me enough for a couple of posts per week for a while.

The sermon series was called "Joshua: Fight the Good Fight of the Faith," and it is the story of the battles of the Christian life from the book of Joshua. Each week I wrote a short devotional that went out as an email to my church, which related to the passage on which the sermon was focused and, of course, preached a sermon from that passage. So, I will put all that up here as the weeks progress

The first weekly devotional for this series was a short summary of the historical debates and issues surrounding the book of Joshua. I argued that it is a reliable source of history that matches up well with what we know of Canaan and the ancient Near East in the second millennium BC. This historical basis is important because if it is just tales, then it does not actually teach us about the true God or tell us what He has done, so there is no reason for us to care about it. Legend does not help us in the Christian life. So, here it is. On Sunday I will post the first sermon entitled, "Be Strong and Courageous."
_______________________________________________

This Sunday we start our summer sermon series, which will go through the book of Joshua. And, any time we take a look at Scripture, particular the books of the Old Testament, it is helpful and even necessary to address the question of the historicity of the book.

Joshua is the book that tells the story of God's people entering the Promised Land under the leadership of Joshua, after the exodus from Egypt and forty years of wandering in the wilderness under Moses. Yet, the book of Joshua is much more than the story of God's people beginning the conquest of the land of Canaan: it is history and presents itself as history. In fact, as I will talk more about in the sermon posted Sunday, it is prophetic history--historical events recorded not merely to inform us of what happened but to proclaim a message from God Himself to us, a message that has much to teach us about our spiritual battles and the Christian life.

However, like many or even most Old Testament books, the historical truthfulness of the book of Joshua has come under fire in recent times, and since that is the case, it is necessary for us to talk briefly about its history and why we can trust it.

Much of the claim that the book of Joshua is "closer to fiction than it is history" comes from the fact that there is little archaeological evidence and historical documentation to corroborate what Scripture tells us. Now, hidden in this objection is the idea that Scripture itself is not history and therefore cannot be taken as historical evidence in its own right. That is a dubious assumption, to say the least, and it commits the logical fallacy of "begging the question" (i.e. failing to prove what it assumes). Many great books have been written on the historical veracity of Scripture, particularly the Old Testament (e.g. Kingdom of Priests is a good one), so I will not take that up here. It is too broad of a subject to address in this post, but keep in mind that since Scripture presents itself as history, when someone claims it is not, the burden of proof is on them to show that Scripture contradicts established, historical facts. It is not enough to say, "Well, there is no corroborating evidence," for that is an argument from silence or it assumes that historians are in possession of every bit of ancient historical evidence, which, of course, we know they are not. There is still much discovery to be done when it comes to archaeology and ancient history, and saying that there is no or little corroborating evidence to date is not a sufficient objection. The objector must prove that there is well-established, irrefutable evidence that contradicts the Bible before they can say, "Yes, the Bible presents itself as history, but we should not take it that way."

When I preached on Exodus last summer, I wrote about the historical evidence for the exodus from Egypt here, which might be a good place to start for extra reading. In that article, I argued for a date of 1446 BC for the exodus from Egypt, which has been questioned in recent times, and I address those objections to that date in the article, showing why it is biblical and fits the historical evidence from the time.

Given the date of 1446 BC for the exodus and the fact that the Scriptures tell us God's people wandered in the desert for forty years after that, that puts the date of the beginning of the conquest of the land of Canaan at 1406 BC. So, the main question then is: Is there verifiable archaeological and/or historical evidence that contradicts that date? If not, then there is no good reason to believe that what the Bible presents is not true history. A secondary question is: Is there corroborating evidence for this date? So, let's look at those two questions briefly:

In answer to the first (Is there verifiable archaeological and/or historical evidence that contradicts that date?): no, but that is not always the answer some scholars try to give. However, let me give a couple of reasons why the answer to that question is "No, there is no evidence that contradicts that Bible":

• Some scholars have argued that there is no archaeological evidence for a large-scale destruction of Canaanite cities until ca. 1250 BC. Given that, it is argued, the story of Joshua and Israel's conquest of Canaan in Scripture cannot be squared with archaeology, so the book his not historical. However, such an argument flat-out ignores the biblical account of Israel's conquest of Canaan. That argument assumes that the Israelites would have followed traditional conquest patterns of the time (i.e. complete destruction of cities) instead of taking seriously how Scripture describes the conquest:
• Joshua was specifically told by God only to destroy completely Jericho, Ai, and Hazor. The other cities were specifically not to be destroyed so that the Israelites would have places to live when "all was said and done" (cf. e.g. Dt. 6:10-11; 19:1). So, we should not expect there to be any evidence for a large-scale destruction of the cities in Canaan ca. 1406 BC. In fact, the archaeological evidence for a large-scale destruction ca. 1250 BC could easily be attributed to the severe oppression of Israel during the time of Deborah in the book of Judges.
• In addition, renown archaeologist John Garstangs's excavation of Jericho shows that the walls of the city fell outward and that it was probably destroyed ca. 1400 BC (though this date is still debated among archaeologists), both of which fit the biblical data quite well.
• Furthermore, Yigael Yadin's work in the excavation of Hazor (cf. Jos. 11) has shown that it was leveled in also around 1400 BC, which again comports well with the Bible's story and chronology.
• Dating the conquest to 1406 BC does fit what little archaeological and historical evidence in Canaan that we have.
• Furthermore, the biblical story of the conquest of Canaan also fits well with the surround events in the other nations of the ancient Near East (ANE). In fact, when the surrounding history is viewed with an eye that looks for God's providential hand, ca. 1400 BC was the perfect time for the conquest. All of the major powers surrounding Canaan that could have hindered Israel were all preoccupied somehow, which left Canaan ripe for conquest:
• The Hittites (a major power) and Mitannites were at war, and even if the Hittites could have fought on two fronts, they would not press into Canaan for fear of angering Egypt (who had claim to Canaan at the time through treaties with the peoples there).
• Syria was brought under Hittite control during this time, so it posed no threat to Israel in Canaan.
• Assyria and Egypt had entered into a treaty, so Assyria would not risk that treaty by interfering with Canaanites affairs.
• And, even though Egypt had claim to Canaan ca. 1400 BC, it was disinterested in Canaan because Amenhotep III (1417-1379 BC) had turned inward to focus on hunting and arts, and Amenhotep IV (1379-1362 BC) was engaged in religious pursuits and disinterested in Canaan as well. In fact, Burnaburias II of the Kassites wrote a letter to Amenhotep IV (1370 BC) complaining about the shoddy treatment of his messengers that traveled through Canaan (a letter which does not appear to have received a response), and the description in the letter fits the biblical account of the time of the Judges after the conquest.
• As the historian and biblical scholar Eugene H. Merrill says, "The other side of the coin of Egyptian indifference to Canaanite affairs surely has to be the hand of Yahweh, who provided exactly the right circumstances in which His people could possess the land He had promised them."

In answer to the second question: (Is there corroborating evidence for the conquest?): perhaps, though it is not so solid that we can say without a doubt that the documentation of the time refers directly to the Bible's account of the conquest:

• At this time, there was a group of people known as the 'Apiru or Habiru (in the Canaanite language). They do not appear to be an ethnic group (i.e. a race like Hebrews or Hittites) but probably a social class, specifically: mercenaries. There exists a series of letters coming from Canaan to Egypt pleading for help defending against the 'Apiru called the Amarna Letters, and these letters have been dated to ca. 1400-1350 BC. (Egypt did not respond to any of them, by the way, because the Pharaohs described above were disinterested in Canaan and ignored them.) Now, it is clear that these people are not to be fully identified with the Israelites, however, given that their name is remarkably linguistically similar to the word "Hebrew" in Canaanite, it is possible that the Canaanites may have confused the Hebrews with the 'Apiru and perhaps some of the Amarna Letters are really referring to the Hebrews. This would make sense for the Canaanites probably would not have been able to distinguish between peoples attacking them from the outside, especially when their names were so similar.
• There are several Amarna Letters that sound almost exactly like parts of the biblical account of the conquest. Merrill collects several of these together in his book Kingdom of Priests and shows how they fit quite well with the biblical account of the Israelite ownership of Shechem, the defeat of Megiddo, the account of the enslavement of the inhabitants of Gezer by Ephraim of Israel, and the taking of part of Jerusalem by Judah. So, some of the Amarna Letters could very well refer to the Hebrews and not the actual 'Apiru.
• In fact, this possible confusion of the 'Apiru with the Hebrews might explain why the OT very rarely shows the Israelites using "Hebrew" for self-reference--they almost never called themselves "Hebrews." They would not call themselves something that would confuse them with a social class of mercenaries. This confusion also could explain 1 Sa. 13:3, 6-7; 14:21, which distinguish the Hebrews from the Israelites (where these distinguished Hebrews really 'Apiru?).

So, while the 'Apiru cannot be completely identified with the Hebrews, some of the Amarna letters may, in fact, describe the Hebrews (being confused with the 'Apiru). And, even if they do not, they do not contradict the biblical account at all.

As stated above, when one wants to question this historical truthfulness of the book of Joshua, one has to show that it contradicts established, verified archaeological and historical evidence. Hopefully, the above overview shows that it does not, but, in fact, what little extra-biblical data there is for Canaan ca. 1400 BC fits quite well with Scripture and may even offer support for its account of the conquest in the book of Joshua.

On Sunday, we will begin looking at the narrative itself and see how it can fortify us for the Christian life.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Resurrection Resources

This Sunday is Easter Sunday, which means there will be Easter egg hunts, pastel colors, special lunches and dinners, fuller churches, and lots, lots, lots of popular media articles trying to claim that the resurrection of Jesus never happened and possibly even saying something like "there is no historical evidence for it" or some thing like that. Well, since Paul says in 1 Co. 15:14, "If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain," this is an important subject.

Well, to cut to the chase, the resurrection did happen, there is ample historical evidence for it, and there is good reason to believe in it. Now, since so much good stuff has been written on this subject, I do not feel the need to repeat that process. Instead, here is a short list of some great resources for defending the validity and historicity of the resurrection:

• The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach -- This is one of the most scholarly works on the resurrection of Jesus, and even though it is expensive and big, it is worth your money and time. It does have a few issues with it (a few of which are discussed here at a roundtable with the author a few other NT scholars), but overall it is quite good. 
• Challenge: We Can't Know Jesus Rose from the Dead -- This is a quick video interview with Mike Licona (the author of the above book), highlighting the major historical points that show us that we can know that Jesus rose from the dead. 
• Impact 360 Video: Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? -- This is a great, short video explaining the major pieces of evidence for the resurrection, and it even addresses the objection: "Science has disproved the resurrection." 
• The Resurrection wad a Real Event in History -- This is an article laying out some of the major evidences for the resurrection. It also briefly counters some of the attempts to offer a "natural" explanation. 
• 4 Reasons to Believe in the Empty Tomb -- This one is not about the resurrection, per se, but it is about why we can believe that Jesus' tomb was empty on that Sunday morning after His crucifixion and why that historical evidence demands an explanation that all other attempts fail to supply.
• Five Strands of Evidence for Jesus Christ’s Resurrection -- Here is another article briefly summarizing the evidence for the resurrection. 
• Jesus’ Family and the Resurrection -- This one looks at James' change of heart in particular and how the best explanation for that is the resurrection. 
• An Elephant in the Resurrection Skeptic’s Room -- This one looks a different line of argumentation: answering a challenge that the disciples were uneducated, so we should not trust their accounts of the resurrection. 
• Addressing Resurrection Alternatives -- This is a six-part series addressing the attempts to explain away the resurrection (part one, part two, part three, part four, part five, part six).
• The Resurrection: Christianity’s Most Dangerous Idea -- This one is not so much an apologetic article but one that talks about why the resurrection is such a dangerous idea to those looking upon the Christian faith with disbelief. 
• Was Jesus Still God in the Tomb? -- Again, not an apologetic article, but it is an important question that Christians should be able to answer. 

If you are a Christian, I hope these help boost your confidence in your Savior and standing before God in Him. If you are not a Christian, I pray these resources will challenge your preconceptions about the Bible and history and lead you to a saving faith in Christ.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Two Beautiful Books: Science... err... correction: Nature and Scripture (Part 4)

In previous posts I have been attempting to give Christians a framework for living as believers in a world that puts a great deal of weight on science, and what I have been trying to do is to help my Christian readers learn to think biblically about science and consistently as a Christian. I have been using the analogy of building a house--I want to help you build an intellectual and spiritual "house" in which you can "live" as a Christian in our day and age. In the first two posts, we started to do that by talking about God's revelation of Himself and His truth. Then in the previous post we began to look at human fallibility. In each post, we have added a new "section" of our "house":

1. In the first post of this series, I defended the idea that all truth is God's truth, and in some fashion all truths point us to God, which is the concrete for our foundation in the metaphorical houses we are building. 
2. In the second post of this series, we looked at the Belgic Confession and saw that God reveals His truth and we discover it through the two "books" of nature and Scripture. From that I argued that God has revealed Himself infallibly in the books Scripture and nature, and since God is the author of both books there is no inherent contradiction between the two. When it comes to the house we are building, this is the foundation upon which we will build everything else.
3. In the third post of this series, we began to look at human fallibility, and I argued that when apparent conflicts arise, it is not because science and the Bible are in conflict but because we human beings are either interpreting Scripture wrongly, the scientific data wrongly, or both wrongly. We can think of this as the framework for our house, upon which we can put a metaphorical roof and walls. 

I ended the previous post in this series by reminding you all that the "framework" that we just built tells us the nature of apparent conflicts. But, then, I asked a question the questions "What gives rise to these conflicts? From where do they come?" That is part of what human fallibility adds to our understanding and what we will discuss today, and from this we will see the source of the apparent conflicts or "clashes" between "science and Christianity." Here it is in a nutshell: the apparent contradictions are not a clash between science and Christianity; they are a clash between two worldviews that we fallible humans hold: naturalism and theism.

Now, let us talk briefly about worldview. Everyone has a worldview, which is a set of assumptions or presuppositions that help us to interpret the data we get from God's revelation, whether through Scripture or the natural, physical world. The assumptions of our worldview are beliefs that we may not even think about consciously, but they are beliefs that affect our interpretation of everything that we read in Scripture or observe in nature. For example:

• Naturalism is a worldview that holds a number of assumptions/presuppositions:
• There is no such thing as a god or higher power. This is assumed by someone who has a naturalistic worldview before they even look at the data from their scientific research. And, the assumption that there is no god is going to lead one down a particular path of interpretation of data because, from this worldview, all explanations, even those about the origins of the universe itself, cannot appeal to anything beyond the physical universe. 
• Along with that, the naturalist assumes that the physical world--matter and energy--are the only things that exist. There is no such thing as the "supernatural" or a spiritual realm in this worldview. They assume that if something cannot be tested by the scientific method, then it simply does not exist. This leads to the assumption there can never be a non-physical explanation for anything in our universe or in the history or our world, and they interpret all data with that assumption.
• Theism is a worldview that holds a number of differing and conflicting assumptions/presuppositions:
• God does exist. He is, in some fashion or another, the creator and sustainer of the universe in which we live. This assumption leads one down another path of interpretation of all data, especially those about the origins of the universe itself, and this path of interpretation can be quite different from the path someone with a naturalist worldview takes.
• Along with this, the theist assumes that there is a spiritual realm along with the physical. He assumes there are things that there are parts of reality that scientists cannot probe through the scientific method, and as a result, some scientific theories may be incomplete because without the spiritual component they cannot get the whole picture. For example, theories about consciousness, emotion, the origins of religion in humans, and the origins of the universe cannot be completely understood by the scientific method, and a theist knows that some information has to come from another source. The Christian theist goes further and says that the Bible is our source that helps us understand these things that science cannot test or probe.

Now, these two worldviews are absolutely in conflict, and when we take that into account, it is no wonder that they will at times produce conflicting interpretations of scientific data. When it comes to the origins of the universe, for example, the naturalist must grope for some type of way that the universe could create itself because he cannot accept the explanation of God being behind it. That puts him at odds with the verse first verse of Scripture and everything else from then on. But, it is his naturalism that is at odds with Scripture, not science. 

So, at the heart of these "science vs Christianity" debates is not really a conflict between science and the study of Scripture, because again, referring back to the previous post, science and the study of Scripture by exegesis are tools. They can no more conflict with one another than a hammer can conflict with a circular saw. Yet, when fallible humans start to use these tools and interpret the data they get from them within their worldview of theism or naturalism, then the apparent conflicts will arise. And, the source of the conflicts is competing worldviews.

See, the Christian can look at the Bible and scientific data and say, "The data from this scientific research and the data from my study of Scripture are not in conflict because God is revealing Himself through both. It's the interpretation of the data that is conflicting. However, if one interprets the data from Scripture this way and the data from the natural world through scientific research that way, we can see that they harmonize perfectly." Now, sometimes that is a really, really hard thing to figure out how to do, and there may be times when we never really figure it all out (we will talk more about this in an upcoming post). But, that is not because science and Scripture are in conflict. It is because one's interpretation of the data from science, Scripture, or both is in error. And, when atheists scientists are interpreting data through a naturalist worldview, you can bet that sometimes their interpretation of the data will conflict with Scripture, but that does not mean science itself does. This is a conflict of worldviews (and therefore interpretations of data), not a conflict between science and Christianity. 

When we boil conflicts down to a clash of worldviews, this helps disable the alleged "privilege" that "science" has over Christianity and Scripture. It "levels the playing field," we could say. It is not science saying these things that appear to conflict with Scripture but a naturalist scientist saying them. And, naturalists like Richard Dawkins, for example, do not have the monopoly on the interpretation of data from the sciences. They might say, "Science says the fossil record proves that evolution is a fact that Christians must accept," but science cannot say that at all. Science only gives the data. Their interpretation of the scientific data says that, but a Christian looking at the data through his theism and derive an equally valid interpretation that is both faithful to Scripture and the natural world. And, when Dawkins or someone like him says it is wrong, the only reason for that is because he believes only natural explanations are acceptable. But, why does he believe naturalism is the correct way to view the universe? He accepts it only by faith. He cannot prove that there is nothing beyond the physical universe of energy and matter. There is no way to prove that. He simply assumes it is true, and then claims that his interpretation of the scientific data from his naturalistic worldview is the only right one. But, he does not have the monopoly on interpretation of scientific data.

Now, Christians have worldview commitments as well, as noted above, and we need to be honest about those. But, the point of saying all this is to bring the debate up out of the realm of competing interpretations of evidence and put it where it belongs: competing worldviews. That is where the conflict really lies. And when we do that, we "level the playing field." Christians have a bias towards theism and atheists have a bias towards naturalism, and both of us can interpret the scientific data within the assumptions of our worldview, which for the Christian means taking what the Scriptures tell us into account as well. Once we bring that out, we can move the debate from competing interpretations of scientific data to which worldview can best explain the universe in which we live. Can naturalism? I would argue "no," and of course it is not just me. There are many books that have shown the many failures of the worldview of naturalism, including one that I discuss here by an atheist (i.e. an atheist critiquing the atheistic worldview of naturalism). (I would highly recommend you read this post and check out the book to which I am referring: Mind and the Cosmos by Thomas Nagel.)

A helpful example of what I have been talking about in this post would be the infographic that I critique in this post. There, I show how there is a hidden assumption in many of the things that some popular scientists claim "science says," and when we expose that assumption, we get to the heart of the matter: which worldview can best explain the reality in which we live. 

Alright, that is enough for today. In the next post I will begin to talk about how we move forward. Now that we have a biblical view of science and Scripture and now that we have seen where the source of the apparent conflicts really lies, how do we move forward and live as Christians in a world that puts a great deal of weight on the sciences? How do we (using the analogy of the intellectual and spiritual "house" in which we "live") put a roof and walls on the foundation and framework we have laid? Well, we will talk about that in the next post. 

By His Grace,

Taylor

God of the Gaps?

"Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a Legislator." ~ C. S. Lewis, Miracles

It is sometimes claimed by atheists that theists are "intellectually lazy" and simply uphold a "God of the gaps" mentality, which one could define as the tendency to attribute anything that cannot be explained scientifically to God. They charge that saying God created the universe or that God created species is simply filling God in the gaps of science, but as science discovers more about the universe, the gaps get smaller and God gets pushed out. "Theists," they say, "are lazy and just do not want to do the work of intellectual inquiry, so they say, 'God did it' and leave it at that." That is, at least, the claim many atheists make. Lawrence Krauss did this in his recent debate with William Lane Craig. He said:

There's a lot we don't know about the universe—a lot more we don't know than we do. That's the wonder of science; that's why I'm a scientist. But it is intellectually lazy to just stop asking questions and stop looking for physical explanations and just say, "God did it." That's lazy.

Now, Stand to Reason has given a good response to this challenge, and I would recommend you watch it:


Brett makes some very good points in this response. In particular, showing that there are sufficient stopping points in intellectual inquiry, is a good one. Also, pointing out that Krauss will only accept a physical explanation is important. Saying that all inquiry must obtain a physical explanation for it to arrive at a sufficient stopping point is, as Brett says, begging the question. It assumes axiomatically that only the physical exists and that only physical explanations are acceptable. It assumes naturalism as an a priori fact. Finally, pointing out that theists are making an inference to the best explanation (not filling a gap with God) is important. Perhaps the best explanation for the existence of this universe or life is not a physical one, and to say that could never be the case (as Krauss implies) is, again, begging the question—assuming naturalism as an a priori fact.

Brett gives a good response, and I just want to add a little to it. So, let's talk a little more about this so-called "God of the gaps" accusation. At the beginning of this discussion, we need to distinguish between mechanism and agency. This is a distinction that is overlooked far too often when this charge is made or even when it is rebutted by a theist. The success of science sometimes leads people to believe that since we can understand many of the mechanisms of the universe, we can safely conclude that there is no need to discuss or consider agency—the agent that designed, made, and upholds the mechanisms. That is a logical error that fails to distinguish between mechanism and agency.

I once heard an analogy that demonstrates this well. To explain how a Ford car engine works, we would need to talk about the details of thermodynamics and the principles of internal combustion (i.e. the mechanisms). Such an explanation would not necessarily require us to mention Henry Ford (i.e. the agent), but if we concluded that because we understand how the engine works (mechanism), then we have a comprehensive understanding of it and no longer need to believe in Henry Ford or any subsequent engineers (agency), that would be absurd! In a similar vein, just because we understand many of the impersonal mechanisms of the universe, that does not make it necessary or even valid to conclude there is no personal Creator who designed, made, and upholds it. In fact, as the above quote from C. S. Lewis shows, the early scientists went looking for these mechanisms and laws precisely because they believed in a Creator (agent) who designs such things. The mechanisms did not create themselves and do not uphold themselves, and even the more recent attempts to say that they do only push the question back a step and fail to disprove agency.

How does this contribute to our discussion of the "God of the gaps"? Well, consider the Ford analogy. Henry Ford is not a mechanism, and no one is using him to fill in the gaps of our knowledge about internal combustion engines. But, he is also no less than the agent who is responsible for the mechanism in the first place! The engine and the mechanisms all bear the marks of his handiwork as the agent who created them in the first place. Therefore, saying Ford was the designer and creator behind the engine is simply an inference to the best explanation, not lazy. Furthermore, saying this is not presenting Ford as an alternative explanation to the mechanisms of an internal combustion engine. It is saying he is the necessary agent. But, Krauss and others like him, often insist that theists use God as an alternative explanation to mechanisms, and that is simply not the case. We are following the evidence, making an inference to the best explanation, and saying God is the necessary agent. Just as Ford (i.e. agency) and internal combustion (i.e. mechanism) are both necessary for a comprehensive explanation of the car engine, so God (i.e. agency) and the mechanisms science studies are necessary for a comprehensive explanation of the universe and life. We are not filling the gaps with God, we are pointing out the necessity of both mechanism and agency and then making an inference to the best explanation for the existence of our universe and life itself. As Brett says in the above video, "That's not lazy. It's just good reasoning."

By His Grace,
Taylor

The Babel Fish, God, and Faith

"Hebrews 11:1 says, 'Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.' Knowledge. Assurance. Confidence. These are elements of faith. What gives us knowledge, assurance, and confidence? Reasoning through the evidence." ~ Melinda Penner, "Faith and Reason"

In honor of Towel Day, I would like to take a look at the Babel fish argument from Douglas Adams' entertaining and nerdy book, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. If you have not read it and you like sci-fi, I would definitely recommend it. It is a classic.

In the book there is a creature called the Babel fish. Adams describes this amazing creature for us:

The Babel fish is small, yellow, leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the universe. It feeds on brain wave energy, absorbing all unconscious frequencies and then excreting telepathically a matrix formed from the conscious frequencies and nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain, the practical upshot of which is that if you stick one in your ear, you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language: the speech you hear decodes the brain wave matrix.

Adam's goes on to say, "Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could evolve purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God." Wait! The non-existence of God? Yes, that is what he wrote, and he describes his argument in the form of a conversation with God that goes like this:

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

Now, Adams might have been joking (I doubt that), but if so, that has not kept others from seriously using this argument in an attempt to prove God does not exist. We must ask, then, is that reasoning really valid? The key is the assertion that is made about God: "I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith." Is that really true? Is faith a blind belief in something with no evidence for that something? Is that what God wants us to do? Does He want us to look around and say, "I see no proof for His existence but I am going to believe anyway. Look at the strength of my faith!"? Is that Scriptural? Not hardly. That is not at all Scriptures view of faith:

• He. 11:1 -- "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." I start with this because it is the closest thing to an explicit definition of faith given in Scripture. Faith is assurance and conviction of something unseen. As the above quote points out, assurance and conviction do not come from a denial of proofs and evidence; proofs and evidence are precisely how we get assurance and conviction. All of the biblical people mentioned in the following vv. of He. 11 did not just blindly believe in God. God had shown (proved) Himself to them, their families, and their people in many ways. Their faith rested on that evidence.
• Jb. 12:7-8 -- "But ask the beasts, and they will teach you; the birds of the heavens, and they will tell you; or the bushes of the earth, and they will teach you; and the fish of the sea will declare to you." Job does not tell his friends to irrationally believe in God. Job says to his friends, "Look to nature and you will see 'the hand of the LORD'."
• Ps. 19:1 -- "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork." The heavens declare and the sky proclaims, i.e. they give evidence and proof of God and His work. God designed the universe to show that He exists and to display His glory to man. The Belgic Confession (a classic Reformed confession of faith) tells us that we know God by two means (two "books") and then states, "First, by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe, since that universe is before our eyes like a beautiful book in which all creatures, great and small, are as letters to make us ponder the invisible things of God: his eternal power and his divinity, as the apostle Paul says in Romans 1:20."
• Ps. 97:6 -- "The heavens proclaim his righteousness, and all the peoples see his glory." There it is again: "The heavens proclaim" and "all the peoples see." See, i.e. belief in God is not blind.
• Ro. 1:20 -- "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." Paul tells us that God is clearly perceived in nature. Why? So men are without excuse in their unbelief, i.e. there are clear reasons to believe God exists and God has purposefully placed them there so men are without excuse. The Westminster Confession of Faith (another historic Reformed confession of faith) states at its very beginning, "[T]he light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable..."
• Lk. 1:1-4 -- "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught." Luke did much research in order to create an orderly account of Jesus, using evidence from eyewitnesses in order that Theophilus may have certainty. Luke's intention in writing his gospel was for his readers to see the evidence and be certain of the truth of the gospel.
• Jn. 20:30-31 -- "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." Like Luke, John wrote his gospel so that his readers could have evidence (proof!) of the things that Jesus did and from that evidence believe.

Neither God, Scripture, nor historic Christian thought claims that God refuses to prove that He exists because that would somehow deny faith. Neither God, Scripture, nor historic Christian thought claims that faith is blind or that proof denies it. The situation is quite the opposite actually: faith is based in sound evidence from the historical witness, the Scriptures, and nature. Because Adams' key assertion is invalid, the whole Babel fish argument fails.

Here are a few good articles written by Stand to Reason on faith:

• Is Faith a Blind Leap?
• Faith & Wishing
• Does Faith Require God to Be Hidden?
• Did Jesus Commend Faith That Is Blind?
• Are Faith & Reason Compatible?
• Is Faith a Feeling?

Finally, faith is involved in scientific inquiry just like it is in religious belief. Do not be duped into thinking that science is all objective reason with no faith and that somehow makes it superior to Christian belief. I have written about that here, here, here, and here.

By His Grace,
Taylor