Mind Twister

Religion has strange effects on the mind of even the most intelligent of its followers.

Here is part of a conversation I had with a family member.  He is a graduate mechanical engineer, a highly skilled individual.  And a Christian.

I said I thought the idea of a supernatural Being parting the waters of the Red Sea just as the Israelites were crossing, was a false idea.  The idea that the waters then closed over the Egyptians, murdering however many men (and horses), was a repellant idea. If there was a god, why would he be so partial or racist?  Why would he go on to say things like "god has no favourites".

(Obviously every nation in history has believed a god was on their side, that they were god's favourite nation.  No nation has ever received a revelation saying that another nation was the chosen one!)

His reply was as follows: "Oh, I suppose you believe that Moses built a bridge over the Red Sea!"

I'm sure he said this tongue firmly in cheek, but let's examine it as a statement.

First, it shows a lack of scientific and skeptical thought.
Second, he seemed to think I needed a belief about such a thing.
Third, it ignores the fact that the whole story is probably false - not just the Red Sea crossing.

1       Lack of Scientific and Skeptical Thought

• Yes, it is indeed far more likely that Moses built a bridge over the Red Sea, than that an invisible hand parted the waves. We have daily experience of bridges being built by humans.  We have no experience, evidence or science that shows that water has ever moved or piled up except by natural causes such as gravitation, wind or earthquakes.

• Surely it is far more likely that they took a different, much longer route or used boats?

• By far the most likely explanation is that the whole story is false.  The Jews didn't go from Egypt to the desert. The story was concocted 800 years after the "exodus" had supposedly happened, in order that Jewish parents could tell a story to their children about history and explain the animosity between Israel and Egypt.

2.      Beliefs

• I don't believe anything about the Jews.  Belief implies lack of evidence.  I have opinions and ideas, and I try to ensure that these are based on evidence wherever possible. I also have areas of ignorance, which I happily admit to.  I wouldn't attempt to eliminate these by reading Bronze Age documents alone, but I might by reading scientific analyses of Bronze Age documents.
  

• Religious people talk about beliefs when they have insufficient evidence, as though they were correct and virtuous to do so.  Believing things without evidence, based on ancient texts, is scientifically and morally irresponsible.
  

• "Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing 'Yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, must come down. Amen!'   If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it." Dan Barker

The Whole Story

My relative believes the whole story - ie., that the Jews started off in Egypt and ended up in the desert wandering around.  But there is no evidence for this outside the Old Testament.

• Despite many decades of searches by archaeologists (especially Christian ones), there is no trace of the Jewish nation's wanderings in the desert.  Not one shred of evidence. Not one trinket, pot, pan, or tool. 
  

• There is also no evidence that the Jews were ever captive in Egypt.  Linguists and anthropologists will tell you that any nation exposed to the ways and the language of another nation will begin to adopt words, phrases or behaviours from the other. There is not one single word in Egyptian (ancient or modern) that has its origin in ancient Hebrew.  Likewise, ancient Hebrew contains no Egyptian.  This is impossible if the people lived in the same geographical area for longer than a few months.

• There is evidence in the Bible itself that the whole story of Israel in the desert was written down about 800 years after the events supposedly happened. We know this, because of place-names mentioned, which were not named until centuries later. 

What is the problem with the story being written down 800 years late?

Well, think of Britain's legends of King Arthur and his Knights of the round table.  There probably was a real King Arthur - about 1000 years ago.  He was probably a tribal leader, good with a sword and possibly a wealthy man by the standards of his day.  But the stories about him have grown in the telling: we now know about the wizard Merlin, the hand in the lake holding up a sword, the stone holding a sword that could only be removed by the rightful king of England.... etc.  These stories grew for about 800 years before people started writing them down around 200 years ago.  Now they are fixed legends - they've stopped growing, although they in turn spawn other myths, for example "The Lady of Shalott".
In 800 years, the myths and legends surrounding their (murdering) hero Moses grew and grew as they were related around dinner tables and gatherings.  The stories about the Jews in Egypt and their wanderings in the desert were passed down in order to give the Jewish children a bedtime story as well as a sense of history, a set of legends and aspirations.  They are not historically reliable, in the same way that the Arthurian legends are not reliable.

Geoff Mather 2007

Back to REASONS