Is the Bible Fact or Fiction?
by Morris Engelson
I recently attended a lecture with the above
title. The speaker assured us that the evidence is clear. The
Bible was written by a number of human authors. It is a book
of fiction. Certainly many factual matters and locations are
included, as any competent and careful writer would do. But these
facts are only there to lend verisimilitude. The speaker made
his case on the basis of three themes: impossible events, multiple
and contradictory descriptions of events and the power of scientific
explanations.
The speaker was logical, articulate and consistent. He made a
strong case for his conclusions, if we accept his initial assumptions.
But the one thing that the speaker did not do, is state or analyze
the implications of his initial assumptions. Hence it is up to
me to provide these hidden assumptions to you before we proceed
to a discussion of the "evidence" provided by the speaker.
Modes of interaction between Bible and science
There is a wide range of belief respecting
the Divine origin of the Bible. Some people believe that the
Bible is true. Some believe that the Bible is false. Some people
believe that there is a Higher Power but they not accept the
Bible as of Divine origin. Some do not know what to believe.
And so forth. For our purposes it is sufficient to deal with
three broad classifications: believers, atheists, and skeptics.
These can interact in five ways respecting a disagreement between
the Bible and science. The following five modes of interaction
are discussed in more detail in my book The Heavenly Time
Machine.
These modes of interaction, between science
and the Bible, are the hidden assumptions that I referred to
earlier. The speaker did not make it explicitly clear whether
he is an atheist or a skeptic, though he claimed a willingness
to listen. Let us consider both possibilities. The atheist says
that the Bible is false. Why? Because he believes that there
is evidence to that effect. On what mode of reasoning is this
evidence based? On science and human reason, of course. Certainly
the atheist will not accept any theological evidence. After all,
he considers such evidence to be false, a priori. And
what of the skeptic? He too will not accept evidence from the
Bible, which he does not accept, though he is not sure whether
he should reject it. Furthermore, the Bible has nothing to teach
science in his mode of interaction.
In view of the above. Under what conditions
will an atheist or skeptic accept the Bible? Only if science
proves absolutely that the Bible is true. But, as I discuss in
my book, this can never happen according to the Bible. The reason
is that we have been given complete free will to believe or not
believe. Absolute scientific proof that the Bible is true would
constitute compulsion in this matter. Hence, science can not
provide absolute proof that the Bible is true. A number of logical
consequences result therefrom. One consequence, for example,
is that science can, and will, ultimately find a way to explain
everything as "natural." And this means that the atheist
and skeptic are firmly locked into a rigid mode of thinking.
Here is an analogy. One person promotes apples (the Bible is
true). Another person promotes oranges (science is true, but
the Bible is not true). The skeptic says that apples and oranges
have nothing to teach each other. After all, one can not decide
on the quality of an apple using criteria based on oranges. These
two do not interact. There is only one way out of this rigid
box. We need to accept the validity of both apples and oranges
by looking at a higher order category called fruit. That is what
I attempt to do in my book.
With the above introduction, we are now ready
to look at the arguments that the speaker, who implied that he
is a skeptic and not an atheist, provided. The speaker indicated
that he has an open mind on the validity of the Bible, and would
accept the Bible if only he had some evidence to support such
an idea. Unfortunately, all the evidence he had shows the contrary.
We might not accept the evidence from a biased atheist, but a
skeptic is evenhanded. The evidence is unbiased. But is it? Let's
take a look.
Evidence against the Bible
1. The speaker
gave the following example of impossible events. The Bible tells
us that 600,000 men of military age participated in the exodus
from Egypt. Including children, older men and women, brings the
total to several million. The usually quoted number is three
million. Our speaker made an unassailable case that such a multitude
could not possibly survive in the desert for a number of years.
Absolutely true, and the Bible says the same thing. The Bible
clearly tells us that the people in the desert survived by miraculous
means. Food, in the form of manna, was provided for them. Water,
in the form of a wandering well, was provided for them. When
necessary, water was made to flow from a rock. Quail miraculously
dropped out of the sky when meat was needed. Everything is explained
completely and consistently in the Bible. But neither the skeptic
nor the atheist will accept the validity of the Bible. Hence
the Biblical evidence for miracles is ignored. Science can not
prove that it happened. So it did not happen for the skeptic.
Did it happen that way for the believer? Of course it did, because
the believer accepts the explanation provided by the Bible. This
type of evidence against the validity of the Bible is totally
irrelevant for the believer.
2. Many secular
Bible critics subscribe to what is generally known as the Documentary
Hypothesis of the Higher Criticism theory. The Documentary Hypothesis
posits that the Bible is an amalgam of materials written by multiple
authors whose work can be discerned by way of style and use of
Divine names. Four such sections are identified as the E, J,
D, and P documents. Higher Criticism, in general, alleges that
the Bible contains multiple conflicting descriptions of the same
events which were written by several authors. The first such
conflicting material involves the creation story in the very
beginning of the book of Genesis. Wellhausen (1844-1918) and
his followers made this astounding "discovery" in the
nineteenth century, and have been investigating the text of the
Bible for multiple authorship ever since. But these alleged internal
conflicts in the Bible were identified and analyzed millennia
ago. Here is how Rabbi Leibtag begins his analysis of Genesis
in an associated essay on this web site. "How many stories
of Creation are there in Parshat Breishit, one
or two? Although this question is often discussed more
by Bible critics than yeshiva students, its resolution
may carry a significant spiritual message."
Rather than a proof that the Bible is not
true, the lessons learned from these alleged multiple-author
versions, provides one of the strongest proofs of the Divine
origin of the Bible that a believer might have. The reader will
find a basic discussion on this matter in the Torah lesson essay
by Rabbi Leibtag, as well as references for a deeper analysis.
Sorry, the E, J, D, P documents theory just seems silly to anybody
who has even a basic understanding of Torah.
3. We now come
to the proof against the Bible from science. This is frequently
referred to as the god of the gaps analysis. The argument goes
something like this. The Bible claims a Deity of limitless capabilities
who is involved on an ongoing basis with the world. But science
clearly shows that we can explain almost everything on the basis
of natural processes. Small gaps still remain in our scientific
understanding of the world. But these are few, and far between.
And with time, the remaining gaps in our knowledge get to be
smaller and smaller, fewer and fewer. There is no need for a
hypothesis of a Deity, as Laplace once said, where science explains
what is going on. Hence G-d is banished to hide within the few
remaining gaps in our scientific understanding. The powerful
Biblical G-d becomes a powerless and useless god of the gaps.
But this idea was discussed by Torah Sages
long before there was a modern science which appears to explain
all of the universe. The reason for a hidden G-d was explained
millennia ago, when science explained almost nothing, and it
was easy to ascribe it all to an openly powerful G-d. Why propose
such an idea when there was no need for it? The reason is that
the Torah says so. The idea is an essential component of our
free will. As I note in my book, "We can choose to believe
that the Torah is true or that it is false, and we can ignore
the existence of the Torah altogether. This provides one reason
that it should be possible for us to explain the workings of
the universe as part of a 'natural' process devoid of a Creator."
The gaps on a macro scale are, indeed, disappearing as science
makes progress, just as the Torah predicted. The gaps on a micro
scale, however, have been shown by quantum mechanics to be permanent.
As I note in the book, "One can see, after the fact, how
Torah predicts , or requires, QM effects. We need causality on
our scale of existence so as to have a predictably stable environment
in which to exercise free will. At the same time we need to understand
that this causality is not absolute, so that 'we may discern
the hand of G-d behind the causes.'... This is one of the lessons
that comes to us from quantum mechanics."
The gaps do not define G-d, because, as the
Torah tells us, it is G-d who defines the gaps. The atheist looks
at the heavens and sees blobs of gas burning in accordance with
the well understood laws of nuclear physics. He sees a nature
devoid of a Creator. The believer looks at the heavens and marvels
at this wonderful universe that Hashem has given to us. "Praise
Him, sun and moon; praise Him all bright stars... Let them praise
the Name of Hashem, for He commanded and they were created..."
[Psalm 148]. The believer is not impressed by the science-based
argument against the Bible.
Other arguments against the Bible
There are also several other arguments against
the Bible, besides those used in the above referenced lecture.
These fall into three categories.
1. One such
argument, that the Bible is false, points to the scarcity of
archeological finds in support of Biblical descriptions. I find
it interesting that this argument is frequently made by the same
people who insist that the lack of certain transitional forms
are not evidence against neo-Darwinian evolution. They argue
that we will find the stuff if we dig long enough. Never mind
that evolutionary archeology has been at it for over a century
with tens of thousands of workers, while Biblical archeology
has scarcely a handful in the field. But the idea that there
is no archeological evidence in support of the Bible is not correct.
For example. Professor Adam Zartal, head of the archeology department
at the University of Haifa, describes in the November 12, 1999
issue of HaAretz, his discovery at Mount Ebal of a 3.5
acres site, which includes a stone altar. The altar accords with
the description of the Mount Ebal altar given in Deuteronomy,
and the artifacts have been dated to the 13th century BCE, just
as the Bible tells us.
2. Another type
argument is based on specific scientific "evidence"
that contradicts the Bible. Here are two examples. There are
those who assure us that Neo-Darwinian evolution is a proven
fact. Many of these people are also convinced that any form of
evolution, and especially Neo-Darwinian evolution, is contrary
to the meaning of the Bible. Hence the truth of evolution would
show that the Bible is false. The response is that evolution
of any kind, and certainly the specific theory known as Neo-Darwinian
evolution, is far from a proven fact. Furthermore, evolution,
per se, is not necessarily contrary to the Bible, as I
discuss in my book.
Another prominent example of this form of
argument involves the age of the universe. The Bible says 6000
years, while science says 15 billion years. The argument is that
the Bible must be false since the science is true. But this is
only a "problem" for those who refuse to look below
basic appearance. I devote a whole chapter in my book to show
how and why science and Bible are in agreement on this matter.
3. The final
argument is based on the lack of an absolute scientific mode
proof for the Bible. I will not deal with this matter here, but
simply point the reader to my book where I discuss in detail
why this situation is fully in accord with the Bible, and indeed
required by the Bible.
In conclusion
Finally, I would like to briefly consider
the matter of proof in the other direction. Namely, that the
Bible is true. I know of no guaranteed scientific proof that
the Bible is true. Furthermore, I argue in my book that no such
proof will ever be available. This puts the skeptic in a difficult
dilemma. The honest skeptic will not find any incontrovertible
science-based proof that the Bible is false, neither will he
find any such proof that the Bible is true. Is the skeptic then
doomed to always stay a skeptic? Not necessarily. It all depends
on what constitutes "proof." I was asked for my favorite
proofs on the validity of the Bible, by a listener at a talk
that I gave. For the believer, there are many convincing proofs
within the Bible. But what of the nonbeliever? My answer is to
look at the response from the Bible to the most seriously contrary
assertions. And also to look at the most foolish seeming statements
within the Bible.
"Let there be light" on the first
day, well before there was a sun. That was a ridiculous statement
till just 50 years ago. Now we know from big bang cosmology that
the first creation was indeed "light." And no sun was
involved. The inflationary expansion of the universe is an idea
that is less than twenty years old. So how come it was described
in the Talmud almost two millennia ago? Modern science was preempted
by the Bible almost everywhere you look. How is it possible that
the mythical authors of the Bible knew about modern science?
Or is it that these people were so stupid that they could not
see how foolish it is to talk about light without a source, such
as the sun? My answer to the skeptic, respecting the validity
of the Bible, is in the last paragraph of my book. All the rest
is merely explanation and commentary.
"We are free to choose as we wish. We
can choose a false vacuum fluctuation or barah of a Creator.
We can accept a Creator who maintains the universe on a continual
basis, or we can believe in a strong anthropic principle that
suggests that we ourselves make the universe real through an
act of measurement and observation. We can be satisfied with
an inflation theory proposed by Guth, or we can delve into the
explanation given to us by Resh Lakish. These would appear to
be equally valid, except for one matter. Guth is a contemporary
of ours, while Resh Lakish lived almost two millennia ago. How
did he know about an expanding universe? 'See, I have set before
you this day..., therefore choose' (Deuteronomy 30:15). We have
free will , and we can freely choose, just as the Torah tells
us."
I say to the skeptic. "To choose is to
decide, and to decide is to choose. You have free will –
now choose."
|
