Arguing the Affirmative: JOHN THE ATHEIST
Arguing the Negative: RANDAL THE CHRISTIAN
John’s Opening Statement
Biblical scholars long ago acknowledged that many of the texts in the Bible were created or edited down through the centuries to reflect later hindsight historical perspectives. The editors did this to strengthen political power by consolidating the rival religious factions within a kingdom. In an ancient era when the masses were illiterate, few would be the wiser, and where criticizing the kings and priests in power would get you killed, the political powers that existed had it easy. Just create or rewrite history. The evidence for this is overwhelming in the Bible.
These editors didn’t always do their job successfully because they didn’t have access to all the texts. They were also written on scrolls, making it difficult to check for contradictions. But they didn’t need to make it all consistent since they were the ones choosing what to read to the people. A key moment in time was during the reign of King Josiah in the seventh century BC (ca. 641–609) when the long-neglected book of Law was found (see 2 Kings 22–23). Scholars think that instead of finding the Law, this is when it was actually compiled and much of it written. Josiah instituted religious reforms to keep a crumbling kingdom together in the midst of a period of political turmoil when Israel was caught in the middle of a conflict between two great empires. This helps explain why Josiah’s editors tell us the Passover meal was not celebrated for hundreds of years before their time (2 Kings 23:21–23). More likely, it was probably first celebrated during these reforms.
A case in point is that Hebrew understandings of the biblical God Yahweh evolved over time from a Canaanite deity to the head of a pantheon of deities, later to be declared the only God of the cosmos in Isaiah (Isa. 43:10; 44:24).
But there are many biblical texts, including archaeological discoveries, that lead us to think differently. In Genesis 1:26 we find God (i.e., Elohim—a plural word meaning “gods”) speaking collectively as a council, saying, “Let us make mankind in our image” (see also Gen. 11:7). So already we have a plurality of gods if we read this verse properly rather than with hindsight Christian trinitarian assumptions foreign to the text. The Canaanite god El (or Elyon), who was the head of the pantheon, gave the people of Israel to Yahweh to rule over. We read in Deuteronomy 32:8–9 this: “When Elyon divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he established the borders of the nations according to the number of the gods. Yahweh’s portion was his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance.” This better translation is Thom Stark’s based upon the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QDeutq), which pre-date our current Masoretic Text by a thousand years.[1] References to a divine council all assume the existence of other gods (1 Kings 22:19–22). Psalm 82:1 reads: “God presides in the great assembly; he renders judgment among the gods.” There were also many “sons of God” (Gen. 6:2 NIV; Job 1:6; Job 38:7 RSV; Psalm 29:1).
These earlier biblical texts did not deny the existence of other gods and their children (Judg. 11:24; Pss. 82:6; 89:7; 95:3; 97:7). Even the first of the Ten Commandments acknowledges the existence of other gods: “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exod. 20:3). It just forbids worshiping them. The point of these texts is that since the Israelites were Yahweh’s people, they should worship him alone.
What we see here is no different than what we find in other cultures connected through the trade route of the Fertile Crescent, whose deities were polytheistic families of gods with a supreme one ruling over them. There was Marduk, the patron deity of Babylonia, and Ra, the father of the Egyptian gods; and in Canaanite society there was El or Elyon, the god most high, who was later superseded by Baal, the lord of heaven.
If the Canaanite culture and its god Baal had continued to exist down through the centuries as Yahweh has within Judeo-Christian cultures, then Baal would have been transformed into a monotheistic god. He would have progressively gained many of the same attributes Christians have heaped on Yahweh, and with the same philosophical sophistication. Then Baal worshipers would be the ones talking about progressive revelation and asking me why Baal could not reveal himself any way he chooses to do so.
No one believes in Baal today. Why should we believe in Yahweh?
Randal’s Opening Statement
Five hundred years ago virtually all educated people in the West believed that the earth was the fixed center of the universe. Terra firma was the center of action while the poor sun was a mere satellite revolving around our proud, immovable station. We now know that this picture was, to say the least, a bit off. To begin with, our grasp of the size differential was all wrong. It now turns out that the earth is (if you’ll excuse the expression) the equivalent of a pimple on the sun’s fiery bottom. And as for fixed points, the only thing really fixed is the sun’s inescapable gravitational grip upon our tiny rock that has kept it spinning in lockstep for billions of years. To sum up, a rudimentary survey of our astronomical advances over the last few hundred years supports the fact that people’s scientific concept of the universe evolved from geocentrism (earth-centered) to heliocentrism (sun-centered).
The shift from viewing the earth as the grand, fixed center of the universe to the lowly third rock out from the sun occurred through innumerable small steps and the occasional jolting leap due to the hard work of countless scientists like Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler. We need not bother ourselves with the intricacies of that history here, for the main point is simply this: Nobody thinks that we ought to reject heliocentrism because we once believed geocentrism. To suggest such a thing would be positively absurd.
Now we are in a place to discuss our topic: “the biblical concept of God evolved from polytheism to monotheism.” I don’t actually disagree with this proposition. Instead, I disagree with the implications one may try to draw from it. Allow me to explain. It is true that the biblical conception of God emerged out of a polytheistic culture that only later converged on the austere doctrine of monotheism. In the ancient Near Eastern milieu in which God first called Abram out of Ur, everybody was polytheistic, so it is no surprise that Abram was as well. His move was not to monotheism but rather to monolatry—the worship of one God in the midst of many. Centuries later at the exodus from Egypt, the Hebrew understanding developed again. As Yahweh soundly defeated each one of the Egyptian gods, the Hebrews moved from mere monolatry to henotheism—the view that one God is far superior to all other gods. By the time we get to the writing of Isaiah some centuries later, the Hebrew understanding had developed again. God was then understood to be so far superior to other beings that he was in a class by himself while all these other beings were demoted to mere creatures: “I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God” (Isa. 44:6).
So to sum up, it took several centuries for the Israelites to move from polytheism to monotheism just as it took Western astronomers several centuries to move from geocentrism to heliocentrism. If you don’t reject the results of astronomy because it reveals a developmental history, why for that reason would you reject the results of biblical theology?
I suspect the perceived problem depends on the dual assumption that the biblical understanding of God is supposed to be revelation, and revelation is supposed to have been given in big leaps rather than little steps. By contrast, this view assumes that science comes in many diligent little steps rather than in leaps that may suggest revelation. But alas, this is a flawed description of both science and theology. So far as science goes, it is full of big leaps of revelatory insights—what scientists have often called Eureka! moments. For instance, think of that moment when Michael Faraday discovered the circular flow of electromagnetism based on his belief in the mystical significance of the circle (a belief drawn from his Sandemanian religious sect by the way). And as for the theology end, the theologian makes at least as many little steps as big leaps, including the countless modest steps in which the biblical writers from Abram to Isaiah moved the Hebrews from the chaotic welter of ancient polytheism to the austere grandeur of one Creator, Yahweh. Eureka indeed.
John’s Rebuttal
I have a book called Discarded Science, by John Grant. From cold fusion to ether, it’s a fascinating read. Sure, science has made mistakes. It’s from these mistakes that scientists learn through a process Karl Popper described as putting forth a conjecture (or hypothesis) and then seeing if it can be refuted. Once refuted, another conjecture is made to be refuted, and so on. This is how science progresses—through a series of conjectures and refutations.
But it is delusional to equate this process with theology, in which each generation reinterprets what the Bible says because of the advancement of learning. The facts are in: religions evolve. This evolution takes place in every religion and in every society, not just in Christian ones. They evolve through the advancement of learning, especially with science. This is exactly what we would expect to find if religions were man-made. When a reasonable person looks at this development, it becomes obvious. What Randal describes as a progressive revelation is nothing more than the evolution of religion. Otherwise Randal must tell us why his God revealed himself in ways that are indistinguishable from not revealing himself at all. I don’t think he can.
Randal’s Rebuttal
John seems to have a habit of making sweeping statements about what “biblical scholars” say. Unfortunately, many of those statements gloss a great diversity in the field of biblical studies. But let’s grant John’s reconstruction for the sake of argument and focus on his conclusion: “What we see here is no different than what we find in other cultures connected through the trade route of the Fertile Crescent.”
There is some truth here, for the religion of the Hebrews is in part an organic development of its time and place, and thus it reflects the worldview of the ancient Near East (ANE). But why is that a problem? A missionary entering a new region wisely indigenizes the gospel to the culture of the people. Why would we expect less of God? Perhaps John thinks Yahweh should have provided some kind of additional evidence to establish definitively that other ANE gods like Baal are false. Fair enough. But don’t we have that? While Baal has no followers today, Yahweh has over two billion. Isn’t that some kind of evidence? But, John adds, had Baal religion survived, it too would have become monotheistic. Yeah right, and had Oldsmobile survived, it would have become the next BMW.
John’s Closing Statement
Why should we expect less of God? Because he could have revealed the truth about himself from the get go. This is one reason why I am a nonbeliever, because he revealed himself in ways that are indistinguishable from the surrounding ancient cultures. I need more than that to believe.
Randal’s Closing Statement
Both scientists and theologians falsify premises within their modes of enquiry. And both scientific and theological theories evolve over time as new data emerges. It is only a dogmatic scientism that can exclude in principle the latter from being a knowledge discourse.