But If There Is No Tooth Fairy...

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1994/March-April:

by Farrell Till

Theists never tire of painting skepticism and atheism as philosophies of despair and doom. Immediately after publishing our belief that morality depends on neither God nor the Bible, the cries of outrage began to arrive, the strongest of which was Bill Lockwood's article "The Skeptic's Sword" which appears on pages 8-9 of this issue. The message is that it conveys is typically theistic in outlook: without the security blanket of a god, life is a condition of utter hopelessness.

The only argument the theist has to offer in support of this position appears to be, "If there is no God, then..." The then will vary from "then there is no hope for life after death" to "then there is no absolute standard of morality," but such statements are all rooted in a fallacy of wishful thinking or belief that reality can be altered by personal hopes and aspirations.

Tall Tales Of Wilderness Wanderings (Part 13 of 13): Logistical Improbabilities in the Wilderness-Wandering Tales What Priests?

by Farrell Till

When the Israelites were camped in the wilderness of Sinai, Moses "went up unto God" (Exodus 19:3), which was no big deal in those days. People were always going up to God or God was coming down to them. Anyway, Moses went up to God and Yahweh called to Moses out of the mountain and said that he would make a "holy nation" out of the children of Israel (vs:5-6).

Such a prestigious honor, however, was not without its costs. Yahweh told Moses that he would come to him in a thick cloud that the people might hear when he spoke to Moses (v:9). Moses was then directed to "set bounds to the people round about" and tell them not to go up into the mount or touch the border of it. "Whoever touches the mount shall surely be put to death," Yahweh warned. "No hand shall touch him, but he shall surely be stoned or shot through; whether it be beast or man, he shall not live" (vs:12-13).

Now here's a thought for consideration. Let's suppose that there is at least an element of truth in the exodus tales and that at least a small troupe of Israelites did leave Egypt under the leadership of a man named Moses. What better way to keep them under control than to instill in them a fear and awe by telling them that they would suffer the divine wrath of their god if they intruded on sacred territory that was reserved only for Yahweh's chosen leader? I'm not saying that this actually happened, but indeed it could have. If Moses were such a charlatan as this, he could have minimized the risk of being discovered as a phony by making the people keep their distance when he was communicating with Yahweh or when Yahweh was speaking out of the cloud. A magician today wouldn't have any difficulty at all in making a cloud of smoke and then giving the illusion of someone speaking out of it. Maybe Moses controlled the people by such means as this. It's a thought that becomes very believable when one studies the "lest you die" warning that was so frequently used in the Pentateuch. Even the Kohathites who were chosen to bear the ark were warned not to touch the holy things in it "lest they die" (Num. 4:15). Why, if they touched the "holy things," they just might have decided that they were just ordinary objects with no special powers attached to them.

When I read "lest-you-die" passages in the Bible, it seems very likely to me that they were nothing more than scare tactics of priests who were just protecting their turf and reducing the chances that they would be found out for what they were, i. e., just ordinary men, by constantly warning the people that they would die if they came too close to the sacred paraphernalia that the priests used to bamboozle them.

Anyway, Yahweh presumably told Moses to put bounds on the people and warn them that they would die if they dared touch even the "border" of the mount. Then the omniscient Yahweh did a peculiar thing. He placed the same restriction on priests, who didn't even exist at the time: "And Yahweh said to him [Moses], Get down and then come up, you and Aaron with you. But do not let the priests and the people break through to come up to Yahweh, lest he break out against them" (v:24).

Now, really, what danger was there that the priests would break through to come up to Yahweh, because there were no priests at this time? It wasn't until chapter 28 that Aaron and his four sons were consecrated to be priests. That priests didn't exist until Aaron and his sons were set apart (28:1ff) is evident from 24:4-5, where Moses built an altar at the foot of the mount and appointed "young men of the children of Israel" to offer burnt-offerings and peace-offerings to Yahweh, and he himself took half of the blood, put it in basins, and sprinkled the other half on the altar. Then he took the blood in the basins, sprinkled it on the people, and said, "Behold the blood of the covenant, which Yahweh has made with you." The book of Leviticus is very specific in noting that such duties as these were reserved strictly for the priests, so why was Moses officiating at such a ceremony as this if there were priests who had been set apart to do it?

The logical conclusion is that the writer of Exodus made a boo-boo and put an anachronism into the text.

Tall Tales Of Wilderness Wanderings (Part 12 of 13): Logistical Improbabilities in the Wilderness-Wandering Tales Clothes with Lifetime Warranties

by Farrell Till

The writer(s) of the Pentateuch apparently could not see the absurdities in many of the scenarios presented in the stories of the Israelite exodus from Egypt and subsequent wanderings in the Sinai wilderness. Where, for example, did the people find water and grazing land for the huge flocks and herds (Ex. 12:38; 17:3; Num. 32:1; Deut. 3:19) that they had with them? How did just three priests (Ex. 28:1; Lev. 10:1-7) manage to officiate at all of the daily sacrifices and then carry all of the offal remains out of the camp (Lev. 4:7-12,21; 9:8-11; 16:23-27; Num. 19:1-7) for disposal by burning? Biblicists apparently don't wonder about problems such as these, just as the biblical writers seemed unaware of them.

There is, however, an example of a logistical absurdity that the biblical writer was apparently aware of, and so he posited an explanation that was itself another absurdity. Because the people were terrified by the report of giants in the land of Canaan, Yahweh decreed that all adults, except for Joshua and Caleb, would have to wander in the wilderness until they were dead; then those who had been children at the time of this incident would be allowed to enter the promised land (Num. 14:26-35; Dt. 1:34-39). Although people routinely lived longer than a hundred years at this time (Gen. 50:26; Ex. 6:16-20; Num. 33:38-39; Deut. 34:7; Josh. 24:29), for some reason probably known only to the inscrutable Yahweh, all of the Israelites who had not been minors at the time of the spies' report of giants in the land of Canaan died after only 40 years of wandering in the wilderness (Num. 14:33; Deut. 2:7). All the people, then, who had been in their twenties at the time died, for some reason, before or during their sixties.

Tall Tales Of Wilderness Wanderings (Part 11 of 13): Logistical Improbabilities in the Wilderness-Wandering Tales The Water Problem

by Farrell Till

Nine previous articles in this series have discussed the logistical improbabilities and, at times, impossibilities in the biblical tales of the Israelite wilderness wanderings in the Sinai region over a 40-year period. As improbable as the logistics were in the other wilderness tales I have examined, they dwarf in comparison to the problem of how three million Israelites and their enormous flocks and herds were able to survive for 40 years in a region where water was scarce. That water was scarce in the Sinai was recognized in the many texts that referred to the water shortages that the Israelites encountered in their wilderness journeys. The first such reference was made after the "chosen ones" had traveled three days into the wilderness.

Exodus 15:22 Then Moses ordered Israel to set out from the Red Sea, and they went into the wilderness of Shur. They went three days in the wilderness and found no water. 23 When they came to Marah, they could not drink the water of Marah because it was bitter. That is why it was called Marah. 24 And the people complained against Moses, saying, "What shall we drink?" 25 He cried out to Yahweh; and Yahweh showed him a piece of wood; he threw it into the water, and the water became sweet. There Yahweh made for them a statute and an ordinance and there he put them to the test.

Other passages refer to water shortages that the Israelites afterwards encountered on their journey, but for now let's look at some implications in the incident claimed in the passage just quoted. If the Israelites journeyed three days and found no water until they came to Marah, they must have either traveled three days in a desert region without water or else they carried with them the water they needed. Studies that have been done in desert survival show that it would have been unlikely that they could have traveled for three days in a desert region without water. The following quotation is from a survivalist website that discusses the number of days that one could survive in the desert at different temperatures with different quantities of drinking water available.

Without water you will last about 2 1/2 days at 48C (120F) if you spend the whole time resting in the shade, though you could last as long as 12 days if the temperature stays below 21C (70F). 

If you are forced to walk to safety the distance you cover will relate directly to water available. 

With none, a temperature of 48C (120F) walking only at night, resting all day, you could cover 40km (25 miles). 

Attempting to walk by day you would be lucky to complete 8km (5 miles) before collapse. 

At the same temperature with about 2 litres (4 pt) of water you might cover 56km (35 miles) and last 3 days.

The biblical text quoted above says that the Israelites journeyed three days, so they did not spend those three days sitting in the shade. They were marching in a desert region, so unless they were carrying water with them, they could have traveled only about five miles before they would have collapsed. Quibbling that they may have traveled only at night would not solve the problem of having to transport water with them, because the statistics above state that one could last only two and a half days without water if he/she spent that time resting in the shade. Hence, inerrantists, who claim that the wilderness wandering tales are historically accurate, cannot escape the need to explain how the Israelites could have transported with them enough water to provide them and their livestock with their daily requirements.

Tall Tales Of Wilderness Wanderings (Part 10 of 13): Logistical Improbabilities in the Wilderness-Wandering Tales When Nature Called

by Farrell Till

We have seen some of the logistical problems that would have been involved in setting up encampments for 2.5 to 3 million people and carrying out the sacrificial ceremonies that the Levitical law required. Probably few inerrantists have ever considered a wilderness problem that all densely populated areas must solve, and that is the problem of human-waste disposal. The following passage made some stipulations in this regard that would have posed some special hardships on the Israelites during their wilderness wanderings.

Deuteronomy 23:12 You shall have a designated area outside the camp to which you shall go. 13 With your utensils you shall have a trowel; when you relieve yourself outside, you shall dig a hole with it and then cover up your excrement. 14 Because Yahweh your God travels along with your camp, to save you and to hand over your enemies to you, therefore your camp must be holy, so that he may not see anything indecent among you and turn away from you.

This passage clearly indicates that latrines were not allowed inside the encampment, and so when nature called, one was required to go outside of the 9-square-mile camp to attend to it. He/she was to take along a "trowel" (paddle in some translations) to dig a hole in which to bury the excrement. It is hard to imagine how large this "designated" area would have had to have been to accommodate 2.5 million people digging their individual holes to attend to their business. If each hole were only 6 inches by 6 inches, a "designated area" of 625,000 square feet or 69,444 square yards would be needed to provide a hole for each person. Since there are 4,840 square yards in an acre, this "designated area" would have had to have been 14.35 acres in size to accommodate each person's going "outside the camp" with his/her trowel just once per day.

Tall Tales In The Wilderness Wanderings (Part 9 of 13): Logistical Improbabilities in the Wilderness-Wandering Tales Getting the Whole Congregation Together

by Farrell Till

In the eight previous articles in this series, we have seen many logistical improbabilities--and sometimes downright impossibilities--in the biblical tales of the 40-year wilderness wanderings of the Israelites. Let's now imagine all 3 million Israelites standing together like packed sardines instead of lying down in their 6' x 3' plot that was allotted when we calculated what the minimum land area for an encampment would had to have been. Let's suppose that all three million could stand together on a plot that allowed a 2-foot by 2-foot area for each person. Where one person's four-square-foot plot ended, another one's would begin. Putting everyone together this compactly, all three million could have stood on a land area of 12 million square feet. In yards, the area of this plot of standing room only would have been 1,333,333 square yards. That would equal 275 acres of ground. (Of course, one would not have wanted to be in the very center of this mass of humanity when the mandatory trip out of the camp with one's trowel [Deut. 23:12-13] became necessary.) Anyone who grew up on a farm of any size should have an idea of how much land area this would be. The family farm that I grew up on in Missouri was only 120 acres or less than half this size. There would be no way that anyone could have stood in the middle of my family's farm and speak and be heard everywhere on the farm.

Why is this important? We read in many places in the exodus stories that Moses would sometimes call the entire congregation of Israel together to speak to them. The premise of Deuteronomy, in fact, is that of a speech that Moses made to "all Israel" (1:1). On some occasions, Moses would call the whole congregation together at the door of the tabernacle to speak to them: "And Yahweh spoke to Moses saying... assemble all the congregation at the door of the tabernacle, and Moses did as Yahweh commanded him, and the congregation was assembled at the door of the tabernacle" (Lev. 6:1-5). Now the dimensions of the tabernacle are recorded in Exodus 27:11-12, and its court at the front entry was only 50 cubits wide. Even if we accept the long cubit as a standard, this would have made the breadth of the court only 90 feet. So how could Moses have possibly assembled the entire congregation before the court of the tabernacle? If the people had stood in rows 90 feet wide, each row would have accommodated only 45 people, so 66,666 rows would have been necessary to get all of the people in front of the tabernacle entry. The rows would then have extended back from the entry to a distance of 25 miles. Needless to say, this would have made it impossible for Moses to have spoken to the entire congregation. Even if we put 135 people in each row, so that the rows would have extended 90 feet on each side beyond the width of the court, there would have been 22,222 rows of people stretching back for a distance of 8.4 miles.

Inerrantists will argue that "all of the congregation" didn't mean all of the Israelites in the exodus but only the adults. That hardly solves the problem, because if we cut the population figures in half to accommodate this quibble, that would simply halve the scenarios presented above, and no reasonable person can think that 1.5 million adults assembled on 137.5 acres of land or in a column 4.2 miles long could hear a speech that Moses was delivering without a public address system. Obviously, all of Moses speeches to "all Israel" or the "whole congregation" are simply more exaggerations in the fanciful tale of Israel's trek from Egypt to the promised land.  

Tales Of Wilderness Wanderings (Part 8 of 13): Logistical Improbabilities in the Wilderness-Wandering Tales At Least the Priests Had Meat

by Farrell Till

In "Yahweh's Quails," we looked at what Yahweh's "inspired" word said about a near food riot when the people grew weary of manna and demanded meat to eat. After Moses had cooled the petulant Yahweh's temper in this matter, Yahweh said that he would send them meat to eat until it became loathsome to them and was coming out of their nostrils (Num. 11:19). This was done through a wind from the sea (of all places) that blew in quails that fell for a depth of three feet all around the camp for a distance of a day's journey (20-25 miles). The people didn't get to enjoy their meat, however, for before they could consume it, Yahweh sent a plague to kill the rebellious ones. Then all was well again until Miriam and Aaron complained about Moses' leadership (chapter 12) and the people trembled at the report of the spies (chapters 13 and 14). It seems that there was just always something turning the chosen ones against the god who went before them in a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night, talked to them from the door of the tabernacle, brought them water from rocks, parted the Red Sea, etc., etc., etc. Boy, talk about a lack of appreciation! These chosen ones had it. We have to wonder why the inscrutable Yahweh selected such an ungrateful lot to be his chosen people above all nations on the face of the earth (Deut. 7:6-7). Ah, well, God's ways are not to be questioned, and in the sweet by and by, we will undoubtedly understand it all.

At any rate, the people bellyached at the lack of meat in their diet, but we could hardly suppose that the priests had any complaints. This is because the priests were required to eat many of the sacrifices after they had been offered: "And Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying, Speak to Aaron and to his sons, saying, This is the law of the sin-offering. In the place where the burnt-offering is killed shall the sin-offering be killed before Yahweh. It is most holy. The priest that offers it for sin shall eat it. In the holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tent of meeting" (Lev. 6:24-27). Of sacrifices boiled in earthen vessels, "every male among the priests shall eat thereof; it is most holy" (v:29). Every male among the priests shall eat thereof? Well, that would have been four at the most, Aaron and his two sons Eleazar and Ithamar, and then later Eleazar's son Phinehas (Num. 25:10-13).