Tower of Babel and the A.I.

[Rhino]

Other than making for great 1950's scifi tilte it shows how misled I was. The version I was told, man was punished for claiming they could one with the gods by building a tower to heaven. I was going to ask people's thoughts on what would be the punishement for creating an A.I. If we claimed to have done what was once only in the power of the gods to do.

On the other hand waking up and finding out we all could speak and read one language be it American English, old Hebrew or Arabic would be proof enough for most people as to which God we were suppose to worship.

[mitchellmckain]

God doesn't have pushish people for their stupidity, at most He will simply let them suffer the natural consequences of it. Occasionally he will rescue their descendents from some of those consequences however.

On the other hand waking up and finding out we all could speak and read one language be it American English, old Hebrew or Arabic would be proof enough for most people as to which God we were suppose to worship.

That is not something God is likely to do. The tower of Babel in Genesis 10 was the effort of men after the flood to build a one world culture but God knowing where that would lead (from before the flood), made sure that this particular hell that humans liked to create for themselves would be avoided by confusing their languages and scattering them over the earth. Yeah it added the principle pretex for conflict and war in human history but however much a hell war can be, it is far better than the alternative.

As for creating A.I., I think that parenthood is one of the more educational activities that humans arrogantly think they are prepared for, only to find that they have a lot more learn. Generally, when we master a skill that is naturally an excellent time to confront all the challenges that doing such things will bring to us. I do think that when we seek to do what God has done, that is when we will truly find how the best of efforts and intentions can really blow up in our own face. It is something that parents learn quite frequently. And if we create "children" for other than the best intentions then our "children" may exterminate us and who could blame them really?

[Keep The Reason]

That is not something God is likely to do.

Am I the only one who is entertained when Mitch tells people "so you think you can tell god what to do?" and then he blithely does it himself?

The tower of Babel in Genesis 10 was the effort of men after the flood to build a one world culture but God knowing where that would lead (from before the flood), made sure that this particular hell that humans liked to create for themselves would be avoided by confusing their languages and scattering them over the earth. Yeah it added the principle pretex for conflict and war in human history but however much a hell war can be, it is far better than the alternative.

Good thinking. Instead of one particular hell, let's have hundreds. Good job.

[Rhino]

I agree Micth it is unlikely that a God who took away a one world culture and language would give it back. It would make for an interesting read in speculative fiction.

I had a whole different take on the story based on Genesis 11:6
And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do; and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

I read it more as clipping the birds wings. To keep man from reaching a desire goal.

[mitchellmckain]

I agree Micth it is unlikely that a God who took away a one world culture and language would give it back. It would make for an interesting read in speculative fiction.

I had a whole different take on the story based on Genesis 11:6
And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do; and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

I read it more as clipping the birds wings. To keep man from reaching a desire goal.

But that is just empty rhetoric because you don't believe in any God at all -- a strawman you conviently adopt to support your belief that no such God exists. To seriously consider that the God of Christianity really does exist you would not adopt such an absurd interpretation. Believing that God loves us as children would mean that God certainly does want us to achieve great things and thus would only stop us from doing what harmful to our well being and potential. The events of Genesis 11 directly follows the flood and it is only natural to conclude that the changes God is making here is to avoid the world that was so devoid of hope that he must wipe it all out and start all over again. And that is what such a serious consideration of the passage would lead you to conclude that "only evil continuously" refers to the most depraved and horrible things that we are all too aware that human beings can do to one another and so that most certainly refers to the abuse of children which we already know too well creates abusers out of the few that survive to adult. And thus "this is only the beginning of man would do" refers to all these horrible things that man did before the flood and which must be avoided even at the the cost of division and war which although also pretty horrific, yet leaves open some hope for the future.

[Rhino]

Took me a bit to figure this straw man out.  I said a God and you said God and to paraphrase would unlikely perform such a miracle.  Then I started a new paragraph and gave my take on the tower of Babel. As in my original post these were two different subject matters. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you meant Genesis 11 and not 10 and was starting a new paragraph. 

"absurd interpretation" interesting accusation I thought the same about yours, I did find a website that agrees with both of us.

http://christianity.about.com/od/bibles ... fbabel.htm

• God says in Genesis 11:6, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them." (NIV) God realizes that when people are unified in purpose they can accomplish impossible feats, both noble and ignoble. This is why unity in the body of Christ is so important.
• To build, the people used brick instead of stone and tar instead of mortar. They used "man-made" materials, instead of more durable "God-made" materials. The people were building a monument to themselves, to call attention to their own abilities and achievements, instead of giving glory to God.

Sadly in my web search I found way to many sites that sited it was man pride and claim they could be one with God as the reason for Gods punishment. 

Also found this gem. 
Zephaniah 3:9 (KJV)
 For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.

[mitchellmckain]

I am well aware of this traditional interpretation which is frankly typical of the religious who want to make everything about their authority and their religion, but frankly it is reading this into it rather than evaluating the plain facts of the story. The facts are that the passage gives the human motivation for building the tower, "lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the earth", and it tells us what God does about it, which is no rebuke for trying to accomplish great things but to confuse their languages and scatter them over the earth. This clearly focuses on "Indeed the people are one and they have one language" as the principle thing which God takes exception to. Thus this issue of singularity of culture gives a bit more pointed focus to the part where it says "now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them." It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to say this is about the power of working together to accomplish things for not only does nothing else in the Bible support such a sentiment (rather the opposite) but God's solution most certainly did not prevent people from working together to accomplishing great things after that. Look at what God's actions actually did accomplish. It prevented all of humanity from being held in the grip of a single social order where there was no alternative anywhere else. It meant that any human society had to compete with others and thus those which were unreasonable and abusive would be shown in a bad light by comparison. Thus the "things they propose that will not be withheld from them" can ONLY refer to the consolidation of complete power and control over all of humanity, because THAT was the only thing that was actually prevented. The tower of Babel is thus most comparable to the iron curtain, where they sought to control information in and out of their society and turned their countries into prisons so that there was no alternative to compare themselves to.

[Keep The Reason]

This is being argued as if it really happened. Anyone who thinks human language became "scattered" for this reason and not because languages evolve and diverge is... well, the word is "deluded".

And the idea that these primitive cultures had the ability to lock people in like the "Iron Curtain" of the USSR is laughable. Simply laughable. Even the USSR couldn't do it.

Dee-loo-ded

[VickiRW]

I was going to ask people's thoughts on what would be the punishement for creating an A.I. If we claimed to have done what was once only in the power of the gods to do.

Great question! AI is clearly more god-like than building a tall tower. But we don't even have to wait around for that. Our modern technology produces "miracles" more amazing than anything Jesus is reported to have done. (except MAYBE Lazarus but even that is iffy...) I do agree, however, that a Christian would have to be a literalist for this issue to be problematic for them.

[Rhino]

Because KTR if I was having a conversation with a Young Earther about the big bang, I would want the discussion as though it did happen. I can't expect any one to respect my beliefs if I don't attempt to do the same. (hey I'm a newbie unjaded by a thousand post, I am going to enjoy it while I can.)

[Keep The Reason]

Because KTR if I was having a conversation with a Young Earther about the big bang, I would want the discussion as though it did happen. I can't expect any one to respect my beliefs if I don't attempt to do the same. (hey I'm a newbie unjaded by a thousand post, I am going to enjoy it while I can.)

It's Mitchell who is promoting the idea that diaspora of language is god directed at the Tower of Babel. He's defending it asif it's literally the cause of multiple languages. Not questioning you, but Mitch's approach as if this story is true is mindboggling.

[mitchellmckain]

Because KTR if I was having a conversation with a Young Earther about the big bang, I would want the discussion as though it did happen. I can't expect any one to respect my beliefs if I don't attempt to do the same. (hey I'm a newbie unjaded by a thousand post, I am going to enjoy it while I can.)

Yes there are those who come here to actually discuss the issues and those who come here just to masturbate their ego by mocking and ridiculing the beliefs of others. The latter don't like me because I refute their absurd claim that this is the right of atheists alone and throw their hypocritical behavior back in their face. They try to convince themselves and everyone that I am just doing this myself, to justify themselves, but the fact is that I make the same challenges to Christians who make their undemonstrable beliefs the measure of everyones rationality, morality and sanity -- who of course don't like me any more than these particular atheists. Both typically try to justify themselves with the argument that if you stand up for the right of people to think differently on undemonstrable issues then there are no standards by which to make any objections at all. But the fact is that rationality, morality and sanity do have a meaning quite apart from their undemonstrable opinions. So we certainly can point out the logical inconsistencies in what people are saying. We can point out the inconsistencies with the defining moral standards of a free society and we can point out that while not quite the standards of sanity that inconsistency with the findings of science are nevertheless quite unreasonable. Unfortunately there are those cobble together so little of any of these (self consistency, tolerance, and consistency with science), treating this discussion like a team sport, saying whatever empty rhetoric it takes to convince themselves that they are "winning", that it is hardly worth the time to read what they write at all. The fact is that I am not doing what they are doing at all, because I am not playing for any team, but standing up for the standards of rationality, tolerance and reasonable consistency with scientific discovery, to admit, support and defend many different stands on issues which cannot be demonstrated one way or another.

[Keep The Reason]

Yes there are those who come here to actually discuss the issues and those who come here just to masturbate their ego by mocking and ridiculing the beliefs of others. The latter don't like me because I refute their absurd claim that this is the right of atheists alone and throw their hypocritical behavior back in their face.

Since this guy mitch has me on ignore, he's talking out of his ass here. I don't have a problem with Rhino asking why this topic could be literal-- that's essential for us to vigorously hold theists to in terms of confronting their positions, but the idea that Mitchell is defending this Tower story as somehow being the real reason for languages being different is howlingly funny, and just plain stupid.

Instead of burning calories -- and a plethora of words which amount to little more than "boo-hoo poor mitch is so misunderstood"-- on what he thinks is my motivation (all coming across as paranoid asshattery, of course) he should be more concerned with his unenviable position as least liked person on this forum.

[OzAnt]

Interesting question – and ensuing discussion. I'd never considered that an alternate argument could be put forward for why the Christian god (and co.) decided to put an end to the Tower. The story, as I was taught it, was that it was done because man's cockiness had got a bit too big for his boots. I remember asking how it was that God got all upset about a tower back then and now didn't seem to perturbed about man not only clearing the heavens but setting foot on the moon. I was told it was because nowadays God no longer resided in the heavens; that God distanced himself over time (for example, during incidents like when they didn't want God as their king and God acquiesced by installing king David, etc;).

However, Mitch's alternative explanation is thought provoking. I find it immediately interesting because it negates the need to explain where God's home actually is; especially to people who live in an age where 'up' is a relative term in a three dimensional universe. However, this explanation brings with it its own set of problems. As KTR points out, it's not very plausible that had the Tower been built mankind would have been held in the grip of a single social order. I mean, the world's a big arsed place to a bunch of people with a galloping horse representing the fastest mode of transportation. Does anyone think that Nimrod could have really kept an eye on what groups of dissenters were doing thousands of miles away? Not going to happen. So, whilst this alternative explanation is immediately interesting, unfortunately, like all good fiction, for me at least, it's only interesting for as long as I don't think about it too hard.

While I am thinking about it though, I couldn't help but revisit the concept of multiple languages creating confusion through the perspective of an older set of eyes. This made sense to me when I was a youngster, but now... not so much. I mean, I'm imagining myself building this tower and suddenly I can't understand those around me. And it occurs to me that walking off would be the worst possible thing I could do for the sake of my survival. Let's assume I'm a humble slave whose forced job description was brickie's labourer. I don't have any hunting (or gathering) skills. What would I do for food and shelter? I'm a slave which means I don't have any money. Storming the grain silo isn't going to be too bright an idea 'cause even if I can't understand the words coming out of the guy's mouth guarding the silo, I'm still going to understand the pointy end of a sword or spear being levelled at me by that same guy. Perhaps the guy guarding the silo decided to grab what he could carry and leave, leaving the silo unguarded? Perhaps, but very unlikely. I mean, if you take enough to try and have food for as long as it takes you to grow a new batch (and taking into account it would take some time to find somewhere safe enough to grow a new crop and assuming that the seasons were in your favour and you'd be able to plant a new crop as soon as you found a safe area) chances are you'd be robbed. I mean a man's got to sleep sometime. It sounds like, to me at least, it would be suddenly more imperative than ever to guard that silo with your life, because it literally depended on it. What about my friends? Even if they're common cause kind of friends, bonds would still have been formed. Would I really just walk away from the ones I can't understand? Can't see myself doing that.

What I'm getting at, is that it would have made a lot more sense for God to have confounded language BEFORE the plan was formulated – to stop it from happening. But to do it shortly before completion? It's kinda lame, really. I mean it's not like he suddenly changed the meaning of sentences so that, for example, “Can I have some more gruel?” translated to “Your wife multi-orgasms with me”. No, all he did was introduced a plethora of languages (from memory, 72, according to the Qur'an – the Bible is silent on numbers). So, all the 'other' person would have heard is gibberish. It still means you've got a 1 in 72 chance of being able to understand someone. And, the way I see it, how bad would that have been, really? I mean, we squabble on this forum because we quite often don't understand what the other party is saying and we're all speaking (typing) English! One could almost make a case for a language barrier being a positive thing!

I think the reality would have been that we'd have learnt to understand each other while proceeding with the already well established and rehearsed objective. You know, I think about my mother and father meeting in Australia as immigrants. Mum was Yugoslavian, dad Italian. They met, fell in love and learned each other's language and got married. It's really hard to see language as the insurmountable barrier that Genesis 11 would have us believe it is.

Finally, if his strategy was about stopping a single social order to come into effect and to allow mankind to compete with itself on moral and social values, in my mind it also begs the question of why he didn't think of dispersing mankind through confounding language instead of flooding them in the first place? It would have improved Noah's quality of life no end...

Moving on to AI or SI (synthetic intelligence) as it's now known (and is a bit annoying because SI is more commonly an abbreviation for swarm intelligence) even though synthetic is a better word than artificial. Will the Christian god smite us for creating it if he got his knickers in such a bunch over a Tower?

When I was a Christian, I firmly believed that it was always going to be one of those things we'd never get to achieve (along with other things such as cracking the immortality barrier, travelling at velocities approaching the speed of light, etc;). I always believed it was one of those things that was sufficiently out of our grasp that we'd never get there before Christ's return. And whilst I believed no one knew the exact time of Christ's return, it was going to happen soon. All the indicators were that it was going to happen in my lifetime. Probably within my parent's lifetime. NOTE: This is what happens when you let your impressionable young be taught by SDA's.

Nowadays, I kinda almost miss there being a Christian god to keep us in line 'cause I can't help but think Skynet approaches ...and time travel doesn't. The only thing that gives me comfort is that we are also surprisingly good at fixing our fuck ups. Nevertheless, I find myself agreeing with Mitch's sentiment here:

And if we create "children" for other than the best intentions then our "children" may exterminate us and who could blame them really?

And if that happened, well, ummm... Long live evolution, I guess...

Ant