Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Thoughts on the Flood - Part one


The following is a discussion that broke out into something that needed more space than wall posts.  More specifically:

...you suggested that there is evidence of a global flood. I would love to see it, because in all my years of discussing this issue, none has ever been presented. Well, lots has been presented, but none has ever stood up to any scrutiny.

There are a few things I want to cover in the process, but before I do, when I read the above, questions come to mind.  What does the writer mean when claiming "none has ever stood up to any scrutiny"?  Who decides, to the writer's satisfaction, what evidence passes muster?  Why does the writer choose to believe one side's evidence over the other?  That sort of thing.

I would never have asked those questions in the past.  If someone made such a statement, on any subject, I would have accepted it at face value, unless I had already had previous independent information on the subject.  Today, having spent years examining the evidence of various subjects people have made such statements about, I no longer take anything at face value.  It turns out that, in most cases, such conclusions are based, not on actual evidence, but on personal bias (if you haven't read the On Bias tab above yet, now's the time to do it).  Discussing this with Eldest, she reminded me of one example.  I don't remember what the topic was at all anymore, but something had been said and I'd responded by sharing an article with a counter point of view.  This person shot back that this source was invalid.  The reason?  The link was sourced at a Conservative website, therefore it was biased.  The actual topic discussed or the points made in the article were, to her view, unworthy to even look at, simply because of where it happened to be published.

This exemplifies a problem that I see everywhere.  People who are sold on AGW accuse anyone who disagrees with them as being shills for Big Oil.  People who are whole hog for "alternative" health products brush off those who question the efficacy of those products as just stooges of Big Pharma.  When talking to people who are anti-GMO and pointing out how the use of these foods have not only kept millions of people around the world fed and healthy, but have improved the environment, they refuse to listen at all and accuse anyone who questions their views as being part of Big Agro.  On it goes.

When it comes to the publication of evidence, bias is a huge problem.  The AGW fiasco is a prime example.  There is plenty of evidence that humans have very little influence on climate, and the evidence put forward that supposedly proves to be the opposite has often turned out to be bad science, if not outright fraud.  These pass "peer review" because the review process has shown itself to be utterly biased in favour of anything that "proves" AGW, while rejecting anything the "disproves" the theory, not because the evidence of one is any better than they other, but because only one side of the issue is allowed to pass inspection.  The result is that many researchers are forced to publish their results on blogs or in various alternate publications.  Opponents of their view then get claim that these views can't possibly be any good, because if they were, they would be in publications they determine as legitimate. 

Association is also used to reject evidence.  If someone who points out the fallacies in the AGW position happened to once have an oil company as a business client in the past, this is reason enough for alarmists to reject their points.  Accusing people of being part of some vast conspiracy of Big Oil, Big Industry, Big Pharma, the Military and Industrial Complex, or whatever they feel like throwing out is a handy way to justify unwillingness to consider the evidence put forward by those who hold opposing views.  There doesn’t even have to be any real association; just the accusation is enough to dismiss opposing views.

This problem shows up when it comes to sources of physical evidence of various Biblical themes.  Some publications will outright refuse to print any such evidence.  The circular reason is so common its cliché, and a favourite tactic of the anti-theist.  They have already decided that the entire Bible is a piece of fiction (a problematic notion I've already discussed somewhat in my What is God? post).  Since the Bible is fiction, there can be no evidence to prove anything within it really happened.  Therefore, anyone claiming to have evidence proving certain events did happen can be safely rejected as false.  This is made easier by dismissing them as being religious, creationists, and so on.   Being religious, all by itself is enough for the anti-theist to dismiss a person of opposing views.  After all, they have already decided that the only logical conclusion is that all religion is (wrong, evil, false, brainwashing, etc) while their anti-religious views are always positions of (logic, reason, and so on), therefore anyone who holds a religious point of view must, by their definition, be wrong, and nothing they say or present can be right; a very convenient, self-edifying and circular rule of (false) logic.  If nothing else, it eliminates any need to think too hard while at the same time allowing them to be smug about their own superiority.  This also gives them permission to insult and offend anyone with opposing views to their heart’s content, since anyone who disagrees with them is unworthy of consideration.  Very few atheists, I’ve noted, including the more moderate ones, break this mould.  The proselytizing anti-theists, on the other hand, revel in it.  It is rare, indeed, for a respectful discussion to take place, so when they do happen, I appreciate it a great deal.  Especially when someone manages to show that they’re not just following the script and actually think independently.  Such people are astonishingly rare, it seems.

Now back to the topic at hand.  Before I begin discussing physical evidence of a deluge, let’s discuss flood mythology.

I am not a Bible literalist.  For reasons I will get into another time, I find such a notion quite illogical.  The oldest parts of the Bible in particular are from an oral tradition that has been passed on for centuries before anyone wrote them down.  Such oral histories of events that go back centuries can be defined as myths or legends.  While many like to dismiss all ancient stories as fairy tales, special disgust is reserved for those of the Bible.

What those who dismiss ancient tales so easily tend to forget is that they have often proven to be based on reality.  Archaeologists frequently search these ancient stories for clues that, they hope, will lead them to digging sites.  The most famous example is the city of Troy.  The myth of Atlantis is believed by some to be rooted in fact, and several possible locations are thought to be the site of the legendary city. Similar searches are being made to find, not lost cities or civilizations, but evidence of creatures.

Of course, the older the story, the more difficult it is to prove archaeologically.  Especially when discussing individuals, rather than places and events.  Having said that, not finding physical evidence does not prove that something never existed.  I'm amazed, sometimes, at just how much physical evidence of our past manages to survive at all.  The circumstances necessary for such things to be preserved really don't happen all that often.  For all the bits of fossilized or buried artefacts we find, they can only be a tiny fraction of what actually existed at the time, particularly when it comes to items made of organic material, such as woven baskets, hide clothing and the like. 

When it comes to written events, it's even more remarkable that we can find what we do.  First, something has to be important enough for someone to make the effort to write it down in the first place.  Then the writing, whether its on a clay tablet, a leather scroll, or carved into a wall, has to be somehow "lost" in ideal circumstances that preserves it through the centuries.  Then whoever finds it needs to be able to recognize it for what it is and not accidentally destroy it.  In some cases, archaeologists have to deliberately destroy artefacts into order to find out what's on them.  Can you even imagine taking three years to unravel a scroll?  Archaeologists are a remarkably patient lot!

For some, they don't need a whole heck of a lot to decide there might be something in a myth that makes it worth looking into for a source.  The story of Atlantis being one example. There's very little to go on, yet plenty of serious researchers are out there, trying to figure out if there really was such a place, while others have already identified places they believe to be the original Atlantis, despite the flimsy background of the legend.  True or not, the search for Atlantis has lead to some amazing archaeological discoveries.

The point being that it's not unusual for archaeologists to use ancient texts, including the Bible, and seek out cultural myths and legends for clues that might lead them to various discoveries, and that these myths have lead them to real discoveries. 
 
Which brings us back to the flood myths.

One thing that's different about the Biblical flood and stories such as The Illiad and myths about Atlantis, is that there are so many other cultures that have similar myths.  It is, in fact, what is referred to as a universal myth, because it is shared by so many disparate cultures.  Those who wish to dismiss the Bible like to say that the story of Noah is just a retelling of even older legends - nothing more than plagiarism, really.  This cannot explain, however, the many other cultures that the writers of the Old Testament could possibly have known about.  Here are a few examples.

In South Tanzania, legend tells of a time when the rivers began to flood, eventually covering the mountains.  Two people were warned by God to get on a ship, with seeds and animals.  After the flooding stopped, they eventually released first a dove, then a hawk, to see if the water had receded.

In China, the Fuhi family, a man with his wife, three sons and three daughters, were the only people to survive a global flood and repopulate the world.

Babylon tells us of Gilgamesh who met an old man, Utnapishtim, who told him of how he was warned of a flood, to build a ship and to take on male and female animals of all kinds, together with his wife, family and provisions.  After the rains and flooding stopped, he used a dove to find out if the floodwaters receded enough to leave the ship.

The Chaldean legend tells of a man named Xisuthrus, warned by the god Chronos, who builds a boat and, together with his family and male and female animals, survives a flood.  He, too, uses birds to determine if the floodwaters have receded enough to leave.

India shares with us the legend of Manu, warned by a fish that a great flood was coming and would destroy the earth.  Manu builds a ship and survives.

Greece tells us that Zeus decided to flood the earth, destroying humans for their excessive pride.  Prometheus warns his human son and daughter-in-law, Deucalian and Pyrrha, saving them by placing them in a large wooden chest.  As the floodwaters receded, the chest came to rest on a mountain.  Provisions in the chest kept them alive until the waters receded, then they repopulated the earth.

While one could argue that these legends could all be different versions of the same thing, and that the Biblical story of Noah is just another version, there's no accounting for the ones writers in Biblical times could possibly have heard, such as these.

In Mexico, Toltec natives tell of a world destroying flood with only one family surviving.

The Aztec tell of Tapi, a man warned by the creator to build a boat, then take his wife and a pair of every animal alive with him into it.  The flood that came covered mountains.  Tapi also released a dove to check if the flood had dried up enough.

Ojibewe Natives tell of a time when people began to quarrel and disrespect each other.  The Creator, Gitchie Manido, gave them time to correct their ways, but eventually decided to purify the earth by flooding the earth, with only a few survivors remaining.

Delaware Indians tell us the flood was caused by an evil spirit, with the few people who survived doing so by climbing onto the back of an ancient turtle.  A bird guided the turtle to the only dry land left.

South America has its tales for us as well.  The Inca tell of a time when all the people, save those of the high Andes, became corrupted and evil and neglected the gods.  Two brothers were warned by their llamas that a flood was coming.  They took their failies and animals and found a high cave to live in.  Here, we are told it rained for four months.  The mountain grew during the rains, keeping above water level, returning to its normal height when the water receded.

None of these legends, of course, prove that an actual, global flood happened.  The fact that so many unconnected cultures share flood stories, however, gives us more to suggest the reality of catastrophic flooding than, say, the Illiad suggested the existence of a real city named Troy.

In my next part, I will discuss geological evidence for massive flooding.