the soured milk conundrum

Unbeknownst to you, the reader, I have actually written many rough drafts of this post. I have spent the better part of the last month trying to pinpoint exactly what it is that I want to say, and exactly how I want to say it. I've struggled with my answer to this question for far too long, and I am determined now to finally post something. Even if it is not perfect. 

Before I address the actual question, I want to start off with where I began.

I was initially pondering the paleocontact hypothesis; a theory which inspired the History Channel Special “Ancient Aliens,” which in turn has developed a cult following as a television series. More specifically, I was attempting to address the idea that the events in the Bible which are attributed to God could have been acts of technologically superior beings - perhaps even aliens.

This may seem a leap to some, but the idea is not all that unreasonable in principle. Put it this way: if someone from the early first-century AD suddenly found themselves in twenty-first century America, they would of course be startled at the large metal birds in the sky.

Now, just for a moment, make the assumption that extra-terrestrials exist and that they have the necessary technologies required for interstellar travel. And that they have had it for thousands of years. Just what would our first-century time traveler think of such technologies had they landed in his day?

I may address some of this theory later, but after further consideration and dialog with the original inquirer, I decided to address the core issue. The same core issue, I believe, of every objection to the God of the Bible. The issue of rationality itself - what is rational and irrational.


The question:

“Isn't it possible that the events described in the Bible were not God-related, but simply things that didn't have a rational explanation for those who wrote about them?”


Rationality is often the determining factor when modern society considers what is acceptable to believe in. Maybe it’s the view from my window here in Bellingham, Washington - where a myriad of irrational beliefs are held - but doesn't it seem like this is a serious problem?

"I never got good at predicting what millions of people will suddenly decide is rational."

-Larry Niven-

We cannot consider something to be rational or irrational unless we have a full understanding of the situation and the circumstance of what is in front of us.

For example, letting milk sit out on the counter for a couple of days may be considered an irrational decision if you intend to drink the milk. But if you were hoping to make cheese, this might be the first step in your recipe and may well be a rational decision.
(author’s note: you can’t just put out a mug of milk on Tuesday and come back Friday to a block of cheddar.)

Without knowing the situation and circumstance behind the decision to let the milk sit out on the counter for a day or two, we have no way of knowing if it was a rational or irrational decision. 

Now let’s bring God into it. Great, because that’s what we need. Let’s bring the utmost decision of what we believe our very existence to be and/or mean under the scrutiny of rationality when we can’t even figure out if you wanted to make cheese.

Before I say anything else, knowing what is rational and irrational is of course necessary. And any rational person knows that milk will spoil if put on the counter over a couple of days.
My point is that in asking if something was God or if it was simply something being perceived as irrational when truly having a rational explanation, you are asking a loaded question. I would first need to define the exact situation and circumstance behind the decision to record an event as being related to God.

Personally, I believe the events in the Bible are God-related and are true as written. Not because I have any rational or tangible evidence in front of me that would say so, but because of faith. And to quote the author of the book of Hebrews, “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Faith, as it is defined in this very book which requires faith to be believed, is a highly irrational concept. As defined in the Bible, faith would be inadmissible as evidence in a court of law. Yet here we are told that is not just evidence, but the evidence. Faith is what drives this belief, and is all the evidence I need. 

To be sure, there are proofs and certain evidences which can establish plausibility concerning the events in the Bible. But these are secondary and unnecessary evidences to the Christian. While they can encourage and help us in our beliefs, the only true evidence we have for our belief is faith. And even this is a gift. Only by God do we have faith in God.

"God always takes the simplest way." 

-Albert Einstein-

So, for my answer to the question. 

“Isn't it possible that the events described in the Bible were not God-related, but simply things that didn't have a rational explanation for those who wrote about them?”

I suppose it is possible. In the same way I suppose it’s possible that aliens exist. Both of these suppositions are made by my measuring different “amounts” of rationality.
But the Bible’s evidence is not rational, rather it is faith-based. And faith is not something we can measure or quantify or attain on our own.

And so reader, my answer is yes. But that doesn't rightly matter.