Rowers of the Lost Ark
In January, 2005, using the latest generation spy optics from space and benefitting from unusually clear weather over the Mt. Ararat region of Turkey, the US together with the European Space Agency conducted the most extensive and precise study of the "Ararat Anomaly" to date. Details from that hyperspectral sensors were sufficient to deduce that the object partially buried in the snow, first observed in 1949 at more than fifteen thousand feet on the northwestern side of the mountain, is indeed an object containing material that is neither the igneous rock of the mountain or a form of water ice.
Six months later, an international ground team, with permission by and cooperation from the Republic of Turkey, took advantage of continued "mild" weather conditions in the region. The 10-man team succeeded in reaching the anomaly after three day's climb from their base station and were able to take extensive samples of the massive structure.
A detailed report from the team was not made public at the conclusion of the fact-finding expedition despite widespread interest in the project. However, in the past several weeks--and prior to an official press conference upcoming-- some important details have emerged. The structure is man-made. It consists of a kind of wood formerly present in great abundance in the Middle East. Preliminary analysis of the organic materials indicate that they are not of recent origin.
Even before the official release of all the technical findings, two vocal camps are forming.
Christians, of course, are understandibly in an ecstatic "We told you so" frenzy, especially the small segment of the faith that believe the Earth is young and all geological history can be traced to Noah's flood. Church leaders have cautioned their congregations against drawing theological conclusions beyond being able with added credibility to say that the primary documents of the faith are trustworthy as historical record. Jews and Muslims, to a lesser degree, also voice their excitement at the findings that tie their traditional beliefs to what seems to be validated archeological proof.
Meanwhile, resistance to the apparent confirmation of a most incredible Biblical "myth" is growing around the secular world. The expedition team is being discredited because two of the team are known to be 'biased' by their belief that they would indeed find the remnants of the ancient Ark of the Biblical flood.
Others have used the words "hoax" and "massive conspiracy" to describe this apparent confirmation of a most surprising mystery that has haunted mankind for the ages. "A 600-foot wooden ship stuck in the ice at 15,000 feet on an Asian Mountain is the stuff of fairy tales. There will be alternative explanations for the alleged "anomaly" on Ararat that do not require miraculous floods. In the end, science, and not children's dreams, will prevail" said a spokesman from the American Academy of Science.
Thank you, my regular early-morning blog spammers, for carrying me back to a post from last year about the Ararat Anomaly. It got me to wondering how the world would react if, in fact, this "thing" on the mountain in Turkey did indeed turn out to be a boat of Biblical proportions. Those inclined already toward belief would find their faith strengthened perhaps by this rather spectacular archeological find.
Those inclined to doubt would not be convinced no matter how much data supported the "Ark" hypothesis. I'm sure I'm not the first to think of this as a possible story line for a fictional account of the Indiana Jones type. First the Arc of the Covenant. Now, the Ark. Granted, the ending of a story about an old boat full of animal poop wouldn't have as dramatic an ending as the Spirit of God consuming the flesh off the Nazi agents in the last scene of "Raiders".
Comments
Doubters might argue that simply BECAUSE a story exists that would explain a great big boat on top of a mountain does not mean that the story is TRUE when they find a big boat on top of a mountain.
I make up a story that reindeer danced on my roof. You find animal excrement up on my roof. Your find doesn't PROVE my story true. It only proves there was an animal up there or that somebody (or some force of nature) put animal poop up there. The fact that a story exists that would explain the phenomenon doesn't PROVE the story true. There is no way to prove the story true. All the participants are dead. They left no written evidence, no journals, no historical scrolls. The inaccuracy of orally transmitted stories has been amply demonstrated. (Remember "Telephone"?)
We need a nice, simple course in ordinary logic here.
And if the believers want to assert that ordinary logic is unnecessary, then I'd like to know why they think it's so allfired necessary to have "proof" of a scientific nature of the Noah's Ark story anyway. The meat of the story, the idea that God, in the form of Weather, doesn't let evil run on too long before He/It takes corrective measures, ought to be seen as deeply true. This story could be the basis for a world-wide reconversion to ecological awareness and environmental conservationism. The evil in man, we see so clearly, is his refusal to submit to the psychological, emotional and ecological reality that is God.
What the heck do we need a piece of wood on top of a mountain in Turkey to be carbon-dated for? Why isn't the spiritual and psychological truth of the story enough? Keep in mind that the CONCEPT of scientific truth, of empirical evidence weighing to arrive at a material assertion of fact, dates from the 18th century. Hello? That means we had 17 centuries since the birth of Jesus to wallow around without having to "prove" anything.
The idea that we can't "get" what these stories are trying to tell us unless we can shoehorn them into an 18th century notion of "fact" only demonstrates, for me, the paucity of our imaginations.
Posted by: travelertrish | February 24, 2004 11:40 AM
And besides:
In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion. -Carl Sagan, astronomer and writer (1934-1996)
Posted by: travelertrish | February 24, 2004 11:43 AM
My brother (a geophysicist) says that there is very good geological evidence for a massive, traumatic flood in the Middle East in pre-Biblical times.
How do people explain things that are, with their knowledge and world-view, inexplicable? They tell stories!
Could a large, sturdy boat have amazingly survived massive floodwaters and arrived on a mountainside? Sure, why not. And you'd have to account for it somehow, wouldn't you...
In any case, mostly I agree with Traveler Trish. A story can be true but not factual (see Marcus Borg).
Posted by: Pascale Soleil | February 24, 2004 12:20 PM
"This story could be the basis for a world-wide reconversion to ecological awareness and environmental conservationism." Trish says it all. Why do so few fundamentalists (and I have known many) give a whit about the extinction crisis? Perhaps, as Trish suggests, it is because they lack the imagination. This makes sense: literalism of every stripe arises from a paucity of imagination, probably occasioned by fear. Is there still a chance that such fear could deepen into awe?
Posted by: Dave | February 25, 2004 3:23 PM
Trish is expounding on the Ark and wondering who would really care if it were found.
I commented on her LiveJournal thusly:
I can't speak for "my" Christians, only as _one_ of this assorted group, and one for whom the legal-historical validity of the primary documents of the faith is pretty important, especially in a time when all religions are lumped as equally worthless in the post-scientific pluralistic world. The Ark is generally considered one of the "impossible" stories that, if true, is only true in some kind of large way of how the good are saved the wicked perish. But certainly no more factually true than the walls of Jerico collapsing or the Red Sea parting. If my faith required more archeological verification, then finding not just any wooden structure somewhere near a certain mountain but structure of very specific dimensions, architecture and type of wood (gen 6:14-16). Finding that boat not at the base of but 15,000 feet up on Ararat would say something to me about my mythologizing some of the "sunday school stories" I've been willing to dismiss as "impossible". I should have built my scenario such that no doubt was left that it was just as the Ark is described in Genesis so that your protest of jumping to conclusions required no leap at all. Consider that story thus amended.
Posted by: fredf | February 26, 2004 1:20 PM
Fair enough. But quote my REPLY, too, while we're at it.
Posted by: trish | February 26, 2004 5:31 PM
Link to my part of the discussion: http://www.livejournal.com/users/travelertrish/94965.html
My friend Scott respectfully points out that the date mentioned at the beginning of the piece is January 2005. THEN it says, "Six months later..." Typo? Satire? Onion-like "factoid?" Where does this article come from? I thought it was you, describing an article you'd read, Fred, and the link went to the original article. But this is IT?
I wasn't "wondering who would really care" if Noah's Ark were found, Fred. Plenty of people would care very much. I respectfully submit that the rules of logic would not accept the finding of a 5,000-year-old boat at the peak of Mt. Ararat (if indeed anyone has found such a thing) as scientific or historical or archeological proof that the Noah story from the Bible is true. The proof, to be logically valid, would have to rule out other plausible explanations.
My larger point, though, is that faith, and spiritual truth, simply doesn't require validation from science or archeology. Trying to shoehorn a text that was composed by people who had no conceptual notion of the scientific method or of empirical fact, is just not going to work. Not because "the doubters" won't accept it but because you can't squeeze an orange and get apple juice.
Posted by: trish | February 26, 2004 11:13 PM