For awhile now I've been hearing those who are against christianity object to it on the basis of it having a talking serpent and donkey.
They usually state this objection as though its some kind of supreme logic that completely reduces the bible to fairytale land.
This, of course, is absurd.
The argument is actually quite nonsensical when you actually put some thought in it.
So, for the benefit of exercising the ole grey matter, i thought i'd refute this objection.
First things first, we need to understand the presuppositions behind this argument.
That would be that a serpent cant talk because... ?
Well, the first thing we think of is literal verbal communication.
A serpent can't verbally talk because they dont have the necessary biological organs to permit them to do so.
Also, it's not that a serpent cant communicate at all. After all, they communicate with each other at the very least.
However, the bible didnt say that the serpent spoke like a human did.
This is simply assumed as being the case.
Also, the bible doesnt say that this was an everyday occurrence.
There is no biblical indication that adam and eve spent their days conversing with animals. This isnt The Jungle Book afterall.
No. This was a one off. Something different than the norm was going on that caused the serpent to be able to "speak" in a way that adam an eve could not only understand but to fully converse with.
The issue is that the Holy Spirit chose not to give us a lot of details in regards to how this was happening. So, speculation and imagination tend to run wild as to the how.
One option is that at this time in human history, due to the affects of sin not being present, that humans actually had a relationship with animals that included actual understanding.
We actually see instances of this today. Not with just cats and dogs, but animals such as lions, elephants, horses, etc.
Where there is a level of "friendship" where the human seems to have a connection to an animal where they seem to "understand" each other.
There are numerous cultures throughout human history who believe that its possible to have spiritual connections with animals.
Even with some people having an affinity to one sort of animal as opposed to others.
There are even people who claim to be "animal whisperers".
Once sin entered into creation through the rebellion of Adam, nature was set against him. One aspect being that humanity was no longer able to have that easy connection with animals to understand one another on such a level.
Another option is that it wasnt a real serpent, but rather one of the biblical antagonists know of Satan, who took on the form of a serpent.
Satan, after all, is an angelic being. He has the capacity of reason just like humans and us able to speak as well.
Angels are also able to transform themselves into other creatures, such as humans.
The third possible option is that Satan actually possessed an actual serpent, granting it the ability to communicate somehow.
Out of these three options, the 3rd one is considered to be the orthodox christian position.
The 1st option is a close second in popularity.
Some even combine those two and say they're both true.
The 2nd option is not believed by a large amount of people.
---
With that, we can see that the first presupposition is dealt with.
That is, the serpent was able to "speak" due to a spiritual ability to communicate with humans that was either innate or enabled by the possession of the spiritual entity known as Satan.
Those who have some knowledge of the bible are actually aware that this is the orthodox belief.
So, there is a second presupposition that we must look at.
That is, that its not possible for this scenario to take place.
This is where the objection becomes nonsensical.
For someone to maintain that this scenario couldnt take place, regardless of whether it is option one or option three, theyd have to be a materialist.
And once you're a materialist, you're worldview is not worth having.
A materialist is one who claims to believe that the only thing that exists is matter.
This means that there is no spiritual reality. So there is no spiritual entity known as Satan.
However, this also means that there is no such thing as a soul. Feelings aren't real either. Having a mind (not a brain) isnt possible. Logic and its laws aren't real either.
For materialism to be true, all nonmaterial truths, that even materialists believe to be true, must be false.
But since the very laws of logic are immaterial, and there is no scientific evidence to show that "matter in motion" will produce truth, holding to such a worldview means that you do not function within reality.
For example, no one is actually making decisions to do something. Decisions and reasoning are all immaterial.
Within a materialistic worldview, ones actions are detetmined by "matter in motion". In other words, a person doesnt actually have control over themselves, but are simply being controlled by their biological matter within their bodies.
Just as blood flows throughout our body and our heart beats without our control, so too, in a materialistic worldview, would our actions and decisions be beyond our control but would simply be the result of matter moving within our body... independent of our input.
We wouldnt even be considered sentient puppets.
For something to have sentience, it would need to have a mind. A mind is different from a brain as a mind is what we would consider to be consciousness. Some might call it awareness.
So a computer's brain would be its circuitry, but if a computer had a mind, it could recognise that its brain is the circuitry.
A materialist would have to deny the existence of the mind as its not material in nature, and so the puppet would never be sentient as without a mind, consciousness is not possible.
----
Lets do a brief recap before we continue.
Those that raise the objection that christianity is false because it has a talking serpent do so by presupposing two things.
The first presupposition is that serpents can't speak as humans do.
However, the bible doesnt say the serpent did that.
Instead the bible indicates that there was something spiritual happening rather than a serpent being able to speak like a human does.
The second presupposition is that there is no such thing as a spiritual reality.
This means that materialism is true. However, materialism is self-refuting as it is not what is experienced by any materialist and is not affirmed by science, as all science presupposes immaterial truths such as logic.
So, now that we know that position is flawed the only one left is that spiritual reality is indeed real.
Since it's real it makes no sense to assume that a spiritual being could not possess a creature nor cause it to do something that it couldnt do before.
As a matter of fact, the bible shows that this is actually the case. That spirits can and do unhabit and possess creatures, be they human or not, and cause creatures to be able to do things not normally possible.
One example of this is the demoniac mentioned in the new testament. He was possessed by multiple spirits and was able to break chains with his bare hands which is not a normal human feat.
It also states that when Christ Jesus spoke to the demoniac that it was the spirits who spoke back... as a collective... instead of the man himself.
In other words, once the existence of the spiritual side of life is affirmed there is no good reason to deny the possibility that a serpent can indeed speak as long as the right spiritual conditions are met.
That being said, the majority of the people who use this objection are not materialists. They arent atheists either.
They are simply those who have an unreasonable bias against christianity and will use any nonsensical argument to try and knock christianity down, as long as it looks good on the surface.
However, this argument doesn't even look good on the surface because the spiritual life, that which is immaterial in nature, is actually reality.
Everybody affirms that this is the case.
And those who don't affirm this basic truth, do not function within reality, but are the ones believing in fantasy.
Soli Deo Gloria
