The old "talking snake" card

  • Thread starter Thread starter FatherMerrin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FatherMerrin

Guest
A common straw man I’ve heard when debating with atheists is the “talking snake” line, i.e. "If you believe in an omnipotent, loving God, you have to by default believe in talking snakes too." As in the talking snake from the Adam & Eve fable. There are variations, but the basic argument remains the same.

What in your opinion is the best response to the talking snake retort?
 
The snake was Satan who appeared in that form. How do we know that?
‘And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world–he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.’ Rev 12:9
 
The Church does not teach that Genesis must be taken literally. The snake is likely just a symbol for evil thoughts leading to death. One can certainly have evil thoughts without needing a literal talking snake.
 
FatherMerrin said:
A common straw man I’ve heard when debating with atheists is the “talking snake” line, i.e. "If you believe in an omnipotent, loving God, you have to by default believe in talking snakes too." As in the talking snake from the Adam & Eve fable. There are variations, but the basic argument remains the same.

What in your opinion is the best response to the talking snake retort?
Click to expand...
Do you mean that the atheists assume that the snake is a real snake rather than an apparition of a snake – literal rather than figurative?
 
Last edited:
Even though scientifically we can’t disprove the existence of a talking snake (strictly-speakling, science cannot disprove the existence of anything); we believe in God not only by chance, logic or even experience, but by Supernatural Faith.

There has never been, to my knowledge, a talking snake reaching us through Faith.
 
I would counter with, “If you believe in an omnipotent God, then you believe- by default- that He is all powerful, and can thus grant speech to any entity that He so chooses”
 
“I don’t believe in talking snakes. Why should I?”

It’s open to hearing their reasoning, even if we can probably guess that their reasoning is severely flawed.

Normally, I hear this object as, “Then you must believe in Santa Claus.” In that case, I would retort, “Wait! You don’t believe St. Nicholas was real?”
 
Well, that is a form of deism, I was speaking from the catholic point of view.
 
Arguing the straw man is arguing against a view of what the Church is not. Rather than try to argue on those terms, use it as an opportunity to explain the Catholic view of the Creation and the Fall as told in Genesis. We’re not fundamentalists and we don’t take it just in the literal sense; it is not a science or a history text. It reaches to deeper levels than that, which in truth show God as Father and Creator, Man as created in His image, and the Fall—free will, sin, Satan, etc. This understanding is crucial to salvation history.

Whether or not a snake can talk or not is not as important as what the snake says.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
I must be meeting a different bunch of atheists. They never say this stuff to me.
Click to expand...
I remember it being super popular among YouTube atheists like ten years ago. I haven’t heard it in a while, but I don’t know if it’s because they moved on or because I stopped listening to them.
 
As a former nasty atheist I used to say these kind of things quite often 😦
 
Well, what I’m basically saying is that it has to be one or the other with atheists. If it’s literal, you’re a loon who believes in a single ark being able to carry two of every animal to exist on earth. If it’s figurative, you’re a wishy-washy idiot who relies on flaky symbolism to see him through an argument. The idea of the snake being a manifestation of something else entirely is dismissed outright, as the supernatural is supposedly an unproven phenomenon. Emphasis on “supposedly.”
 
FatherMerrin said:
Well, what I’m basically saying is that it has to be one or the other with atheists. If it’s literal, you’re a loon who believes in a single ark being able to carry two of every animal to exist on earth. If it’s figurative, you’re a wishy-washy idiot who relies on flaky symbolism to see him through an argument. The idea of the snake being a manifestation of something else entirely is dismissed outright, as the supernatural is supposedly an unproven phenomenon. Emphasis on “supposedly.”
Click to expand...
I think that there is no proof that would satisfy such a one. In scripture we read that the prophets had prophetic dreams, and Moses talked with God.
 
As an atheist, there are two parts (in my mind) that stick out about the talking snake, the talking bush, and the talking donkey.
  1. Stories about talking animals feel more like fables and mythology than how a universe run by an all-powerful deity would operate. Satan had to sneak into Eden as a talking snake like two kids from a Disney sitcom sneaking into a movie in one long trenchcoat. So much of Greek and other mythology gets a chuckle for its outrageousness, but this is to be taken seriously.
  2. Some atheists (myself included) sense at least a portion of believers are embarrassed by these items. They try to distance themselves from the talking snake/bush/donkey by claiming some or all of them are mere allegory, as if they’d rather not have to deal with those items being in the Bible. It’s a retreat position that’s done to almost bury the idea that this tome of tomes tries but doesn’t rise to the level of Aesop’s Fables.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
The Church does not teach that Genesis must be taken literally.
Click to expand...
People keep saying that around here, and I’m really hoping that it’s just sloppy writing. The Church does not teach that ‘Genesis is not literal.’

On the contrary, the Church talks about parts of Genesis that are figurative – and Genesis 3 (the account of the fall of mankind) is one that the Catechism says is figurative – but the Church doesn’t make that claim for all of Genesis.

So, in response to the OP’s question, the answer is “the Church says that this is a figurative account; so, if you want to believe in God, then you must believe in a tale that presents a figurative talking snake.” Yeah… I can get behind that. 😉
Mike_from_NJ said:
Stories about talking animals feel more like fables and mythology than how a universe run by an all-powerful deity would operate.
Click to expand...
You agree with the Catholic Church, then: it’s a narrative that uses figurative language! 😉
Mike_from_NJ said:
Some atheists (myself included) sense at least a portion of believers are embarrassed by these items. They try to distance themselves from the talking snake/bush/donkey by claiming some or all of them are mere allegory, as if they’d rather not have to deal with those items being in the Bible.
Click to expand...
Huh? ‘Embarrassed’? I’m cool with Genesis 3 being in the Bible… but that doesn’t mean that its genre is ‘literal historical narrative’, any more than stories of future presidents cutting down cherry trees is ‘embarrassing’ or ‘literal history’!
Mike_from_NJ said:
It’s a retreat position
Click to expand...
No. It’s an acknowledgement that the Bible is a collection of books, encompassing a variety of literary genres. No one is embarrassed about that, or attempting to hide it. (Other Christian denominations might attempt to make rather far-fetched claims of 100% literalistic narrative… but not the Catholic Church.)
 
Mike_from_NJ said:
Satan had to sneak into Eden as a talking snake like two kids from a Disney sitcom sneaking into a movie in one long trenchcoat
Click to expand...
Nothing in the Bible suggests that he had to sneak in. In the narrative he was just there.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top