Biologically speaking humans are animals and we talk. And since evolution resulted in one type of animal that talks couldn’t it result in others, maybe even other that have since gone extinct? So there has to be an additional reason to dismiss the story other than talking animals being rationally impossible. You mention that the problem is the “magical” causation, which you see as a synonym for supernatural, whereas in Christian Theology it is closer to an antonym.
So let me tell you a story I made up:
Thahg and Zog are aliens in a faraway solar system study species of other planets. One day Thahg shows a pocket watch to Zog and says “Look, I think a human made this.”
Zog says, “What’s a human?”
“A human is a featherless biped from Earth”
Zog thinks about what animals come from earth and the only one he can think of is a chicken. He laughs and says, “You think a plucked chicken made that? Boy, are you nuts!”
And of course Thahg would then look at Zog like he was nuts, because the absurdity Zog is seeing is coming from Zog’s own lack of appropriate reference categories rather than an actual problem with Thahg’s conjecture.
For another example suppose the Muslim woman Yvain was talking to had said “I don’t believe that evolution could work because alleles that sweep through populations more often then not reduce the kolmogorov complexity of the genes’ effect on phenotype.” Yvain may still think she is just as wrong, but she has demonstrated intellectual engagement with the subject rather then just demonstrating she had no mental concept for genetic change over time, like the ‘monkeys give birth to humans’ objection demonstrates.
So the problem is saying that talking snakes are magical and therefore ridiculous sound more like “My mental concepts are too limited to comprehend your explanation” than like “I understood your explanation and it has X, Y and Z logical problems.”
First: does saying “hahaha, these guys believe in talking snakes, how ridiculous” sound like it demonstrates a lack of understanding and engagement? I think the answer to that is clearly yes, at least if you say it to thoughtful people with some understanding of this stuff. (But maybe not if you say it to people who are already convinced or to people who haven’t given serious thought to these questions at all; so maybe Maher was preaching to the choir[1] and/or trying to shock unthinking believers into questioning their beliefs for the first time.)
[1] A curious phrase, that. Some Christian churches—I’m thinking e.g. of Anglican cathedrals and Oxbridge college chapels, where the music is a Big Deal—have quite a lot of people in their choirs who are there only for the music and might be perfectly reasonable targets for preaching.
Second: does saying “hahaha, these guys believe in talking snakes, how ridiculous” actually demonstrate a lack of understanding and engagement? I think it clearly does in some cases (and suspect Bill Maher is one), but I think (1) there really is an argument against (some versions of) Christianity based on the silliness of believing in talking snakes, and (2) some (rude) people may choose to express it in simple in-yer-face terms even though they’re capable of making a more sophisticated version that isn’t so liable to look like lack of understanding and engagement.
The sophisticated version I have in mind, which I’ve sketched elsewhere in this thread, goes something like this.
The story in Genesis 3 doesn’t in any way suggest that the talking snake is an incarnation or avatar of, or being remote-controlled by, or otherwise magically influenced by, any supernatural evil being. It’s introduced by saying “Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the other animals God had made” or something of the kind; when God is pronouncing his sentences on the guilty parties, what he says to the snake is (1) clearly addressed to the snake and not to some other being that controlled it and (2) clearly addressed to it as a snake rather than as some kind of incarnation of a vastly powerful spiritual being.
I understand that—especially within the theologically-conservative-Protestant tradition—many Christians do take the snake in the story to be, or to be controlled by, the devil. But it seems to me very unlikely that it was originally intended this way, and as I say there’s nothing in the story to suggest that understanding. I suggest that this interpretation of the story may in fact be largely motivated by a wish to make the story less silly :-).
So the people who created and spread this story, at least if they intended it to be understood as an account of something that actually happened, evidently didn’t find anything unreasonable in the idea of a “natural” talking and thinking snake.
But that idea is “silly” in the following sense: given some things we now know with great confidence about how the natural world works, we can see that a talking, thinking snake is not the kind of thing that could actually happen. A snake just doesn’t have space for enough brain to think and use language.
Of course if you fill the space not with ordinary biological brain-stuff but with some sort of nanotechnological AI hardware, it might be perfectly possible; or if there is magic and the snake talks and thinks by magic; or if there are gods and devils and one of them is animating it; etc. But, again, that isn’t the story being told here.
Accordingly, the presence of the talking snake in the story really is an extra piece of evidence against the story, even given the other “magical” elements in the story—not because talking snakes would require magic, but because the story shows every sign of being about a non-magical talking snake. (I am using “magic” and “magical” here in a broad sense, to include the exercise of divine or diabolical powers, even though believers in such powers will for good reason generally want to distinguish between those and “magic” as generally understood.)
And if some religious tradition embraces the story as historical fact, that really is an extra piece of evidence against that religious tradition; against its general reliability (because if the story is wrong then the tradition is unreliable) and against that of its present-day advocates (because they really ought to be able to see how implausible the story is).
I personally think that saying “hahaha, talking snake” is counterproductive as well as rude, and I agree with Yvain that if you find a lot of smart people apparently believing in talking snakes then you should very seriously consider the possibility that (1) they don’t believe quite what you think they do and/or (2) their beliefs are more defensible than they sound. But I also think—and my impression from the note at the end of the OP is that Yvain does too—that someone saying “hahaha, talking snake” may actually have a pretty good understanding of the issues and be making (or at least gesturing towards) a reasonable argument.
[EDITED to acknowledge that the devil-snake interpretation is quite widely believed and comment on that, and to tweak some wording a bit elsewhere.]
I would agree that there are some Christians whose belief set could be vulnerable on the point of talking snakes. I can think of several different arguments depending on what other ideas they were holding in conjunction with their interpretation of Genesis. Using a blanket dismissal would have the advantage that you wouldn’t have to figure out which one would work on your target. But I think we would both agree it could also potentially backfire.
Concerning the issue you presented, that ”natural” snakes just can’t work like that. I think you have considerably underplayed your hand. Consider Gen 1:29-30:
Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so.
That’s right, in the Garden of Eden every single animal was vegan. And ecosystems just don’t work like that. And I would go further and say that all these animals had the capacity at this time to live forever. Death didn’t enter the world till the fall. Rom. 5:12-14:
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
So we are dealing with quite a big discrepancy from known biology here, and that would be a problem if I were a (Uniformitarian.)[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism] But fundamentalists tend to be much less Uniformitarian than main stream society. So the idea that God had a different biological system set up initially, and He changed the rules as part of the curse, seems not only plausible, but a nature part of the story.
Also it sort of seems you might be unconsciously assuming the traditional pictorial representation of a small to medium snake wrapped around a tree branch. But the text doesn’t say the serpent was in the tree or give any other reference to size. I tend to picture something more like a Chinese dragon standing on all fours, shoulder to shoulder with Eve. So I don’t get the “brain box obviously too small for speech” effect from my mental picture.
(Note on the preferences for Satan controlling the snake showing an awareness that the talking snake is silly, I think this is more about emphasizing Gen. 3:15 as a Christological prophesy and generally framing the whole story as part of a Christological arch where the first Adam brings san and death and the second Adam (Jesus) brings salvation and life. Having the Devil tempting Adam and Eve here makes a parallel with Christ’s temptation in the desert and with Judas Iscariot’s temptation to betray Jesus. Finding Christological interpretations is a big motivator of Christian Theology.)
fundamentalists tend to be much less Uniformitarian
That’s a fair point. But it seems to me that it amounts to saying that nothing in the stories in your scriptures could count as much evidence against their accuracy. (Suppose it said “And Adam, when he heard the sentence that the LORD God had passed upon him, knelt down upon the red grass and laughed for sorrow and shame”—well, it’s only uniformitarianism that entitles us to expect the grass to have been green or laughter to have been an unlikely response to sorrow and shame. Etc.)
In which case, you’re also awfully limited in what conclusions you can draw from anything in those stories. “Genesis 3 indicates that God greatly values obedience to his commands.” No, it indicates that he did; for all we know, he might want something very different from us now. “The story of the Great Flood indicates that God has authority over the weather on earth.” No, it indicates that he did; for all we know, he might have somehow given up that authority since then. Do these stories actually have much value, if everything they describe might have changed utterly?
(You might say that God’s character and values are known to be stable, unlike the laws of physics or anything in biology. But the sources that tell you that are 2000 years old! That’s, like, 25% of the entire age of the universe! If God’s character and values were changing on that sort of timescale, it’s perfectly possible that these ancient texts might declare them to be stable even though they aren’t.)
a small to medium snake wrapped around a tree branch
I don’t think I was consciously or unconsciously assuming that. But I was assuming something that’s recognizably the same sort of animal as today’s snakes—God says “upon your belly shall you go”, etc., not “I shall replace you with something 1⁄4 the size which shall go upon its belly”. I think I agree, though, that the Chinese-dragon interpretation is at least kinda tenable.
Christological interpretations
OK, that’s a good point. (In terms of what it says about where Christian interpretations of Genesis 3 come from; I don’t think the Christian tradition of finding prophecies and parallels everywhere in the OT is actually intellectually healthy, but it’s certainly a real thing.)
But … how good is that parallel, actually? I mean, Judas is not (so far as I can tell) in any way usefully parallel to either Adam or Eve, and the temptation of Jesus seems very different in kind from that of Eve, and most of the actual opposition Jesus is reported to have had comes from very human sources.
I think if you’re looking for a parallel to the temptation-and-disobedience of Adam and Eve, through which sin and death enter the world, the place you need to look is for some temptation-and-obedience of Jesus through which sin and death are conquered. And there is indeed an obvious such thing, which takes place in the (aha!) garden of Gethsemane, where he is clearly at least considering the possibility of saying “no” to what he has to do but goes ahead with it (“not my will, but yours, be done”). But this temptation is, so far as the stories say, entirely endogenous; we’re shown no tempter, whether human or animal or evil spirit. So I’m not really seeing how any parallel between the Adam&Eve story and the Jesus story is made closer by having the snake in Eden be possessed by, controlled by, or an incarnation of, the devil.
That doesn’t mean that the tradition that says the snake “was” the devil doesn’t arise from a desire to find such parallels, of course. But it doesn’t seem to me so obviously well explained in those terms as to make me abandon my more cynical theory :-).
True enough. I meant that there’s no external tempter in the garden of Gethsemane. I’d already remarked that the temptation of Jesus (as found in Matthew 4) “seems very different in kind from that of Eve” and was proposing a better parallel.
Fair enough. The way I see it, there are some themes that are paralleled in Gethsemene, and some themes that are paralleled in the forty days and nights in the desert. They’re both parallels, but in different ways.
I agree that not being a Uniformitarian makes the makes the evidence harder to deal with and is generally a headache for everyone. But it should not be used to let a historical theory get away with anomaly without any hit to its plausibility, it should just reduce the size of the plausibility hit. Also several anomalies that are being explained by the same rule change only make up one plausibility hit rather than being additive.
On Christological interpretations, I agree it can get out of hand, and I’m not sure they are very valid here, But if “and He should crush your head” is going of be a prophesy about Jesus, well there isn’t a story of Him dramatically crushing a snake’s head, so it’s got to a general stamina out His victory of death, sin, and the devil, so I do think people are using that frame to identify Satan and the serpent.
(Sorry, this is rather long and I fear less clear than I would like.)
Uniformitarianism
We are in agreement that uniformitarianism is a matter of degree and that it’s the complexity of the “rules” that matters, rather than of what happens. The most popular formulation of this idea around these parts is “Solomonoff induction”: suppose that everything you observe is generated by a computer program, give higher initial probability to shorter programs, and then just do Bayesian inference as new observations come in. Aside from being totally uncomputable in theory and infeasibly expensive in practice and depending (finitely but hugely) on exactly what language you write your programs in and how you encode your observations, this is a really good way to decide what to believe :-).
So you’re probably right that you can avoid taking an extra plausibility hit from talking snakes as such, if instead you say something like “around the time of creation, living organisms worked by divine magic rather than biology” or ”… living organisms were based around completely different biology”. That sort of proposition generally incurs a really big cost in plausibility, for two reasons.
If you’re aiming for a theory that says “before, the rules were X; after, the rules were Y” then the problem is that now your program needs to contain both sets of rules. If you’re never intending to go beyond “before, the rules were different; after, the rules were Y” then the problem is now your program needs to describe what happened “before” without the compression enabled by having those rules—this is the “a witch did it” problem.
(How big a problem the latter is depends on how much you observe actually depends on what happened “before”.)
It seems to me that “biology used to be completely different, in such a way as to make talking snakes not a problem” is obviously no improvement on “there was a (naturally) talking snake”. And I think it is, actually, worse than just “biology used to be completely different”—when a single rule change has to explain multiple anomalies, the more specific anomalies it has to explain the more constrained the rule change is.
Parallels
OK, so the idea is that you want to find a specific prophetic point of reference for the “he shall crush your head” thing (because obviously the idea that it might refer to people actually killing snakes is completely ridiculous, I guess) and that has to be Jesus because everything has to be Jesus[1], and then the only animate thing whose head Jesus can reasonably be said to have crushed is the devil. But, again, it doesn’t seem to me that there’s anything internal to the story calling forth such an interpretation, and I’d have thought there’s an obvious completely straightforward way to understand the bit about crushing snakes’ heads (especially as it comes right alongside something about snakes biting people’s feet, which also seems like a fine example of something that doesn’t require overinterpretation) -- so, again, this seems like something being imposed on the text from outside, and therefore not a good explanation for why (some) Christians take the snake to be / be controlled by the devil.
[1] Sunday school teacher: “OK, children, can you tell me what’s small and brown and furry, with a big fluffy tail, and really likes nuts?” Child: “I’m sure it’s Jesus, but it sounds a lot like a squirrel.”
Sorry to be so long answering this. Not only was work busy but my husband was going through withdrawal again and that is always an all consuming time sink.
On Solomonoff induction: If we take a look at one of the facts this story proposes to explain, - We live in a world of decay, where humans and other animals have death as their destiny and the universe itself tends to disorder and destruction, but that this is bad and wrong and against the harmonies of logic and lawfulness and the timelessness of truth. This story’s proposal that the original and good state of the world was without any need for death, but that at one point one fundamental change was made, perhaps tweaking a law of conservation of information just enough so that its practical consequences are an ever increasing disorder, i.e. entropy, seems as elegantly simple answer as I can think of. This one rule change is more what I was thinking of, rather than swap out of the entire rule set, basically because it’s lower complexity. Yes, I am expecting that God re-cons the plant and animal world so that you get stable biology and ecosystems under this new rule, but i already had a sufficiently intelligent and powerful agent, with an established interest in having a sustained ecosystem, who could implement the needed changes. So I don’t see any new rules there. Nor do I think it should be surprising that quite a lot of surface changes could be occasioned by even a small change of one rule that was so fundamental.
On parallels: I can think of lots of reasons to give why Satan controlling the snake in called for by a Christological interpretation and other reasons, like dualism, that could also lead to the idea this was a good interpretation, but I’m getting the internal feeling that I’m starting to treat my arguments like soldiers on this one. People are influenced by the culture around them so I can see how a culture that finds the idea of talking snakes silly would be one of the contributing factors to the general theological preference for Satan as an external control on the snake. But this is such a subtle thing with so many dependencies that it will be hard to get even someone who has this assumption to focus on questioning the one dependency you want, the inerrancy of the Bible, rather than some other dependency, especially if you are trying to avoid a feeling of personal hostility that tends to harden people positions.
Slowness not a problem. (You wouldn’t believe how long I’ve sometimes taken.) I hope your husband is OK.
You say “one fundamental change”, but I’m pretty sure there is no way to fill in the details of that story so that it actually works. Increasing entropy is a consequence of the fundamental form of the laws of physics, plus the world being in a low-entropy state at the big bang. Make a small change to that and you get not a perfect world with no death and corruption, but a world where physics doesn’t work.
I don’t think you get to call something “elegantly simple” just because you haven’t thought about the details and therefore can’t see how messy they are :-).
(Maybe God designed a lawful universe where entropy increases, and then set Eden up with a hacked version where entropy doesn’t increase because of constant divine intervention, and then just stopped doing that when Adam and Eve didn’t obey his command. That would suggest that A&E were intended to fail all along, an idea that maybe gets some support from e.g. Revelation 13:8 and which strengthens my sense that in the standard Christian interpretation of the Eden story God is the bad guy.)
You might have the impression (given certain things in that Wikipedia article; not everything there is entirely accurate) that uniformitarianism is a premise which is used to interpret the world. Historically, that’s inaccurate. Geologists were young earth creationists in the first place, but changed their minds and adopted uniformitarianism as a conclusion, not as a premise, because the facts on the ground did not fit with creationism, not even if the rules have changed.
Not sure where to start regarding the oddly-named “Occam’s Razor”—though we can immediately dismiss the idea that one could do Newtonian Science without it. Possibly we’ll discuss this, and modern attempts to formalize simplicity, some other time.
Let me quickly note that the Chinese dragon interpretation would make God’s curse on the serpent even weirder.
It seems to me that one change at a fundamental level could have less Kolmogorov complexity then several special case exceptions at a surface level. And that is what the bringer change sounds like to me, something at a deep level, connected to death, propagating all through the system.
Since we are already talking about going from a legged animal to a legless one, I don’t see that doing it on a more massive animal can make a significant change in the complexity penalty.
Your approach is wrong, and I don’t know how it went wrong. (I assume the problem is deeper than “bringer change” being unknown to Google.) If you know what “Kolmogorov complexity” means, maybe think about how you would program a simulated world that allows such a change to be “fundamental” and yet produces the evidence that scientists continually find.
On the much less important issue at hand: you seem to have skipped the question of why this God would take legs away from any “snake,” and precisely what that entails. (Should I ask how many Chinese dragons or “seeds” thereof were affected? Or would that distract from the why?)
This is one problems with the absurdity heuristic. Because of deliberately starting at a point with such a long inferential distance, It can be hard to see where the error has taken place.
Biologically speaking humans are animals and we talk. And since evolution resulted in one type of animal that talks couldn’t it result in others, maybe even other that have since gone extinct? So there has to be an additional reason to dismiss the story other than talking animals being rationally impossible. You mention that the problem is the “magical” causation, which you see as a synonym for supernatural, whereas in Christian Theology it is closer to an antonym.
So let me tell you a story I made up:
Thahg and Zog are aliens in a faraway solar system study species of other planets. One day Thahg shows a pocket watch to Zog and says “Look, I think a human made this.” Zog says, “What’s a human?” “A human is a featherless biped from Earth” Zog thinks about what animals come from earth and the only one he can think of is a chicken. He laughs and says, “You think a plucked chicken made that? Boy, are you nuts!”
And of course Thahg would then look at Zog like he was nuts, because the absurdity Zog is seeing is coming from Zog’s own lack of appropriate reference categories rather than an actual problem with Thahg’s conjecture.
For another example suppose the Muslim woman Yvain was talking to had said “I don’t believe that evolution could work because alleles that sweep through populations more often then not reduce the kolmogorov complexity of the genes’ effect on phenotype.” Yvain may still think she is just as wrong, but she has demonstrated intellectual engagement with the subject rather then just demonstrating she had no mental concept for genetic change over time, like the ‘monkeys give birth to humans’ objection demonstrates.
So the problem is saying that talking snakes are magical and therefore ridiculous sound more like “My mental concepts are too limited to comprehend your explanation” than like “I understood your explanation and it has X, Y and Z logical problems.”
I think there are two separate questions here.
First: does saying “hahaha, these guys believe in talking snakes, how ridiculous” sound like it demonstrates a lack of understanding and engagement? I think the answer to that is clearly yes, at least if you say it to thoughtful people with some understanding of this stuff. (But maybe not if you say it to people who are already convinced or to people who haven’t given serious thought to these questions at all; so maybe Maher was preaching to the choir[1] and/or trying to shock unthinking believers into questioning their beliefs for the first time.)
[1] A curious phrase, that. Some Christian churches—I’m thinking e.g. of Anglican cathedrals and Oxbridge college chapels, where the music is a Big Deal—have quite a lot of people in their choirs who are there only for the music and might be perfectly reasonable targets for preaching.
Second: does saying “hahaha, these guys believe in talking snakes, how ridiculous” actually demonstrate a lack of understanding and engagement? I think it clearly does in some cases (and suspect Bill Maher is one), but I think (1) there really is an argument against (some versions of) Christianity based on the silliness of believing in talking snakes, and (2) some (rude) people may choose to express it in simple in-yer-face terms even though they’re capable of making a more sophisticated version that isn’t so liable to look like lack of understanding and engagement.
The sophisticated version I have in mind, which I’ve sketched elsewhere in this thread, goes something like this.
The story in Genesis 3 doesn’t in any way suggest that the talking snake is an incarnation or avatar of, or being remote-controlled by, or otherwise magically influenced by, any supernatural evil being. It’s introduced by saying “Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the other animals God had made” or something of the kind; when God is pronouncing his sentences on the guilty parties, what he says to the snake is (1) clearly addressed to the snake and not to some other being that controlled it and (2) clearly addressed to it as a snake rather than as some kind of incarnation of a vastly powerful spiritual being.
I understand that—especially within the theologically-conservative-Protestant tradition—many Christians do take the snake in the story to be, or to be controlled by, the devil. But it seems to me very unlikely that it was originally intended this way, and as I say there’s nothing in the story to suggest that understanding. I suggest that this interpretation of the story may in fact be largely motivated by a wish to make the story less silly :-).
So the people who created and spread this story, at least if they intended it to be understood as an account of something that actually happened, evidently didn’t find anything unreasonable in the idea of a “natural” talking and thinking snake.
But that idea is “silly” in the following sense: given some things we now know with great confidence about how the natural world works, we can see that a talking, thinking snake is not the kind of thing that could actually happen. A snake just doesn’t have space for enough brain to think and use language.
Of course if you fill the space not with ordinary biological brain-stuff but with some sort of nanotechnological AI hardware, it might be perfectly possible; or if there is magic and the snake talks and thinks by magic; or if there are gods and devils and one of them is animating it; etc. But, again, that isn’t the story being told here.
Accordingly, the presence of the talking snake in the story really is an extra piece of evidence against the story, even given the other “magical” elements in the story—not because talking snakes would require magic, but because the story shows every sign of being about a non-magical talking snake. (I am using “magic” and “magical” here in a broad sense, to include the exercise of divine or diabolical powers, even though believers in such powers will for good reason generally want to distinguish between those and “magic” as generally understood.)
And if some religious tradition embraces the story as historical fact, that really is an extra piece of evidence against that religious tradition; against its general reliability (because if the story is wrong then the tradition is unreliable) and against that of its present-day advocates (because they really ought to be able to see how implausible the story is).
I personally think that saying “hahaha, talking snake” is counterproductive as well as rude, and I agree with Yvain that if you find a lot of smart people apparently believing in talking snakes then you should very seriously consider the possibility that (1) they don’t believe quite what you think they do and/or (2) their beliefs are more defensible than they sound. But I also think—and my impression from the note at the end of the OP is that Yvain does too—that someone saying “hahaha, talking snake” may actually have a pretty good understanding of the issues and be making (or at least gesturing towards) a reasonable argument.
[EDITED to acknowledge that the devil-snake interpretation is quite widely believed and comment on that, and to tweak some wording a bit elsewhere.]
I would agree that there are some Christians whose belief set could be vulnerable on the point of talking snakes. I can think of several different arguments depending on what other ideas they were holding in conjunction with their interpretation of Genesis. Using a blanket dismissal would have the advantage that you wouldn’t have to figure out which one would work on your target. But I think we would both agree it could also potentially backfire.
Concerning the issue you presented, that ”natural” snakes just can’t work like that. I think you have considerably underplayed your hand. Consider Gen 1:29-30:
That’s right, in the Garden of Eden every single animal was vegan. And ecosystems just don’t work like that. And I would go further and say that all these animals had the capacity at this time to live forever. Death didn’t enter the world till the fall. Rom. 5:12-14:
So we are dealing with quite a big discrepancy from known biology here, and that would be a problem if I were a (Uniformitarian.)[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism] But fundamentalists tend to be much less Uniformitarian than main stream society. So the idea that God had a different biological system set up initially, and He changed the rules as part of the curse, seems not only plausible, but a nature part of the story.
Also it sort of seems you might be unconsciously assuming the traditional pictorial representation of a small to medium snake wrapped around a tree branch. But the text doesn’t say the serpent was in the tree or give any other reference to size. I tend to picture something more like a Chinese dragon standing on all fours, shoulder to shoulder with Eve. So I don’t get the “brain box obviously too small for speech” effect from my mental picture.
(Note on the preferences for Satan controlling the snake showing an awareness that the talking snake is silly, I think this is more about emphasizing Gen. 3:15 as a Christological prophesy and generally framing the whole story as part of a Christological arch where the first Adam brings san and death and the second Adam (Jesus) brings salvation and life. Having the Devil tempting Adam and Eve here makes a parallel with Christ’s temptation in the desert and with Judas Iscariot’s temptation to betray Jesus. Finding Christological interpretations is a big motivator of Christian Theology.)
That’s a fair point. But it seems to me that it amounts to saying that nothing in the stories in your scriptures could count as much evidence against their accuracy. (Suppose it said “And Adam, when he heard the sentence that the LORD God had passed upon him, knelt down upon the red grass and laughed for sorrow and shame”—well, it’s only uniformitarianism that entitles us to expect the grass to have been green or laughter to have been an unlikely response to sorrow and shame. Etc.)
In which case, you’re also awfully limited in what conclusions you can draw from anything in those stories. “Genesis 3 indicates that God greatly values obedience to his commands.” No, it indicates that he did; for all we know, he might want something very different from us now. “The story of the Great Flood indicates that God has authority over the weather on earth.” No, it indicates that he did; for all we know, he might have somehow given up that authority since then. Do these stories actually have much value, if everything they describe might have changed utterly?
(You might say that God’s character and values are known to be stable, unlike the laws of physics or anything in biology. But the sources that tell you that are 2000 years old! That’s, like, 25% of the entire age of the universe! If God’s character and values were changing on that sort of timescale, it’s perfectly possible that these ancient texts might declare them to be stable even though they aren’t.)
I don’t think I was consciously or unconsciously assuming that. But I was assuming something that’s recognizably the same sort of animal as today’s snakes—God says “upon your belly shall you go”, etc., not “I shall replace you with something 1⁄4 the size which shall go upon its belly”. I think I agree, though, that the Chinese-dragon interpretation is at least kinda tenable.
OK, that’s a good point. (In terms of what it says about where Christian interpretations of Genesis 3 come from; I don’t think the Christian tradition of finding prophecies and parallels everywhere in the OT is actually intellectually healthy, but it’s certainly a real thing.)
But … how good is that parallel, actually? I mean, Judas is not (so far as I can tell) in any way usefully parallel to either Adam or Eve, and the temptation of Jesus seems very different in kind from that of Eve, and most of the actual opposition Jesus is reported to have had comes from very human sources.
I think if you’re looking for a parallel to the temptation-and-disobedience of Adam and Eve, through which sin and death enter the world, the place you need to look is for some temptation-and-obedience of Jesus through which sin and death are conquered. And there is indeed an obvious such thing, which takes place in the (aha!) garden of Gethsemane, where he is clearly at least considering the possibility of saying “no” to what he has to do but goes ahead with it (“not my will, but yours, be done”). But this temptation is, so far as the stories say, entirely endogenous; we’re shown no tempter, whether human or animal or evil spirit. So I’m not really seeing how any parallel between the Adam&Eve story and the Jesus story is made closer by having the snake in Eden be possessed by, controlled by, or an incarnation of, the devil.
That doesn’t mean that the tradition that says the snake “was” the devil doesn’t arise from a desire to find such parallels, of course. But it doesn’t seem to me so obviously well explained in those terms as to make me abandon my more cynical theory :-).
There’s one in Matthew 4 verse 1 to 11, in which Jesus spends forty days in the desert, fasting, and then is visited (and tempted) by the Devil.
True enough. I meant that there’s no external tempter in the garden of Gethsemane. I’d already remarked that the temptation of Jesus (as found in Matthew 4) “seems very different in kind from that of Eve” and was proposing a better parallel.
Fair enough. The way I see it, there are some themes that are paralleled in Gethsemene, and some themes that are paralleled in the forty days and nights in the desert. They’re both parallels, but in different ways.
I agree that not being a Uniformitarian makes the makes the evidence harder to deal with and is generally a headache for everyone. But it should not be used to let a historical theory get away with anomaly without any hit to its plausibility, it should just reduce the size of the plausibility hit. Also several anomalies that are being explained by the same rule change only make up one plausibility hit rather than being additive.
On Christological interpretations, I agree it can get out of hand, and I’m not sure they are very valid here, But if “and He should crush your head” is going of be a prophesy about Jesus, well there isn’t a story of Him dramatically crushing a snake’s head, so it’s got to a general stamina out His victory of death, sin, and the devil, so I do think people are using that frame to identify Satan and the serpent.
(Sorry, this is rather long and I fear less clear than I would like.)
Uniformitarianism
We are in agreement that uniformitarianism is a matter of degree and that it’s the complexity of the “rules” that matters, rather than of what happens. The most popular formulation of this idea around these parts is “Solomonoff induction”: suppose that everything you observe is generated by a computer program, give higher initial probability to shorter programs, and then just do Bayesian inference as new observations come in. Aside from being totally uncomputable in theory and infeasibly expensive in practice and depending (finitely but hugely) on exactly what language you write your programs in and how you encode your observations, this is a really good way to decide what to believe :-).
So you’re probably right that you can avoid taking an extra plausibility hit from talking snakes as such, if instead you say something like “around the time of creation, living organisms worked by divine magic rather than biology” or ”… living organisms were based around completely different biology”. That sort of proposition generally incurs a really big cost in plausibility, for two reasons.
If you’re aiming for a theory that says “before, the rules were X; after, the rules were Y” then the problem is that now your program needs to contain both sets of rules. If you’re never intending to go beyond “before, the rules were different; after, the rules were Y” then the problem is now your program needs to describe what happened “before” without the compression enabled by having those rules—this is the “a witch did it” problem.
(How big a problem the latter is depends on how much you observe actually depends on what happened “before”.)
It seems to me that “biology used to be completely different, in such a way as to make talking snakes not a problem” is obviously no improvement on “there was a (naturally) talking snake”. And I think it is, actually, worse than just “biology used to be completely different”—when a single rule change has to explain multiple anomalies, the more specific anomalies it has to explain the more constrained the rule change is.
Parallels
OK, so the idea is that you want to find a specific prophetic point of reference for the “he shall crush your head” thing (because obviously the idea that it might refer to people actually killing snakes is completely ridiculous, I guess) and that has to be Jesus because everything has to be Jesus[1], and then the only animate thing whose head Jesus can reasonably be said to have crushed is the devil. But, again, it doesn’t seem to me that there’s anything internal to the story calling forth such an interpretation, and I’d have thought there’s an obvious completely straightforward way to understand the bit about crushing snakes’ heads (especially as it comes right alongside something about snakes biting people’s feet, which also seems like a fine example of something that doesn’t require overinterpretation) -- so, again, this seems like something being imposed on the text from outside, and therefore not a good explanation for why (some) Christians take the snake to be / be controlled by the devil.
[1] Sunday school teacher: “OK, children, can you tell me what’s small and brown and furry, with a big fluffy tail, and really likes nuts?” Child: “I’m sure it’s Jesus, but it sounds a lot like a squirrel.”
Sorry to be so long answering this. Not only was work busy but my husband was going through withdrawal again and that is always an all consuming time sink.
On Solomonoff induction: If we take a look at one of the facts this story proposes to explain, - We live in a world of decay, where humans and other animals have death as their destiny and the universe itself tends to disorder and destruction, but that this is bad and wrong and against the harmonies of logic and lawfulness and the timelessness of truth. This story’s proposal that the original and good state of the world was without any need for death, but that at one point one fundamental change was made, perhaps tweaking a law of conservation of information just enough so that its practical consequences are an ever increasing disorder, i.e. entropy, seems as elegantly simple answer as I can think of. This one rule change is more what I was thinking of, rather than swap out of the entire rule set, basically because it’s lower complexity. Yes, I am expecting that God re-cons the plant and animal world so that you get stable biology and ecosystems under this new rule, but i already had a sufficiently intelligent and powerful agent, with an established interest in having a sustained ecosystem, who could implement the needed changes. So I don’t see any new rules there. Nor do I think it should be surprising that quite a lot of surface changes could be occasioned by even a small change of one rule that was so fundamental.
On parallels: I can think of lots of reasons to give why Satan controlling the snake in called for by a Christological interpretation and other reasons, like dualism, that could also lead to the idea this was a good interpretation, but I’m getting the internal feeling that I’m starting to treat my arguments like soldiers on this one. People are influenced by the culture around them so I can see how a culture that finds the idea of talking snakes silly would be one of the contributing factors to the general theological preference for Satan as an external control on the snake. But this is such a subtle thing with so many dependencies that it will be hard to get even someone who has this assumption to focus on questioning the one dependency you want, the inerrancy of the Bible, rather than some other dependency, especially if you are trying to avoid a feeling of personal hostility that tends to harden people positions.
Slowness not a problem. (You wouldn’t believe how long I’ve sometimes taken.) I hope your husband is OK.
You say “one fundamental change”, but I’m pretty sure there is no way to fill in the details of that story so that it actually works. Increasing entropy is a consequence of the fundamental form of the laws of physics, plus the world being in a low-entropy state at the big bang. Make a small change to that and you get not a perfect world with no death and corruption, but a world where physics doesn’t work.
I don’t think you get to call something “elegantly simple” just because you haven’t thought about the details and therefore can’t see how messy they are :-).
(Maybe God designed a lawful universe where entropy increases, and then set Eden up with a hacked version where entropy doesn’t increase because of constant divine intervention, and then just stopped doing that when Adam and Eve didn’t obey his command. That would suggest that A&E were intended to fail all along, an idea that maybe gets some support from e.g. Revelation 13:8 and which strengthens my sense that in the standard Christian interpretation of the Eden story God is the bad guy.)
You might have the impression (given certain things in that Wikipedia article; not everything there is entirely accurate) that uniformitarianism is a premise which is used to interpret the world. Historically, that’s inaccurate. Geologists were young earth creationists in the first place, but changed their minds and adopted uniformitarianism as a conclusion, not as a premise, because the facts on the ground did not fit with creationism, not even if the rules have changed.
Not sure where to start regarding the oddly-named “Occam’s Razor”—though we can immediately dismiss the idea that one could do Newtonian Science without it. Possibly we’ll discuss this, and modern attempts to formalize simplicity, some other time.
Let me quickly note that the Chinese dragon interpretation would make God’s curse on the serpent even weirder.
It seems to me that one change at a fundamental level could have less Kolmogorov complexity then several special case exceptions at a surface level. And that is what the bringer change sounds like to me, something at a deep level, connected to death, propagating all through the system.
Since we are already talking about going from a legged animal to a legless one, I don’t see that doing it on a more massive animal can make a significant change in the complexity penalty.
Your approach is wrong, and I don’t know how it went wrong. (I assume the problem is deeper than “bringer change” being unknown to Google.) If you know what “Kolmogorov complexity” means, maybe think about how you would program a simulated world that allows such a change to be “fundamental” and yet produces the evidence that scientists continually find.
On the much less important issue at hand: you seem to have skipped the question of why this God would take legs away from any “snake,” and precisely what that entails. (Should I ask how many Chinese dragons or “seeds” thereof were affected? Or would that distract from the why?)
This is one problems with the absurdity heuristic. Because of deliberately starting at a point with such a long inferential distance, It can be hard to see where the error has taken place.