I agree with Lundahl (2022q) that Donkeys and Snakes Cannot Biologically Talk. Yet, My Explanation of Numbers 22 is More Probable than the Supernatural Explanation Given in Lundahl (2022a, 2022k, 2022q)
Kevin R. Henke
September 23, 2022
In Henke (2022h), I quoted the following from Henke (2022b):
“Without giving a proper reference, Lundahl (2022a) refers to a Bishop Challoner and states that angels are capable of making a donkey talk without violating natural law. Once more, Mr. Lundahl commits the fallacy of circular reasoning. Without having a shred of evidence, he invokes a groundless story about an angel to explain another groundless story about a talking donkey. He has done absolutely nothing to rationally convince us that any of these stories ever happened. He just expects us to accept that this account in Numbers was history because it’s in the Bible.”
Lundahl (2022q) then replies to this citation:
“Not quite no.
The pretence of asking for evidence in one item took a form that was in fact an objection: he was asking for evidence that either snakes or donkeys naturally are able to speak, at least some variety, and the answer took the form of objecting to the ignoratio elenchi. For this answer, it does not matter whether the story is true or made up. What matters is, that for my belief system (and I have not purported to defend another one) neither animal as physically biologically living animal was able to talk, but that in both cases an angelic being was controlling sounds that came from them. A guardian angel in the case of Bileam's ass, and Satan in the case of the snake. My concern was not with proving the story true, but with proving the (disguised) objection beside the point.”
Lundahl (2022q) accuses me of committing the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi, which is the fallacy of an irrelevant conclusion (Copi and Cohen 1994, pp. 131-132). In other words, I was “missing the point” of his statement in Lundahl (2022a). Now, as discussed in Henke (2022b), Henke (2022h), Henke (2022dd), and Henke (2022bp), I certainly recognize that both Mr. Lundahl and I agree that snakes and donkeys are not biologically capable of talking. With that issue settled, we can further discuss the problems with Mr. Lundahl’s groundless angelic/demonic ventriloquist explanation for the talking snake in Genesis 3 and the talking donkey in Numbers 22. In the above paragraph originally from Henke (2022b), I stress that Lundahl (2022a) provides no evidence that a donkey is able to speak without violating natural law and that Mr. Lundahl simply expects his readers to accept that the book of Numbers is history because it’s in the Bible. That is, I do not miss the point, but starting in Henke (2022h) and especially continuing in Henke (2022dz), I go beyond the biological problems with talking snakes and donkeys, and discuss the problems with Mr. Lundahl’s invoking supernatural beings as using animals as ventriloquist dummies.
Contrary to what Mr. Lundahl claims in Lundahl (2022q), it’s very relevant whether the story in Numbers 22 is true or made up. If Mr. Lundahl wants to believe that Numbers 22 is true, he needs to immediately present evidence to support his claim. It’s a logical fallacy for Lundahl (2022a) and Lundahl (2022q) to invoke a groundless story about angels to explain another groundless story in Numbers 22. The same situation occurs in Genesis 3. As I further said in Henke (2022aj), claims should not be divorced from evidence. That is, if Lundahl (2022q) wants to argue about how a donkey talked in Numbers 22, he needs to first demonstrate that the story actually happened because arguing about how a donkey could talk in a work of fiction is a worthless endeavor. He just might as well be arguing that an angel makes Eeyore talk in Winnie the Pooh.
Now, let’s further look at Mr. Lundahl’s claim that supernatural beings in Genesis 3 and Numbers 22 used animals as ventriloquist dummies. Henke (2022dz) states:
“As I mentioned earlier in Henke (2022dd), how does Mr. Lundahl know that angels exist and that one of them used a snake as a ventriloquist’s dummy in Genesis 3? Where’s his evidence? Anyone can try to justify any silly story in Genesis 3 by just invoking another silly story about magical beings being responsible because magical beings hypothetically can do anything. When Lundahl (2022m) has to stoop to invoking such a far-fetched and irrational excuse about an angel to salvage Hypothesis #1, it becomes far easier to recognize that Genesis 3 is just a work of fiction and that Hypotheses #3 and #4 are far more reasonable than Hypotheses #1 and #2 as explained in Henke (2022a) and Henke (2022b).”
My comments would also apply to the talking donkey in Numbers 22. I also stated in Henke (2022bp):
“Lundahl (2022k) makes the following comments about point #7 in Henke (2022b), which is about the biology of snakes and the Talking Snake of Genesis 3:
“I took in Bishop Challoner's comment on Bileam's ass in order to clarify that the biology of snakes is irrelevant, the claim if true involves an angel vocalising something as coming through a snake.”
Sure, Mr. Lundahl, Bishop Challoner or anyone else can always invoke angels or other magical and imaginary beings, and then just pretend to solve any problem. This is like saying: “I know that the family traditions of my great, great, great, grandfather’s dog speaking to him are true because the invisible fairies vocalized the speech.” Again, Lundahl (2022k) is just making up groundless excuses for how a Talking Snake might exist and not providing any evidence whatsoever that the snake actually existed.”
Also, Occam’s Razor likely becomes relevant in how Mr. Lundahl and I interpret the talking donkey story in Numbers 22. Occam’s Razor indicates that the explanation with the fewest assumptions usually has a higher probability of being correct (Strahler 1999, pp. 13, 62, 511-512). Now Occam’s Razor is not a totally reliable principle. That is, exceptions occur. Nevertheless, it’s a good general rule. So, let’s compare my explanation of the donkey story in Numbers 22 with his interpretation. My assumption simply is:
1. Someone made up the story in Numbers 22 and the author of Numbers 22 mistakenly thought that the story actually happened.
Mr. Lundahl’s assumptions in interpreting Numbers 22 are:
1. God exists.
2. Angels exist.
3. Angels have used animals as ventriloquist dummies and did so in Numbers 22.
4. Numbers 22 is an accurate record of what actually happened.
My explanation has fewer assumptions and is more probable. To be exact, my explanation of Numbers 22 is highly probable. People constantly make up stories and the cases of William Tell (Henke 2022ek) and St. Philomena (Henke 2022es) demonstrate that a large number of people may mistakenly believe that false stories actually happened. Again, I fully admit that it’s highly unlikely that biologists will ever find a naturally talking snake or a talking donkey in some unexplored region of our world. Yet, people are talking animals. Parrots and other birds can also repeat phrases that they hear. Snakes and donkeys certainly exist. As I mention in Henke (2022dd), even though Genesis 3 and Numbers 22 are most likely made-up stories, the probabilities of finding previously unknown talking snakes and equines are still greater than the existence of totally undemonstrated supernatural beings using animals as ventriloquist dummies. Mr. Lundahl continues to miss the point about Genesis 3 and Numbers 22.
References:
Copi, I.M. and Cohen, C. 1994. Introduction to Logic, 9th ed., MacMillan Publishing Company: New York, USA, 729 pp.
Strahler, A.N. 1999. Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy: 2nd ed., Prometheus Books: Amherst, NY, USA, 552 pp.