Christian, What Best Explains the Existence of Animal Suffering?
I'm doing some research into this issue and it should spark some debate. Answer the question. Don't merely parrot back an answer to me. Think about it. Then reply. Does Dawinian evolutionary biology best explain what we see with the law of predation or does creation by a perfectly good God?
72 comments:
Animal suffering...I don't agree that animals suffer in nature. Animals do what is neccessary to survive. What man does to animals...well, that is a different story.
All of creation was made with a purpose by God. Some animals were created as prey for others, to offer sustenance. Others were created as the predators, to keep population in control. Is it not a good God that would understand and create a world in which things worked in harmony, in the way that they do now in nature (albeit when man stays out of it)?
Although I am Christian, I believe that species continue to evolve. I believe that God is the creator...Is that impossible, to believe both in a sense?? Maybe I am not able to answer the question as you wish do to the fact that I don't see the law of predation as evil...therefore I have no issue stating that God's ultimate plan for animals is as is should be, law of predation and all...
I hope you see this as an answer, not as an answer parroted back at you. If I haven't been clear enough, please let me know so I can clarify my position.
I don't agree that animals suffer in nature. Animals do what is neccessary to survive. What man does to animals...well, that is a different story.
Is it possible for animals to suffer?
If one animal benefits from the pain and misery of another animal, are you saying the second animal isn't actually suffering?
The problem of animal suffering is a well-known and widely-discussed argument in the philosophy of religion; a form of a wider argument known as the "gratuitous evil" argument from evil. It is a counter to a number of theodicies; to wit, the "free will", "Lapsarian" (relating to the Fall), and "soul-making" theodicies among them. Apologists offer a number of counter-arguments to it, but mainly the "Natural Law" argument and/or modified Lapsarian appeals. Van Inwagen has a rather creative modal counter-argument to it.
Back in April, it was a real treat to see Alvin Plantinga stutter and stumble over this objection given to him at a public lecture of his--artfully and powerfully explicated to him by a young, teenage Christianist of all people.
Heather: Q. $mith uses your main premise as part of his paper titled: "An Athe0logical Argument from Evil Natural Laws" (1991). I suggest you check it out:
http://www.qsmithwmu.com/an_atheological_argument_from_evil_natural_laws_(1991).htm
cf.:
http://www.problemofevil.org/2007/02/animal-suffering-and-fall-of-man.html
&c.
Has anyone here read Michael J. Murray's new OUP monograph reply to the problem of animal suffering? I'm ordering it, but I'd love to hear a book review of it in the meantime.
Doesn't the Bible seem to imply that originally there wasn't animal suffering, since that wouldn't seem to be a "very good" system. So, for example, the land animals and birds were originally given plants to eat instead of each other and man did not seem to eat animals at that time(Gen 1:29-31).
But after the fall of man and the flood, God seems to have changed things so that the world didn't work as well any more, such as cursing the ground so that food didn't grow as easily and allowing people to kill and eat animals (Gen 3:17-19, Gen 9:2-3).
So, if one assumes that God exists and that the Bible is generally accurate (as a Christian would assume), there doesn't seem to me to be a problem with animal suffering, since that doesn't seem to be part of God's original design but rather something he did in response to man's choosing not to follow the Designer's rules.
The bigger question would seem to be whether a "good" God has any "moral" responsibility to keep the world working correctly. If He is the creator, then He would seem to have the right to do with the creation whatever He wants to.
The problem seems to be in who should make the standard of what is deemed "good" and "moral" for God to do versus what is "wrong" for him to do. Even in normal life we accept short term suffering for a longer term goal as being a good thing sometimes. So, if a creator God exists, why would we think that we would be in a better position than the Creator to judge that suffering is not serving some greater good.
My guess is that the larger good might be to show mankind that we need the Creator to make things right. If things were still perfect, we wouldn't see the suffering and we wouldn't have a desire for a world where that suffering was done away with.
Also, note that mathematically it would appear that the flood would have killed around a billion people (a rough guess, assuming 10 generations with 10 kids each generation). So, if we can fault God for animal suffering, we should also fault Him for the untimely deaths of around a billion people, including millions of children. So this question is even larger than just animal suffering.
But isn't this discussion in itself another example of the whole theme of the Bible? Satan and Adam and Eve, as we all do at times, thought God was doing something wrong and that they knew a better way. In effect, they judged God and found Him wanting. It isn't until the end of the story when God takes those who decide to follow him and sets up his rule over them that the problems introduced in Genesis are finally overcome.
So, I don't see where animal suffering makes the Bible inconsistent. But animal suffering is inconsistent with the belief that many in Western countries seem to live by today, that any kind of suffering must be thought of as a bad thing even if there is a larger purpose involved.
So, apparently, Heather believes that animals killed by other animals do not suffer, but when a human-being kills an animal - it does suffer? What a bizarre argument. Perhaps we should have all our farm-animals killed by unleashing predators in their cages, because apparently, animals don't suffer when other animals kill them. (Or is Heather going to argue the even more bizarre position that animals DO suffer when killed by predators if a human being had any role in putting those animals together, but they do not suffer if a human being played no role?) Does dog-fighting and cock-fighting cause animal suffering when humans put them in a fight, but they experience NO suffering if the animals happen to start a fight on their own?
If God's plan was population control, then there are plenty of more humane ways to accomplish that. Human beings use birth control and vasectomy. We spade and neuter out pets. Surely, God has plenty of additional options at his disposal to control animal fertility - and, thus, population control, which don't involve killing.
"Some animals were created as prey for others" Really? Because Genesis implies that for the first 2,000 years of human history, all the animals were vegetarian. Why can't all the animals be vegetarian? (And, if they truly were vegetarian, then how to explain their obvious predatory traits - like venom? Did God redesign animals to make them carnivores?)
And, let's not forget that in the Christian worldview, not only did God create predators - and predators which cannot survive on a vegetarian diet (cats, for example, are incapable of surviving without the nutrients in meat). But, (according to Christians) God also created parasites that afflict animals. They generally don't perform population control - they just make you miserable and unhealthy. Tapeworms, Fleas, Ticks, Mosquitos, Bedbugs, and so on. There are vast varieties of parasites on earth. According to Carl Zimmer's book "Parasite Rex", "parasites may outnumber free-living species four to one." Why did God make them? They are all just part of God's wonderful plan, just like predators?
Sorry, but I have a very hard time believing that.
Lowell Ballard said...
The bigger question would seem to be whether a "good" God has any "moral" responsibility to keep the world working correctly. If He is the creator, then He would seem to have the right to do with the creation whatever He wants to.
There's a lot I disagree with in your post, but let's talk about this one specifically.
First problem: we're not just talking about God's "moral responsibility" here. You claim that God is loving. You have to fit "animal suffering" together with "loving God". (I don't like it when Christians suddenly shift to a lesser definition of God in order to make an argument that doesn't work if they used the actual definition of God that they believe in.)
Second problem: if we take your argument seriously, then there is literally NOTHING God cannot do to his own creation which could be described as "immoral". Let's say that God took a sinless Adam and Eve, tortured them with the worst possible pain for eternity. Then God forced Eve (and all and all of her descendants) to repeatedly be gang-raped, to produce sinless children who experience the same eternal torture - until trillions and trillions of suffering, sinless people are writhing in pain. And this continues for eternity. According to you and your argument that "He would seem to have the right to do with the creation whatever He wants to" - this act is not the least bit immoral. I think you're completely wrong. And, it just goes to show that (if your argument is true), then it's really meaningless to call God "moral" because there's nothing he COULD do which would be described as "immoral". According to your argument, if Satan created a universe, then the inhabitants of that universe could NEVER describe Satan as immoral for anything he did to those people. As long as He created it, then he can't do anything wrong.
@heather
Animal suffering. There was a documentary about two leopards brothers that rejoined on adulthood. One was hurt and going to die. At the end of the documentary there was a memorable scene: the healthy brother looks at the other's wounds and pauses to think as if there is anything he could do, than a few seconds of staring in each other's eyes as if they were saying farewell, than the healthy leopard leaves.
It's a good thing stupidity doesn't come with suffering; Heather wouldn't stop screaming.
Heather, continue spreading the gospel of indiference?
exapologist, I have Murray's book and will have a detailed response to it.
Heather, may I humbly suggest that that which drives all sentient creatures to eat is the sensation of hunger (that's why they are called sentient creatures). Hunger is a painful thing. Spiders experience it. Have you ever seen a spider who has not eaten in a while (and hence a very small body) attack a grasshopper or beetle it had no chance of getting? I have.
Heather is it possible that your God could have done any one of the following things?: Created instantaneously? Created all living creatures as vegetarians? Created all living creatures so they never had to eat at all? Created human beings without creating animals at all?
And answer these questions for me: What did animals do wrong such that they deserve any punishment by virtue of the law of predation? What moral lessons can they learn from it? Will they be rewarded for their service to God in the afterlife? Which ones?
Lowell, it is NOT the case that the God of the Bible created us all as vegetarians.
After God pronounced his sentence on Adam and Eve for their sin and as he was banishing them from the Garden he made for them “garments of skins, and clothed them.” (Genesis 3:21) Taking this mythological text at face value we need to ask about these skin hides. Where did they come from? Who or what was killed so that Adam and Eve could be clothed with them?
Christian philosopher Paul Copan: “God tells human beings to ‘rule over the fish of the sea’ (Gen.1:28). What could this mean apart from permission to eat them? Abel kept sheep, presumably to eat (4:2-4). Noah himself distinguished between clean and unclean animals (7:2), which clearly assumes the edibility of meat prior to the flood.”
We also read where Jabal, who existed before the Flood as a descendant of Cain, “was the father of those who dwell in tents and have cattle” (Genesis 4:20). The same problems arise as above with Abel raising sheep. Why did Jabal raise cattle if he was a vegetarian?
We see this same carnivorous view reinforced when it comes to Psalm 104, which speaks of the time when God created the world. In that Psalm we read, “Thou makest darkness, and it is night, when all the beasts of the forest creep forth. The young lions roar for their prey, seeking their food from God. When the sun rises, they get them away and lie down in their dens.” (Psalm 104:20-22). Copan argues, “There is no clear biblical indication that carnivorous activity is the result of sin and could not have existed before the fall; rather as Psalm 104 suggests, all organisms have their rightful place in the food chain.”
In the poetical book of Job we see God’s discourse about the glory of his original creation. We hear him saying: “Can you hunt the prey for the lion, or satisfy the appetite of the young lions, when they crouch in their dens and lie in wait in their lair? Who provides for the raven its prey, when its young ones cry to God, and wander about for lack of food? (Job 38:38-41). Later in that same discourse we hear God say: “Is it by your wisdom that the hawk soars, and spreads his wings toward the south? Is it at your command that the eagle mounts up and makes his nest on high? On the rock he dwells and makes his home in the fastness of the rocky crag. Thence he spies out the prey; his eyes behold it afar off. His young ones suck up blood; and where the slain are, there is he.” (Job 39:26-30)
After mentioning these texts Copan says, “No herbivore here!” Copan concludes: “Animal death and the food chain are presupposed as part of God’s creation—without apology or qualification.” He also admits: “the paleographic/ geological evidence bears out that carnivorous animals—not to mention thorns and thistles or earthquakes and hurricanes—existed before the fall…”
John, while I agree that Genesis is clear that mankind was not vegetarian for 2,000 years (Adam through Noah?), it was taught to me growing up as a Christian that Adam and Eve were vegetarians up through the Fall.
Genesis 1:29 reads "Then God said, 'I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.'
As you said, taking this myth at face value, lions, tigers, and bears were herbivores and it seems clear that mankind was as well. I don't see that "dominion" over the animals means you have permission to hunt and eat them. It was only after the Fall that God allowed the death of animals for human purposes (skins) and Abel's acceptable sacrifice of animals showed that mankind can raise animals for food.
Therefore, say the apologists, just as sin allowed death to enter the world for humans, so it was for animals as well.
What the apologists ignore, of course, is the existence of teeth and claw in today's carnivores (humans included). There's nothing in the Genesis account to indicate that polar bears had flat peg-like teeth (for eating arctic lichen?) which suddenly morphed into razor-sharp incisors, along with the physiological changes to digest meat, as soon as Eve ate some fruit.
uhm, ... the Fall? (Genesis 3:17, 5:29, 8:21).
I think we should come to the place where we do not demand of God that he explain himself. It is a futile and untrusting task. God's ways, being the ways of infinite wisdom, simply cannot be comprehended by our finite minds. I have a confident trust in God's love and goodness and in his infinite wisdom. I trust that God has good and sufficient reasons for his actions and trust in his sovereign wisdom and love.
Ray,
I think we should come to the place where we do not demand of God that he explain himself.
[...]
I have a confident trust in God's love and goodness and in his infinite wisdom.
If God demonstrated any of these virtues you list then there would not be any reason to demand an explanation. As long as we wish to describe God as loving or wise (least of all infinitely so) then God must demonstrate these virtues.
You may have a point that we shouldn't demand anything of God but if that's the case then we should stop describing God as loving or wise if our words are to have any meaning. If God does not act loving or wise, then we must stop calling him loving or wise. If you insist on calling God loving and wise, then you are the one placing the demands, not we.
This conversation seems a bit silly to me.
Animals suffer, of course. They have nerve systems and brains. Duh! Take your dog to the vet for a shot and see how the dog reacts when the doctor gets the needle in!
This "the fall of man brought on suffering" is pure and utter stupidity, if the dogmas of omniscience and omnipotence is taken into consideration. God knows everything that will happen until the end of all times. Surely he knew he would create the universe with everything in it. And he knew from the beginning that the fall of man would happen. Being omnipotent he could achieve those "higher goals" of his that someone was talking about without torturing any animal (and I include humans here, because humans ARE animals). So there is absolutely no way God can get out of this!
It is a good initiative, John, but I think you realise how stupid this conversation actually gets when Christians start defending their God.
Of course any creator has a responsibility towards his creation. I have children, that doesn't mean I can torture them and kill them. The Christian God has some really nasty psychiatric problems. He is really just batshit crazy. Of course I don't believe that. The Christian God doesn't exist. Darwinian laws explain the situation on Earth.
Tyro,
God did demonstrate himself loving and wise at the cross where he suffered himself. I'm not demanding God to explain himself at all.
Ray,
I believe that to be called "loving" and "wise", one must demonstrate this in all aspects and not just in one event. This is why I won't call torturers "loving" even though they may act lovingly towards their family or pets. One may act lovingly through much of one's life but in a single act of brutality, callousness and cruelty one can lose that virtue. "Loving" isn't a virtue one can attain through a single act but must be demonstrated in all of one's acts.
Would you agree?
If so, your defence of God as "loving" because of a single act is exactly opposite to how all other moral humans evaluate love.
God did demonstrate himself loving and wise at the cross where he suffered himself. I'm not demanding God to explain himself at all.
Your *beliefs* that Jesus is God and God suffered and died on a cross is non-verifiable. The facts that are verifiable (like the carnivorous nature of animals) points away from the existence of your God. Why do we keep finding that pattern?
Tyro,
There's plenty of acts of God's love.
Why should you blame suffering on God. Maybe the devil and his angels cause most of the suffering.
Along with evil humans.
Ray,
Why should you blame suffering on God. Maybe the devil and his angels cause most of the suffering.
Why blame a parent for doing nothing as their children play on the highway and get struck by car? Maybe it was the fault of the drivers.
Why blame a parent for doing nothing if their children starve in their crib while food is in the fridge? Maybe it was fault of the neighbours for not noticing or the child for not being more assertive?
We blame them for the reason we blame God: because they know it is happening and they have the power to prevent or help.
Which is your defence of God, is he ignorant, is he powerless or does he just plain not care enough to act?
Tyro,
"For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are my ways your ways, says the Lord.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are my ways higher than your ways,
And my thoughts higher than your thoughts.
(Isaiah 55:8-10)
"Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and His paths beyond tracing out! (Romans 11:33)
Sorry, biblie verses don't count as arguments!
With regard to this discussion about God as the creator having also then created suffering for animals.
It would seem to me not only did he create suffering in animals but it goes further cause torture amongst animals exists as well.
Animals do not always kill for reasons of hunger.Often as well they seem to kill only for fun and for entertainment.
Rays quotes from Isaiah 55:8-10 and Romans 11:33 prove little more than suggesting that given the right tactics are used (ie fear&indoctrination etc) and the right situation and conditions are available (prehistoric times &lack of knowledge etc)
Any thoughts of man passed on and later recorded ,can be blindly considered an believed to be total truths .
These very quotes/thoughts Ray has presented us with that came from men,suggest/indoctrinate that we humans should not exercise our free will and think or question matters with our human logic to much (ie we cannot understand gods ways).
Its a great tactical tool devised by mere men long ago .To cover and hide any discrepancies found in future that might be thought about to much.Ie tactical thought control tool displaying humans to be both clever and cunning .
And here we see even today this tactical tool keeps Ray bound in the chains of mans religious thoughts and doctrine of old.Bound by little more than passed on religious thoughts threats and words .
Nope,
God is God. Because God is who He is, the covenant Lord, He is not required to defend Himself against charges of injustice.
He's the Judge, we are not. His perogatives are far greater than ours. He has many rights and perogatives that we do not.
Also,
Who's to say that Satan and his angels are not responsible for the suffering of animals? Maybe God didn't create it that way on earth and when satan fell from heaven with his demons they had some influence on the animals suffering over billions of years.
In that case, Ray, God allows Satan to cause the suffering. There is no way God could get out of this one. If I were God, I'd be happy I don't exist!
Well,
You're not God.
And God's ways are higher than your ways. Paul acknowledges that God's plans and ways of working out His plans are frequently beyond our ability to fathom and understand. Like I said before, God's ways, being the ways of infinite wisdom, simply cannot be comprehended by our finite minds. I have a confident trust in God's love and goodness and in his infinite wisdom. I trust that God has good and sufficient reasons for his actions and trust in his sovereign wisdom and love.
60,000 years ago...
Child hyena to mother hyena, "Could it be wrong that we cause humans to suffer when we kill and eat them?"
Mother hyena to child hyena, "All of creation was made with a purpose by God. Some animals were created as prey for others, to offer sustenance."
I guess it all it depends on the era that you live in. Hmm, I guess that means that I believe that yes, Darwin was right.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0307_060307_human_prey.html
Ray said
"For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are my ways your ways, says the Lord.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are my ways higher than your ways,
And my thoughts higher than your thoughts.
(Isaiah 55:8-10)"
I think you're forgetting that the earth is not flat, so that means the heavens are also lower that the earth. Can we then assume that for the "lower heavens", God's way's are lower than our ways?
A female friend of mine once quote this to me, and I said, "you're right, I don't understand your God's ways because I don't understand him privately ordering his chosen prophets to kill and rape, and one who creates a place call hell. She had no clue these things were in the bible, so I gave her a few verses but she still hasn't looked into them as yet. (And here I was thinking she wouldn't have wasted any time to find a few more verses maybe she would like to quote.)
But what I would really like to know is, did God tell writer to say that, or have man created a god which obviously cannot be understood.
Otherwise, this is another post that gives me a laugh from reading the christian responses. As just us - just me mentions how silly they are, I won't get into that conversion at this point, since Tyro's comments alone is enough to show this.
See, this is why people like Pat Condell mocks and ridicules such beliefs.
Okay I have it. Satan and his angels fell before Genesis One. God cast Satan and his angels out of heaven when he created the universe 13 billion years ago. That's why we have a mixture of suffering, decay, and predator prey built into creation. God and Satan are at war with each other. God uses Satan to acomplish His good purposes. So when God looked back at creation when he finished he said it was very good.
Why does God do it that way?
I refer you back to my original comments on this post.
Problem solved.
Andre,
God created hell for Satan and his angels. I believe that Satan and his demons will be tormented forever and ever and humans will be cast into the eternal punishment (eternal destruction) of Satan and his demons but will eventualy be annihilated.
I have my own speculation concerning suffering... but it has plenty of predicate, much of which is cruel, like the inconsquentiality of suffering.
The basic predicate is best illustrated by an episode of Star Trek:TNG. Data is in the holodeck playing Holmes, while Moriarity seems to have become a sentient with control of his milieu, including the Enterprise itself.
Data wanted Moriarity capable of defeating Holmes, but phrased the specification in a way the holodeck computer understood as capable of defeating Data (but he couldn't defeat Picard, bless the man).
How does an all powerful entity create something that can get out of hand, but not so much out of hand as to challenge His domain? That motive is attributed to God in the whole Babel story. Genetic mutability seems well suited to giving God something to be surprised about... and ocassionally frightened of. And within limits surprise and fright produce delight. And I would expect God to make things to bring him delight...
Talking about delight in the context of suffering... of dog eat dog and survival of the fittest and genetic disease and mans' capacity for capricious cruelty (God's too?).... it seems strange when the mantra is "God is Love."
In Star Trek, again, (Q is a TNG example, but the original is full of them) demigods amuse themselves like kids with spyglasses at an ant hill. I'm not saying my God is that way... but what keeps Him from being that way? But the extent that we see (or imagine or attribute) such behavior, we know also that delight and amusement are not the existential impulse of what we know as God, just thing we can't insist be absent from His nature.
reading what I just said, I guess one clarification is due...
I'm not saying that God delights in suffering, but that suffering is inseperable from a process which produces delight.
Bob,
That's certainly an interesting if fanciful story. It gives a plausible motive for creating evil but it also fatally undermines any argument that God is good and loving (or powerful). The creation of evil was done for the selfish desire for amusement and with no concern for the feelings of others. While the characters in ST may have regretted their decision once they understood the consequences, they were powerless to stop it without a prolonged fight. Do you imagine that God didn't know the consequences and that God is powerless to stop suffering?
So yes, that does make for a consistent explanation but it makes God myopic, impotent or amoral. You certainly wouldn't call God loving and wise! After all, filling your house with crocodiles might make life more interesting and anyone that survives would come out with new survival skills but that doesn't make you a loving or wise parent.
T, I can't argue your points, except perhaps one... the "would if He could, but He can't so He ain't" argument.
Nobody put's Baby in a corner. (Swayze in "Dirty Dancing")
Nobody imposes necessity upon God. Job is a fictional dramatic persona who heard from another fictional dramatic persona, called "God" in the play passed down to us in the Hebrew canon, that He need not be what we wish Him to be.
That He (not the dramatic persona, but the prime mover) generally is, is good enough.
Oh, and T.....
I guess further clarification is called for. The example of Moriarity implied that God created evil for his amusement.... but I merely wished to imply that God created a process independent of his own control.
Bob,
That He (not the dramatic persona, but the prime mover) generally is, is good enough.
Which makes God amoral.
I merely wished to imply that God created a process independent of his own control.
Which makes God impotent.
The presence of needless suffering in humans and animals is incompatible with a powerful, loving god. Something has to give.
Ray, so you're a problem solver, eh? The best recent defense of what you've suggested can be found in this book.
But it's not an answer at all. I suppose you don't have my book where I look at the origin of the concept of Satan, and you have no intention on doing so, right? Okay.
Then you can answer a couple of additional problems off the top of my head while you're at it. What perfectly good father would let a wolf into the house to hurt and kill one or two of his several children so he could have the honor and glory of subsequently killing the wolf? Your God is omnipotent, isn't he? Then why not just kill the wolf (Satan) immediately? Because he didn't the world has suffered immensely.
Also, please tell me how it's possible for the most intelligent creature God ever made (Satan) to rebel against the source of perfect love and omnipotent power? How is this possible for a being to be as smart as Satan supposedly was, who was in the direct immediate presence of God's love and almighty power, to knowingly rebel against him? He would have to be pure evil itself to reject that kind of self-giving love; he would have to be suicidal since he would know his rebellion would be futile, which also makes him dumber than a box of rocks to even try.
Satan is a mythical creature made up to explain the evils that couldn't be explained any other way by a barbaric and superstitious ancient people.
There's an interesting Bible story brought to mind by this topic.
Some lady with constant vaginal bleeding touches the hem of Jesus's cloak and immediately stops bleeding. Two strange things happen... Jesus feeling a measure of his power drawn from him, and the whole fuss and cry as everyone says "Wasn't me"
I've wondered why Jesus often shrank from what we might feel to be His duty... making people whole. Folks came to Him, and He was even inclined to turn some down, or at least challenge them (I'm hearing "Kneel before Zog" from Superman II as I type this).
But what really strike me is that he does not behave as an ideal source/sink, which maintains its potential despite a flux. His potential dipped. Impotence?
No... impotence is a 8 year old car battery in a North Dakota february. Something short of omnipotence, perhaps. It that such a big deal?
As for amorality, I'm wondering, are you saying that God is a hypocrate, like the Pharisees, not living up to morality imposed upon their lessers? Or are you saying some ethical standard independent of deity condemns God. The most common such ethical standard is called consequentialism, and I expect that YHWH, God of the Bible stands well accused before that bar. Indicted, for sure, but convicted? Is not a net positive to be found in the fortune of some and the suffering on another? You can't please everyone, so you gotta please yourself.
Bruce Almighty and the lottery.
Bob,
No... impotence is a 8 year old car battery in a North Dakota february. Something short of omnipotence, perhaps. It that such a big deal?
God is powerless to help, whatever you wish to call that.
As for amorality, I'm wondering, are you saying that God is a hypocrate, like the Pharisees, not living up to morality imposed upon their lessers? Or are you saying some ethical standard independent of deity condemns God.
I'm saying that if the word "love" has any meaning, God does not love us.
I'm saying if "caring" has any meaning, God does not care for us.
If a being shows no concern for the suffering of another then the best that could be said is that it is amoral. I'm not saying God is immoral.
As for which moral standard is higher than God, I'm saying that when Christians choose to call God "loving", then this is a moral judgement independent of whether the object is a god or not. We say that the sky is blue and fire is hot, yet it's absurd to say that "blue" or "hot" are higher or greater, they're descriptive attributes independent of that which they describe. If a god exists, it may be loving or not. This doesn't mean that or morals are greater or lesser than God's, it just means that these qualities are descriptive attributes independent of God.
You can't please everyone, so you gotta please yourself.
So now God is weak and selfish.
As Epicurus said so many years ago, "Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
Epicurus... Thomas Jefferson was drawn to that. It has an ethical code of its own, but delight and amusement are part of it.
You persist with the "would if he could, but he won't so he ain't"
And all that says to me is that God must be what you wish Him to be.
And he ain't --- tough titties.
And your binary world, dismissive of hierarchy or degree, seems very fundamentalist. Osama would be pleased.
Is there a measure of love, or is it simply present or absent? In people? In beasts? Or do you only impose absolute measure upon deity?
There's different Biblical treatments of ironic love -- Romans 6, Hebrews 11 -- I think I'm citing this right -- too lazy to check. Love does not jump in to intervene when it sees suffering. People who call that love could benefit from AlAnon meetings.
Tyro - When an eagle kills a rodent, do you think the rodent even realizes what has happened? The death is quick. I doubt there is any suffering as I think of as suffering. I do think there are many inhumane things man does to animals...for the sport and nothing more.
Tinyfrog - I guess my thought is that when something is killed for sport, for a thrill, done in a way that is not quick, and for no purpose, yes, that causes suffering. When man trains, entices and causes dogs to fight...not for a meal, or to prove hierachy, that is cruel and would not happen if man did not train and demand it. Animal birth control...how do you suppose that would be accomplished in nature?? I guess I misunderstand something...I didn't realize that we live in a perfect world...I thought that was something yet to come.
Logosfera - I don't understand your point with the leopards. I don't understand the "screaming" comment. I don't understand how I ever have "preached" indifference...Sorry...
John - You said.. "is it possible that your God could have done any one of the following things?: Created instantaneously? Created all living creatures as vegetarians? Created all living creatures so they never had to eat at all? Created human beings without creating animals at all?"...I guess He could have, but He didn't.
You also said "And answer these questions for me: What did animals do wrong such that they deserve any punishment by virtue of the law of predation? What moral lessons can they learn from it? Will they be rewarded for their service to God in the afterlife? Which ones?" Like I stated before, I don't see it as punishment, predation, it just is. I have thought and thought on your questions, and maybe I just don't view things in the manner you do. (that is probably an understatement) I don't see animals on the same level as man, so I don't see the validity of your questions. I don't even see the purpose of asking them. I don't see how an animal being killed by another animal as cruel and cause me to question God's plan...
M. Tully - If I lived 60,000 years ago, and I was prey...so be it. I don't see your point...
Maybe this debate hightlights the difference between Christians and Atheists...Christians have Faith in God...Atheists question God. But wait, Atheists don't believe God exists...so what are you questioning??
John,
We're talking about God. Not a human father. God's sovereignty is exersized in infinite wisdom, far beyond our ability to comprehend. There's mystery in God's actions. If we are to trust God we must come to realize that God's plan and His ways of working out His plan are frequently beyond our ability to fathom and understand. We must learn to trust when we don't understand. When we fail to trust God, we question His goodness.
I'm not sure about your other question. Satan wanted to be God.
Which is what you are doing by thinking you know better than He does on how to run the universe.
Heather,
When an eagle kills a rodent, do you think the rodent even realizes what has happened? The death is quick. I doubt there is any suffering as I think of as suffering. I do think there are many inhumane things man does to animals...for the sport and nothing more.
When a forest fire kills hundreds of deer, bears and other animals, do you think they realize what is happening? They can see the fire, smell the smoke, feel the heat. They may have hours of panicked fleeing before finally succumbing.
Worms eat the tongues of fish and then live in the fish's mouth so they can feed first. Wasps lay eggs inside living hosts so their larvae can have fresh "food". The world is filled with these examples. You were asked earlier if you read "Parasite Rex" by Zimmer - that would certainly be an eye-opening read for you, show you what the world is really like.
As for being humane, the animal kingdom doesn't know the meaning of the word. Animals kill others with little regard for the feelings of their victims. It is often in the best interest of the predator to kill but this isn't what happens all the time. Once you move away from the big mammalian predators and look at insects and reptiles you'll see a whole new world. And parasites often intentionally inflict pain and suffering as part of their life cycle, just look at Plasmodium, the malaria parasites. We aren't the only animals to deal with these problems you know.
I guess my thought is that when something is killed for sport, for a thrill, done in a way that is not quick, and for no purpose, yes, that causes suffering.
So if a person dies slowly and agonizingly they aren't really suffering if their killer has a purpose?
I think you may not understand what "suffering" means.
Animal birth control...how do you suppose that would be accomplished in nature??
Are you saying that God isn't capable of controlling animal fertility? You suggested predator-prey relationships as population control, and I'm saying there are ways to accomplish that without killing and suffering.
I guess I misunderstand something...I didn't realize that we live in a perfect world...I thought that was something yet to come.
And if animal suffering didn't exist - we STILL wouldn't live in a perfect world. So, why did God create suffering in the animal world? He likes gratuitous suffering?
Anyway, the topic is getting off-topic. The problem is this: why do predators possess the attributes (venom, fangs, etc) that allows them to be predators. You have two main choices: (1) blind evolution that was not under the direction of God, and God saw no reason to intervene, or (2) those attributes and animals were intentionally created by some being. Typically, God viewed as the only being capable of creating life. But, if that's the case, then God created predators, parasites, and disease which afflicts not only humans, but animals as well. Why create diseases to afflict animals, though?
Some people seem to suggest that suffering exists because of the devil. Are you saying that the devil gave snakes, spiders, scorpions, lizards, etc - those venom/poison glands and the fangs to inject it? Are you saying that the devil redesigned the cheetah to be a fast, sleek hunter (it certainly doesn't need to run that fast as a vegetarian)? Did the devil redesign all the cats so that they were incapable of surviving on a vegetarian diet? (Cats lack the ability to get adequate nutrition from a vegetarian diet. They are FORCED to be carnivores, or they will die.)
Are you saying that the devil created HIV, the influenza of 1918, and smallpox? That the devil, himself, is creating creatures on earth? If so, then why doesn't he bring back smallpox - which was causing 2 million deaths a year until a worldwide vaccine drive eliminated it in the 1970s? We would have no immunity, and if the devil created it in the first place and God allowed it, then why can't he bring it back? Why doesn't the devil bring back the influenza strain of 1918, which killed 20 million people? We are similarly helpless against that strain of flu. If he created it in the first place, then explain why he can't/hasn't done it again.
@heather
Logosfera - I don't understand your point with the leopards. I don't understand the "screaming" comment. I don't understand how I ever have "preached" indifference...Sorry...
Yes, that's the problem. You don't understand. And yet you come here with your aura of "righteousness" to decide what is and what is not suffering.
Now, I'm gonna spell it out for you (I hope there's still a chance for you).
The leopard story was an example of suffering among animals, pain that comes from putting yourself in other's shoes, from compassion (you might try it sometimes).
If stupidity would come with pain you would be screaming. I forgot to mention "screaming cause the pain".
Have you tried to look through the eyes of a deer watching his child eaten by wolfs. Watch more Discovery and Natural Geographic. There are plenty of examples of animals showing compassion and imagining the pain of others. But you can always be indiferent to that and preach the gospel that has made you that way, the gospel of indifference. The same gospel that promise you a place in Heaven when you will be able to manifest for eternity the indiference toward those in Hell. That gospel of indiference.
God created the lion and the lamb to lie down together. But, in the absence of the Holy Spirit, symptoms such as violence and predation manifest themselves in those who are the weakest and least able to control self expression. I don't possess the level of mature faith to intervene on every form of animal suffering in the here and now but nor do I condemn innocent animals for doing what is necessary to eat and survive.
God created the lion and the lamb to lie down together. But, in the absence of the Holy Spirit, symptoms such as violence and predation manifest themselves in those who are the weakest and least able to control self expression. I don't possess the level of mature faith to intervene on every form of animal suffering in the here and now but nor do I condemn innocent animals for doing what is necessary to eat and survive.
You're missing the point. Animals possess traits that allow them to be predators. Snake venom is keyed-in to paralyze muscle cells, and they have fangs to inject that poison. This isn't as simple as "animals decided to be predators" and it certainly isn't a case of "we are deciding to condemn animals for being predators". Christians believe that animals were created by God, and God gave animals the fangs and venom to perform as predators. Why? Why did God make all the different species of cats so that they were incapable of surviving on a vegetarian diet? They HAVE to kill to survive.
And here's another question for you, Ray. Why would Satan want to eternally punish humans who turn against God (don't live by his "orders") or disbelieve in him? Satan should see those people as buddies. So basically Satan is just being God's little puppet, doing Goddie's dirty work for him?
This conversation is really silly. I can't believe what stupid things Christians would say to defend and justify their tyrant batshit crazy divinity.
Why did God make all the different species of cats so that they were incapable of surviving on a vegetarian diet? They HAVE to kill to survive.
But tinyfrog, how do you know that cats didn't have herbivorous dentition, guts, and instincts before the Fall, and God pulled a switcheroo right afterwards? He can do anything, you know. The same is true of snake venom and all that other fallen stuff. I'm sure he also tidied up the fossil record, getting rid of all the evidence of the switch, to harden the heart of sinners who would put their faith in the World and not in the Word. I bet T. Rex had flat teeth originally too.
you're kidding, zilch, right? :D
Can God suffer, or did he feign suffering on the cross? If he did suffer for real, then he is not omnipotent. If he did not, then he is just a pretender. That also brings us to the other question, can God die? Same conclusions as above.
Somewhere on this list,
http://de.youtube.com/results?search_query=peta++china&search_type=&aq=f
there's a video I saw a few months ago of a living animal that had been skinned alive in China. It may have been a dog, I couldn't tell anymore. It was obviously in shock, and lay there pitifully, blinking. I remember the video saying it's common practice to break the animals' backs first, so that they can't resist. Maybe they aren't killed before skinning because it would damage their fur.
I don't have the strength to watch several of these, to see which one it was.
I have a question for Christians:
If the skinner had told you he was a Christian, and that God gave the animals to him to use for his own purposes, could he tenably hold that position and continue on as before? Are you aware of any Biblical guidelines on the treatment of animals?
Also, can you name any Christian animal-protection groups? Made up of Christians who have learned to do better than to just callously and reflexively snicker, "animals don't have rights?"
Christians generally don't go along with groups like PETA, and often rightfully so, but where is the Christian alternative to that group, that does what they do so much better?
What should others conclude about Christians, if they turn a blind eye to these things?
Of course, atheists can't tell such people why they shouldn't continue skinning animals alive, if they can continue to profit from and get away with it either, can they? What good is a conscience to an evil but otherwise happy person? All they can be told by them is an impotent, hand-wringing, "but - you shouldn't."
You're kidding, just us-just me, right? :]
Just us,
If you will read what I said you will see that it's I belive it's possible to hold and annihilationist interpretation of the Bible. So, you're right, this conversation is silly.
Also, to defend the eternal punishment of God view (not Satan)
I would just say that those in hell keep sinning and God keeps punishing. The cycle continues forever.
Ray said...When you look at the evidence on both sides we seem to be left with agnosticism on whether or not there is a Creator.
I'm willing to accept this, how about you?
Let's say your argument goes through on suffering. All that shows is that there is some probable evidence against a Creator. Looking at the other side of the coin we also have some probable evidence that there is a Creator.
1) The comming into existence of our universe
2) Fine tuning of the universe
3) Value, both moral and aesthetic
5) Human consciousness and intelligence
6) Reliable cognitive faculties aimed at truth
7) The apreciation of beauty
8) A sense of humor
9) Irreducible complexity
10) Chicken and egg sytems in the living cell
11) Fine tuning in the cell
12) Optimization in the cell
13) Biochemichal information systems
14) Structure of biochemical information
15) Biochemical codes
16) Genetic code fine tuning
17) Quality control in biochemical systems
18) Molecular convergence
19) Strategic redundancy
20) Life's minimum complexity
21) Molecular-level organization of simplest life
22) Exuisite molecular logic
To name a few.
When you look at the evidence on both sides we seem to be left with agnosticism on whether or not there is a Creator.
John,
I am if we're only tlking about evidence.
But my experience of God makes it reasonable for me to accept His existence. This is true only with Theism. It's true for me.
Ray,
The existence of suffering doesn't directly contradict the existence of a god, I don't think it even tries. Trotting out your tired list of arguments from ignorance doesn't help anything.
What the argument from suffering shows isn't that God doesn't exist but that if a god exists, it is either impotent, uncaring/amoral, ignorant/stupid or some combination.
All that stuff about beauty and whatnot doesn't change this. The observations we can make about suffering are clear and unambiguous.
Ray, here are your arguments for the existence of a creator, and my answers:
1) The comming into existence of our universe
That's a problem, alright. But positing a Creator just moves the question back further: who created the Creator? I don't know of any answers that don't appeal either to magic or sleight of logic.
2) Fine tuning of the universe
This is indeed a problem, maybe. Or maybe not. In any case, the fine tuning of the Creator is not explained.
3) Value, both moral and aesthetic
Now this is fairly well understood, at least in principle if not in detail: morals and aesthetics are a result of evolution, first in the biosphere (genes) and then, modifying but not replacing the biological basis, evolution in the ideosphere (memes, culture).
5) Human consciousness and intelligence
Perfectly straightforward: evolution.
6) Reliable cognitive faculties aimed at truth
Ditto #5.
7) The apreciation of beauty
Ditto #3.
8) A sense of humor
Ditto #3.
9) Irreducible complexity
Ditto #5. The two most celebrated examples of supposed IC, the bacterial flagellum and the blood clotting sequences, are being elucidated at this very moment, and IC is basically the "Argument from Personal Incredulity", or "I sure don't see how this could have evolved".
10) Chicken and egg sytems in the living cell
Not sure what you mean here. Chickens and eggs both evolved.
11) Fine tuning in the cell
Again, not sure what you mean. Lots of stuff is "fine tuned" by evolution.
12) Optimization in the cell
Do you mean that systems that work well tend to survive and pass on their genes? Evolution.
13) Biochemichal information systems
More evolution, not well understood but well documented.
14) Structure of biochemical information
15) Biochemical codes
16) Genetic code fine tuning
17) Quality control in biochemical systems
18) Molecular convergence
19) Strategic redundancy
20) Life's minimum complexity
21) Molecular-level organization of simplest life
22) Exuisite molecular logic
All stuff that has evolved. In any case, if it's exquisite order that you are trying to explain, positing a Creator doesn't help, unless you can somehow explain the existence of something that must be even more exquisitely ordered than cells or human beings. Just invoking "Uncaused Causes" or magic is not considered an "explanation", because it has zero information content and no evidence to support it.
Fine tuning of the universe? We evolved to fit the conditions, that is why they seem just perfect to allow our existence.
The universe is not really all that fine tuned.
What you are doing is putting water in the glass and then feeling surprised that the water takes the shape of the glass.
Tinyfrog:
I guess I am arguing that the term "loving" needs a broader definition than most people give that word. I sometimes allow my children to go through pain in order for their greater good.
My point is not that the creator, if he exists, didn't give us a sense of "right" and "wrong" so that we can never judge. My point is that we are not in a good position to judge so we should give God the benefit of the doubt before judging his motives. We make mistakes judging human motives all the time.
Since the implied proposition of this post is that God cannot exist (or at least cannot be good) since there is animal suffering, all I have to show is that there is at least one plausible way that animal suffering can be reconciled with a "good" God. My suggested answer is that the term "good" should not rule out a scheme that gets a greater/longer term benefit but that also includes short term suffering. Defining "good" to rule out the possibility of pain seems like too simple a definition of "good".
John W. Loftus:
Thanks. That seems to be a good summary of the relevant verses concerning meat eating and I hadn't thought through all those various passages. Those verses might seem to imply that man eat meat before the flood, but they are circumstantial whereas Gen 9:3 (after the flood) seems to address the question directly:
"Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant".
So, that seems to be saying that they were not given animals to eat until that point. In looking at the various verses you listed here is how they are circumstantial:
- Note that I was only arguing for a "very good" creation before the fall of man and killing animals to make clothing would be after that time (though eating a killed animal seems to still be prohibited until after the flood).
- Having sheep and cattle before the flood could have been for their milk and skin/fur. Also, Jabal could have been in rebellion against the laws of what was O.K. to eat, so even if they ate meat that doesn't necessarily mean that it was O.K. for them to eat meat before the flood.
- Ruling over the fish of the sea could have been included for completeness as a way of saying they were ruling over everything else that was alive.
- The verses in Psalms and Job could be referring to the order God chose after the fall of man.
- The verses talking about clean and unclean animals are interesting, since those categories seemed to be created, or at least listed, years later at the time of Moses rather than at the time of the flood. It may be that these terms were used in hindsight by the writer/compiler of Genesis, saying that God told Noah to take on more of these animals so they could eat them after the flood.
- And yes, if I didn't hold to a young earth position the geological record would be conclusive concerning animal suffering, but I would hold that those layers were put down after the fall of man. If I held to an old earth evolutionary view then I would also probably have to agree that these passages were only noble myths (but I don't hold that view).
BTW, I am not a vegetarian currently but if I was I probably would not be overweight...
Man doesn't have a sufficient understanding of God's character and his eternal plan (not to mention sufficient authority) to bring accusations against him. Between us and God there is a huge difference in the kind of reality and in relative status. He has rights an perogatives that we do not. There is a difference in metaphysical level and status between the Creator and the creature. His perogatives are far greater than ours. I have a confident trust that God has good reasons for permiting evil and suffering even though I don't know what they are. For me to know such things I would have to get inside the mind of God, and I'm not God neither can I fully comprehend his ways for they are infinite and he operates in infinite wisdom and knowledge. How can God be good and allow animals to suffer? God reserves the right to be inscrutable. No one can fathom all the reasons why God does what he does. We simply must trust him when he says it's good. There are an infinite number of logical possible explanations. To state what Zilch said about the creation of the universe "We simply don't know." Neither can anyone claim to have the best explanation because of the infinite number of possible logical explanations. We don't know everything God does.
And from looking at the responses I got from the facts about reality, it looks like John is the only one who knows what he's talking about arround here.
Thanks Ray. I hope you can learn from me.
Lowell said: Those verses might seem to imply that man eat meat before the flood, but they are circumstantial whereas Gen 9:3 (after the flood) seems to address the question directly...
Not so. I didn't mention Genesis 9:3 to see who might mention it. I'm glad you did.
What then can we make of the differences between the Genesis 1:26-28 pre-Fall dominion mandate and the Genesis 9 post-Flood mandate? Given this other biblical evidence on behalf of carnivorous behavior found in the Bible itself, Biblical scholars like Gordon Wenham argue that the post-Flood mandate is merely “ratifying the post-Fall practice of meat-eating rather than inaugurating it.” And so the fear and dread of the animal kingdom toward human beings mentioned in the post-Flood mandate “seems more likely to reflect the animosity between man and the animal world that followed the fall (Genesis 3:15).”
It’s also hard for us to make sense of attempts to harmonize the Biblical data with the results of science. We’re reminded of the fact that “what is clear, and what can be asserted confidently…is that…there are alternative, initially plausible and yet mutually inconsistent ways of interpreting the holy scriptures, some of which supports humanistic interpretations of the values nature holds, others not.” [Animals and Christianity: A Book of Readings (New York: Crossroad Pub., Co., 1988), p. xii-xiii). In many other biblical passages we find that attempts to harmonize the Bible with science either turns out to be unscientific or exegetically problematic and inconsistent. In any case, whether Darwinian evolutionary biology is accepted by Christians, or whether they think carnivorous behavior was some sort of divine punishment by God upon animals due to Adam and Eve’s fall into sin, or the result of a post-Flood divine mandate, Christians still have serious problems. On the one hand, why would a perfectly good God create the world by utilizing the Darwinian law of predation where nature is red in tooth and claw? On the other hand, why would God punish innocent animals by making them prey upon each other because of the sins of man, regardless of whether they were committed in the Garden or in the Flood? In either case there are serious philosophical and theological problems to be dealt with.
Augustine wrote: “It is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn…If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from the experience and the light of reason?”
Reading how the discussion has transpired since the little colloquey between me and Toby, I thought I'd jump back in.
Toby revealed his intent, that when we examine the nature of God through the problem of suffering, he can attach pejorative and maybe someone would take that as fightin' words and the specatcle of God needing pathetic champions as ourselves would permit a snigger or two.
Ray just spoke of the futility of sharing God's mind. True, but it does seem a cop out. We are invited to ponder God's thinking. Physicist do that very thing by some definition of God, that many physicists would embrace. There are certain things we shrink from.. I don't like to think about heaven and hell and a life beyond this one. That doesn't mean it ain't gonna happen and that its worthy of thought.
Is speculation all we have available. Are there empirical measures? Are there rational consequences to more disciplined contemplation of the unseen? I think the latter has many such examples. Such silliness as the Imaculate Concetion of Mary is a deduced necessity to avoid what the Church could not allow. As also the Christology of the Seven Ecumenical Councils that all normative Christian sects, Orthodox, Catholic, and Prostestant accept as authorative.
There are immutables. If some proposition concerning force and motion implied attainable velocities great than that of light, then we reconsider and craft a model that does not violate the inviolable. But it's interesting sometimes to let speculation carry us past the inviolable. Maybe we can even come to regard the inviolable as dispensable. Something in my nature is drawn to such speculation. I think the insistance that the Mother of God have nothing to do with fvcking, even her parent's is silly, not sacred.
I think world such as infinite, and perfect and omnipotent are silly. So Toby can't get me to insist on them. But departures from the ideal are not the negation of them... only affirmation that something like a perfect sink is a useful fiction for the sake of modelling a flux equation, but not to be found or created.... only a judgment made whether the constraint, made for ease of calculation, is appropriate to situation under examination.
The problem of suffering, which has inspired some great literature, has motivate our speculation through all the ages. And it does test the notions of perfection we employ in our models of God. When the 1+x^2 approximation of cosine in the pendulum equation is inadeqate. it introduces what I guess is still a soluble equation, but not one which can be demonstrated to a physics freshman.
Also keep in mind that God could have created countless universes where there is a substantial overall balance of good over evil. In some of these universes there is no suffering and evil and in some a great amount. As it happens, we find ourselves in one of the universes where there is a large amount. But now the probability of theism, given the whole ensemble of universes, isn't particularly low.
Post a Comment