A theological question Catholics cannot answer?

[clayto1]

This is my first posting ---- I hope it is in the right place.

I have been carrying out some personal research among various Christian denominations, seeking answers to a question which so far no one has been able to answer at all, or acceptably. During the last few decades many Christians seem to have greatly improved their approach to the status, welfare and humane treatment of animals, in contrast to the appalling record of the Abrahamic religions for centuries. My question is this:

Can you explain how a supposedly all powerful and benevolent God could have created a world in which a great many animals, who experience pain and fear, have to tear each other to pieces to be eaten, in order to survive?

Answers (believable or not) to human suffering and the problem of pain experienced by humans involve such beliefs as the the Fall, Original Sin, free will, the soul, life after death, redemption ----- little if any of which relate to non-human animals. If there is a God why did he create such suffering?

 

[CelticWarlord]

I too am very much bothered by the pain of animals, whether wild or domestic. The only answer I have that has given me any comfort is; none of this is real.

I doubt many people would latch onto that and feel instantly better, but it’s all I got.

 

[AlNg]

Can you explain how a supposedly all powerful and benevolent God could have created a world in which a great many animals, who experience pain and fear, have to tear each other to pieces to be eaten, in order to survive?

It is sad to see a lion pounce on and kill a young deer and the man made slaughter houses which kill to obtain beef, pork and chicken are something most people don’t want to think about. Although I am not a vegetarian, still, I try to eat as many vegetables as possible. Pain is a way to alert you to avoid a situation which may damage some part of the body. Without pain you might be unknowingly led into a position threatening your survival.

 

[Wesrock]

God is said to be perfectly good, and this is commonly misconstrued to mean he’s a perfectly nice, upstanding guy who adheres to human morality perfectly. But that’s not what it means.

Catholic theology holds that goodness and evil are not opposed substances. Goodness is the only thing that positively exists. Evil exists insofar as there is an absence of some good that a created thing should have. Evil, then, is a privation of good.

An imperfectly drawn triangle is still a triangle, but it has an absence of real triangularity A dog missing a leg is still a dog, but it’s suffered some evil such that it lacks perfect health. A bad golf player is still a golf player, but he lacks the skills a fully realized golf player would have. A human who makes an immoral decision has a lack in humanity and behavior in accordance with what a human should be. This can get far more complicated, but physical and moral evils are privations in fully realizing what something should be.

When God is said to be perfectly good (“omnibenevolent”), we mean there is no privation in him. It’s not a moral qualifier. He is pure act in himself with no unrealized potentiality.

Now, one way we can say God is good is that we all seek the good in desiring our own perfection (that is, we always make a choice for some good we perceive in it. It doesn’t mean it’s the morally good choice. We might do something evil for some trivially good such as personal pleasure, but that’s on our own bad judgment). Insofar as we seek our own perfection, and insofar as things act like what they are, created beings obtain so many similitudes with God (though we only truly get closer to true perfection in our pursuit of holiness).

A good lion eats the gazelle.A good gazelle avoids the lion. Obviously their own perfections are sometimes in conflict.

But there is no moral imperative on God to avoid such a thing. Furthermore, the existence of change means there will be privation in some effect, and once we admit that it’s only a matter of grade as to the level of unrealized potentials or badness. Opportunties to encounter such evils also allows some goods to exist that could not exist otherwise. If creatures never experienced fear, there could be no courage. If there was no inequality, there could be no charity or self giving or self sacrifice (perhaps the most God-like attributes).

God wills that all things seek their own ends, but he also wills that they act according to their own nature. It’s a difference between his antecedant and consequent will.

 

[Wesrock]

Good point. Pain in itself is not an evil. It’s an important response for a healthy animal. The existence of pain means there’s something else wrong with the animal that they’re being alerted of, or something wrong with the nerve response.

 

[joeybaggz]

Can you explain how a supposedly all powerful and benevolent God could have created a world in which a great many animals, who experience pain and fear, have to tear each other to pieces to be eaten, in order to survive?

Animals don’t experience fear. Fear is an emotion, something animals are not endowed with. Animals operate on instinct. The mouse that tries to escape the rattlesnake does not experience fear, it is acting on its instinct that danger is present. People love to anthropomorphize animals and give them human qualities. Makes for a lot of nonsense, but great Saturday morning cartoons, al least back in the day.

You are doing just that, humanizing or anthropomorphizing animal behavior. One poster said it was sad to see a lion kill a deer. That’s a human emotion, the animal feels none of that. Yes, the deer tries to evade the lion, but it is acting on instinct only. Natural selection may seem cruel to us, but it keeps nature in balance. There is no emotion to that. It is the way God (or maybe random happenstance, the logic of the atheist and possibly agnostic) created a world that, absent human beings, is self perpetuating, self sustaining, and self regulating.

 

[Wesrock]

Animals don’t experience fear. Fear is an emotion, something animals are not endowed with. Animals operate on instinct. The mouse that tries to escape the rattlesnake does not experience fear, it is acting on its instinct that danger is present.

Animals don’t experience rational thought, but they are conscious. Insofar as I understand it, you’re describing animals as Descartes would have, which is a lot different than how Thomists or other scholastic thinkers would have. Animals, at least many of them (I can’t speak for an ant), have feelings. That includes fear, happiness, sadness, etc… In fact, it’s the animal side of humanity, not the rational side, that can be said to have such feelings and passions. We can also contextualize them in rational terms and thinking. And perhaps we have more depth of feeling. But again, that seems related to what we experience as animals and our more complex brains.

 

[joeybaggz]

joeybaggz:

Animals don’t experience fear. Fear is an emotion, something animals are not endowed with. Animals operate on instinct. The mouse that tries to escape the rattlesnake does not experience fear, it is acting on its instinct that danger is present.

Animals don’t experience rational though, but they are conscious. Insofar as I understand it, you’re describing animals as Descartes would have, which is a lot different than Thomists or other scholastic thinkers would have. Animals, at least many of them (I can’t speak for an ant), have feelings. That includes fear, happiness, sadness, etc… In fact, it’s the animal side of humanity, not the rational side, that can be said to have such feelings and passions. We can also contextualize them in rational terms and thinking. And perhaps we have more depth of feeling. But again, that seems related to what we experience as animals and our more complex brains.

Your point has merit, up to a point. If you are talking about feelings as the ability to sense such things as pain, cold, heat, etc, you are right. And conscious as to being aware of one’s environment, again, correct.
But fear, love, hate, hope, trust, etc. are emotions, and emotions are based on the concept of volitional consciousness, or choice. Choice is exactly what animals don’t have. Saying instinct equals choice is like saying potatoes are equal to oak trees. Animals operate solely on instinct.

 

[MaryEstelle2]

God made man and gave him dominion over the animals and fish. He did not create pain and suffering with intent. Humankind needs protein and protein is not always to be found in plant bases. Pain and suffering is part of the balance of nature. No one likes it, but there it is. Don’t you think we have come a long way since the days of Abraham? Theology is not to be accepted as given fact, but to be viewed as something of an educated guess and not the answer to all things and everything. It isn’t Dogma. I don’t think your question or analysis can come to determinate conclusions. We can(and do) make all kinds of speculations about the nature and intent of God, call it theology, when all He asks of us is obedience and love.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

joeybaggz:

Animals don’t experience fear. Fear is an emotion, something animals are not endowed with. Animals operate on instinct. The mouse that tries to escape the rattlesnake does not experience fear, it is acting on its instinct that danger is present.

Animals don’t experience rational though, but they are conscious. Insofar as I understand it, you’re describing animals as Descartes would have, which is a lot different than Thomists or other scholastic thinkers would have. Animals, at least many of them (I can’t speak for an ant), have feelings. That includes fear, happiness, sadness, etc… In fact, it’s the animal side of humanity, not the rational side, that can be said to have such feelings and passions. We can also contextualize them in rational terms and thinking. And perhaps we have more depth of feeling. But again, that seems related to what we experience as animals and our more complex brains.

Your point has merit, up to a point. If you are talking about feelings as the ability to sense such things as pain, cold, heat, etc, you are right. And conscious as to being aware of one’s environment, again, correct.
But fear, love, hate, hope, trust, etc. are emotions, and emotions are based on the concept of volitional consciousness, or choice. Choice is exactly what animals don’t have. Saying instinct equals choice is like saying potatoes are equal to oak trees. Animals operate solely on instinct.

I must disagree, and again say this seems very Descartes-like. It does not fit with Thomist thought on the subject. Animals certainly have emotions. We have emotions due to being animals. Angels do not have emotions in such a way. Neither does God (referring to the Divine Nature in itself) have emotions the way humans have.

Saint Thomas Aquinas saw emotion as an actualization of the sensitive appetite. That is, from our senses, the animal side.

Thomist professor Ed Feser touched on this in a recent post on his blog, actually: Edward Feser: The two Cartesian worlds

Both viewpoints have been presented. I don’t really want to argue, but I didn’t want to leave your comment as the lone representation of all Catholic thinkers.

 

[joeybaggz]

I must disagree, and again say this seems very Descartes-like. It does not fit with Thomist thought on the subject. Animals certainly have emotions. We have emotions due to being animals.

And again, I must disagree. Man has emotions insofar are man is created in the image and likeness of God. Especially the emotion of love, something animals do not possess. Animals are not created in that same image. Animals don’t love, or hope, or any other emotion. Do the feel, yes, do they think, well maybe some in a very rudimentary form, but no animals don’t think and they can’t choose their behavior based on the “emotions” or lack thereof.

I will grant that maybe we are talking about slightly different concepts. I am thinking of the “higher” emotions and your might ?? be talking about the more sensate conditions of the animal kingdom.

As to Thomas, I certainly respect him, but he did write several centuries ago and some of what he put down has been seen as (trying to be charitable here) incomplete, elemental, or correct in the context of scholarship at his time?

And I really don’t want to argue this any further, so let’s just agree to disagree.

 

[Wesrock]

hope, or any other emotion. Do the feel, yes, do they think, well maybe some in a very rudimentary form, but no animals don’t think and they can’t choose their behavior based on the “emotions” or lack thereof.

I will grant that maybe we are talking about slightly different concepts. I am thinking of the “higher” emotions and your might ?? be talking about the more sensate conditions of the animal kingdom.

As to Thomas, I certainly respect him, but he did write several centuries ago and some of what he put down has been seen as (trying to be charitable here) incomplete, elemental, or correct in the context of scholarship at his time?

And I really don’t want to argue this any further, so let’s just agree to disagree.

I would refer to the Summa Theologica, Part 1, Question 20: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1020.htm

Saint Thomas refers to love, joy, and delight as having two dimensions, that which is driven from the material and sensitive appetite, and that which is driven from the intellectual appetite. God and the angels having them as in regards to the intellectual appetite, but not in the sensitive appetite. Humans have both. And that’s because we are both rational and animals. Insofar as they stem from the sensitive appetite, they are called passions, and animals do have these. And if they have them to a lesser degree, it’s due to them having less complex brains (that is, the reason is in the material). Those feelings of attachment we call love, animals feel too, though as said, probably to a lesser degree. Likewise with feelings of fear and happiness.

As for Saint Thomas’ science. Insofar as he wrote of animal consciousness, his views are far more in alignment with modern science than Descartes, who viewed animals as “zombies” simply reacting to phenomena but not actually experiencing anything, even emotions.

Anyway, my point is it’s not church teaching nor even agreed upon in the scientific community that animals are without emotions. Insofar as we understand passable emotions from a philosophical/theological point as Catholics, we don’t reserve these exclusively for humans. We anthropomorphize animals a lot, that’s true, but I would not go so far as to state they don’t have feelings or passable emotions.

 

[stephenSTOSS1]

I will give you a few sentences answering why this occurs, then give you a link for a more comprehensive answer.

1. God speaks creation into existence.
2. God can only express perfect good.
3. When man sinned, creation was no longer good. God could no longer “send” the Word and the Spirit into creation.
4. This fall affected ALL of creation (St. Paul tells us that all creation groans in wait for the redemption of the body) … including animals.
5. We do not know what the world would have been like if man had not sinned.
   For more detail, go to Why evil and death entered the world

 

[jcrichton]

Let’s see… don’t kill anything and live from subatomic particles found in the air… wow, you are right God is a bad God–everything should have been made of spiritual matter without the need of consumption for energy, growth and healing.

…then there’s reality.

Let’s take God out of the equation.

Eons of just right conditions and haphazard chances brought everything to existence and created a planetary symbiosis of eat and be eaten–there!, that proves that there’s no God!

Quite naïve, won’t you agree?

Here’s one to ponder: science has time and again made claims about impossibilities (which with time have been proven as existing) and possibilities (which still have not been proven) that have been built into the autonomous-self emerging universe.

It refuses to account for anything that it cannot, well account for: the platypus, milk producing birds, flying mammals, birds that don’t fly, transparent creatures who produce their own light, extreme ecosystems teaming with life, built-in balance in the ecosystems, built-in eco-scrubbers, microscopic maintenance agents… to the similarity in the genome spectrum of life (ie: ms piggy having not only similar makeup but also constructed in a similar way to man).

Then take the macro systems–one planet situated in just the right orbit, protected, or so it seems, by giants who take the blunt force of cosmic debris on to spare, or so it seems (yeah, I thought it merit repeating) the one planet teaming with life…

Now, a personal experience (interestingly enough, this morning I had a dream about one of them), I kept four parakeets (two belonged to a friend) they all died; I was present during the death of two of them (the other two died while I was asleep) not once was there any crying out or any type of commotion at their death. They simply died. I experienced two of them having various health issues… they never cried out or became destructive/depressed.

I am trying to offer you an explanation about suffering: animals seem to not be as affected as humans by pain and death. When we anthropomorphize we believe that animals, as sentient as they are, are able to feel and understand as humans. Planets of the apes cannot ever happen unless we invent a technology that is able to rewire the animal brain into a human.

It is the reason why fido, seeing a human baby/toddler as a lesser dog, would attack, kill and even consume the child.

It is also the reason why animals can be more resilient than man as they adapt to their environment/situation more readily than man.

So I would argue that this proves that God, in His Wisdom, made the lesser species less able to register pain and consciousness.

Maran atha!

Angell

 

[jcrichton]

Although I am not a vegetarian, still, I try to eat as many vegetables as possible

Yet, shouldn’t you give up eating altogether (at least till science comes up with artificial nutrients) since every fruit, vegetable legume, tuber or leaf/bark that you consume is killing a living creature?

…in the eighties, there were some “scientific experiments” that seemed to prove that plants can communicate feelings of fear/distress–can you imagine that poor little plant suffering because her fruit, seeds, leaf, petals… are being cannibalized?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[AlNg]

Yet, shouldn’t you give up eating altogether (at least till science comes up with artificial nutrients) since every fruit, vegetable legume, tuber or leaf/bark that you consume is killing a living creature?..can you imagine that poor little plant suffering because her fruit, seeds, leaf, petals… are being cannibalized?

No because as fruit, such as an apple drops or is ready to drop, from the tree, you are not doing it much harm by eating it. In most cases, the fruit dropped from the tree will just rot on the ground and so it is better to make use of it, rather than let it rot useless.

 

[Benadam]

God subjected creation to the futiliy of decay to be lifted up when man is lifted up in the ressurection.

 

[steve-b]

This is my first posting ---- I hope it is in the right place.

I have been carrying out some personal research among various Christian denominations, seeking answers to a question which so far no one has been able to answer at all, or acceptably. During the last few decades many Christians seem to have greatly improved their approach to the status, welfare and humane treatment of animals, in contrast to the appalling record of the Abrahamic religions for centuries. My question is this:

Can you explain how a supposedly all powerful and benevolent God could have created a world in which a great many animals, who experience pain and fear, have to tear each other to pieces to be eaten, in order to survive?

Answers (believable or not) to human suffering and the problem of pain experienced by humans involve such beliefs as the the Fall, Original Sin, free will, the soul, life after death, redemption ----- little if any of which relate to non-human animals. If there is a God why did he create such suffering?

Check this out

 

[po18guy]

First error: you are defining God according to your personal preferences, which either highly favor animals or place them on a plane with human life. We don;t define God - He defines us. Yet, He grants us the freedom to be wrong, or else our love of Him would e forced, automatic and thus, not genuine.

That skews your entire worldview.

Why is it “moral” for animals to eat animals, but it is not for mankind (just another animal?) to eat them? That is a moral question that, IMO, animal rights activists have never been able to satisfactorily answer.

Rather, we are called to be good stewards of all creation, but all creatures have been declared acceptable for mankind to eat. Not mandatory, but within our human freedom.

Other religions, including humanist and animist have different opinions on that.

 

[HolySpirit]

I guess you do not support evolution or free will in general.

A world where there is peace and harmony between living organisms in incompatible with evolution. It also is incompatible with free will.

If you enjoy great musical compositions, divinely inspired art, or philosophical questions like why are humans and animals mean,you also must realize that you need a world where evolution and free will are also present.

You don’t get Buddha and da Vinci without war and people who like a hamburger.

You get a species who dies out or never exists to begin with.

Be thankful you have the time to ask why people are mean to animals. If everyone asked that question, everyone would be eaten by animals.

Or maybe you would prefer living in a cave with no electricity because none of the other cavepeople ever took a risk.