A theological question Catholics cannot answer?

[Edwardjohn]

I think you’ve got something there! Jesus was the perfect expression of reality and there was no pain, suffering, disease, oppression, death, or anything of that sort in his presence. None of this is real.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

You obviously haven’t read what I posted above. Let me copy and paste it for you:

+JMJ+

Can you explain how a supposedly concern for the welfare of animals not lead to a challenge of God’s existence when worded as above?

There are but two choices:
a) God does not exist
or
b) God is not a benevolent God as it has been claimed.

Maran atha!

Angel

So again, your question is answered.

 

[Gorgias]

The Op does not equate killing an animal (or their suffering) with humans, he does believe they are closer than many people realise, and that closeness is a factor in believing inflicting unnecessary suffering on animals is wrong, BUT anyway, note that the question is not about human treatment of animals (as some posters seem to think) it is about God creating animals to harm and kill each other, of necessity (‘dog eat dog’, ‘nature red in tooth and claw’).

Not sure why you’re referring to yourself in the third person, @clayto1, but anyway…

I think that the “humans inflicting suffering on animals” discussion comes in no small part from your own post, in which you responded in terms of human sacrifices of animals, and operations on animals without anesthetic, and the ways that humans use (and abuse) animals.

In any case, I think that the question can be answered – at least partially, if not fully – by examining whether the question of animal pain is a question of morality, as well as whether it’s legitimate for humans – as stewards of creation – to utilize animals for a variety of purposes.

If it’s legitimate for people to do it, then I think that we can conclude (since that legitimacy would proceed from God’s command) that it’s legitimate for God to have created animals thus.

 

[clayto1]

You are wrong to say there are only two ‘choices’ ie. possibilities. In addition to God either not existing or not being benevolent I can think immediately of the following (there may be more):

God may not be omnipotent — I have read some theological discussion of this, along the lines that even God cannot do what is not possible (eg. He cannot make 2+2=5 (I once started on a mathematics article saying it can be done but lost my way and interest). The relevance to this thread is, might it be impossible for God to create an animal ‘kingdom’ which does not include carnivores (I don’t know why that would be but then I am not an animal ecologist). It might be impossible for God to create animals none of which have pain receptors ----- it would appear He has created some as there are animals which do not seem to have pain receptors, possible examples might include earth worms, limpets, barnacles, insects, ants maybe ----- I suspect there are many more but I am not a zoologist. So the question would be, as he has created some, maybe it is possible to create all animal without pain receptors and if so why not, or if impossible (for God) why?

Another possibility is we do not understand what ‘omnipotence’ means in practice, but that may be the same point as above ------ however there may be purpose in Gods’s creation of suffering animals we do not, perhaps cannot understand ----- in which case the answer to me question would be ‘I cannot explain why’

Yet another is the version of ditheism that believes a benevolent God is in a perpetual war with an evil God (which could have created pain suffering animals). As there have been religions of this sort in the Middle East it has been suggested that the Christian notion of Satan may have originated this way

And there may be other explanations we have not thought of yet, no more improbable than that made in this forum that God created animals for humans to do whatever the most negligent, ignorant , greedy , sadistic to do with as they wished -------- ‘suffering for the benefit of man’ (I quote!)

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Why do you believe their suffering is evil, rather than necessary?

Allow me to explain, since I know this sounds terrible taken at face value.

What causes physical suffering (pain)? Nerve damage. You touch your hand to a stove, the nerves are damaged, which is then registered to the brain. You cut your hand, the nerves are severed, a sensation that is registered in the brain. Pretty much all physical pain comes from damage to the nervous system.

So, why make this hurt? Why would God make it so that this sensation pains the animals? To indicate that something has gone wrong. There are people alive who experience no pain at all. Far from the relief a person in pain may believe this to be, it leaves a person totally blind to the reality of their situation. Cut open an arm or a leg, and you wouldn’t know it apart from seeing it. Burn your hand and all you see is a blister. If there is anything wrong internally, you are completely unaware of it until it kills you.

Now, consider the animal mind, which does not have the ability to contemplate itself or its situation. How is it to know that something has gone wrong? How is the animal supposed to know to avoid the fire or the claws if they experience no sensation from it at all, or worse yet a pleasurable sensation? Without the sensation of pain, the animal would not know to avoid things that harm it. It would not understand that hunger and thirst are bad for it. It would never develop the reactions necessary to survive.

Far from being an evil, pain is a necessity for animals, because it is only through the understanding that things are wrong that an animal is able to react and escape. Sadly, if they aren’t able to that pain is magnified, but that doesn’t make the existence of the sensation a negative thing. In a world where things can go wrong (a world in a state of transition, like this one), leaving animals without a sensation of pain to protect them would ultimately doom them.

---

Physical pain is similar in nature to moral pain (guilt). Without the knowledge that I have done something wrong, I do not seek to correct my ways. If I do not understand that something is bad for me, I cannot improve myself and escape that something. Without moral pain, it would be exceptionally difficult for us to make our way to God. Similarly, without physical pain we would not register an immediate reason to seek out healing. We humans have the benefit of rational contemplation, which means that the physical reality of pain is not always necessary to know that something is wrong, but more often that not it is the pain of some ailment that ultimately drives us to seek help.

No, I say that far from being evil, pain is absolutely necessary in a world where damage is possible.

 

[Wesrock]

You are wrong to say there are only two ‘choices’ ie. possibilities. In addition to God either not existing or not being benevolent I can think immediately of the following (there may be more):

Or, as I noted in an earlier post, people misconstrue what it means to say God is “perfectly good.”

 

[clayto1]

Why do you believe their suffering is evil, rather than necessary?

But I don’t, as far as I can recall. If I did it will have been by accident (I have been struggling somewhat with an unfamiliar forum arrangement and an ailing computer eg. I am unable to get here using the links in emails, plus typing on the blink).

What I am sure I have said, because I believe it, is that **deliberately inflicting unnecessary pain / suffering on animals is evil **. I think it is a very great, comparable to be not necessary to inflicting pain on humans, partly because many animals are closer in nature to humans than some people are prepared to admit. This is either through ignorance or more evil if due to wanton negligence or enjoyment of causing pain to others.

The reason why this discussion moved into this territory is that some posters have claimed that my question about God creating carnivores is answered by them because (a) animals do not experience pain or other suffering and / or (b) if they do it does not matter anyway. Hence what God has done in this respect is not an issue, which calls for questions and at least attempted answers.

I regard these claims to be deplorable and unworthy of a religion seeking to do good and resist evil. I looks like a totally unconvincing defence of evil which some people are intent on justifying. Elsewhere someone has said 'St Francis would weep to know how cruelly we treat animals worldwide today", and more so to see Catholics defending it.

Half a century ago I spent some time as a Buddhist and still honour the Buddha’s teaching “Have compassion for all creatures”.

 

[clayto1]

My last post exhibits some effects of my typing difficulty. Apologies.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I guess then that I would asK you why you consider the creation of carnivores to be an evil?

Carnivores serve an important role in the food chain, and help manage populations, among other things. Without carnivores, our ecosystem would not sustain itself as it does. We’ve actually seen what happens when you introduce species into an area with no natural predators. We’ve done it tons of times throughout our history, both accidentally and on purpose. The species, lacking any natural predators, completely overwhelms the local ecosystem, destroying it in the process.

Predators are needed to balance out natural systems, otherwise those systems will spiral out of control, ultimately destroying themselves. Just google “invasive species” and you’ll see a whole bunch of reasons carnivores are necessary.

Sadly, the necessary existence of predators, coupled with the necessary existence of pain, results in situations where animal will experience intense suffering before their deaths.

---

I agree that the answers you’ve cited do not really address the question. I hope that my response does address it.

I would certainly agree that inflicting unnecessary pain on animals is wrong. However, that does not mean I am against killing them. And, I’m sorry, but no matter how closely an animal may match human physiology and genetics, there will always be an infinite gulf between us and the lower animals as a result of the rational souls God has gifted us with. It is not wrong to kill an animal (though I would agree it is wrong to do so cruelly).

I apologize if I’ve misunderstood you again, you are right that I had some trouble following what you were saying.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

OK. First of all if you had just read the context of my quote you could have seen that it was actually to disprove the dichotomy given by the poster I was answering, so your first statement is wrong already.

Secondly, God is Absolutely Simple: He has no parts, but rather one of His perfections already shows His whole Perfection. Once you prove His act reflects one of His perfections, it already refutes all other arguments against His other perfections.

You cannot disprove God’s Omnipotence because He already has used it to show His Benevolence. He does not need to make another creation if it already shows His goodness.

You cannot doubt His other intentions because you cannot even refute His Benevolence; whatever else His intentions were in creating animals you cannot show them to be evil.

You cannot even use ditheism because we have not proven that another being played a role in His benevolence.

You have to disprove His benevolence in making the animals before you can make any headway.

Also I see that you have little knowledge on the role of suffering of animals for man’s benefit, if you can only think of human cruelty or sole animal carnivorism. Read up on evolution and the food web, among other subjects of biology.

And again, your question has been answered.

EDIT: I made a mistake, your “ditheism” is actually rather simple to refute. Since goodness equates existence, then a god of evil, perfect evil, is actually perfect nothingness and thus a nonbeing.

 

[clayto1]

No my question is not answered and merely asserting it is does not make it so.

I don’t need to ‘read up on Evolution’ I have studied it on and off for more than half a century and have probably forgotten more than some people know, but still remember enough to recognise when some Christians are spouting errors about it. Perhaps you could explain what you think the relevance of your remark is anyway, do you seriously think anyone who understands Evolution cannot believe that unnecessary pain inflicted on animals is a bad thing?

Can you please list some of the justifiable benefits you think humans receive from inflicting unnecessary pain?

Please note I am referring to the present not some time in the past (maybe you think entertainment from bear bating is a ‘benefit’ — that is a joke, but even so would you think that the law banning it in the UK and elsewhere should be repealed, and if not why?) And I am thinking of advanced economies, not ones which in the present could not move to meat free if they wanted to. Vegans have demonstrated eating meat is not necessary for any reason, such as a healthy diet, the personal and the national economy of advanced countries, the planet’s ecology (suffers greatly from meat production) and so on. Medical experiments, drug production, even the use of pig organs? Though much debated they could well be defended as ‘necessary’ ---- as I do. Riding horses, help dogs for the blind and similar, all beneficial and justifiable. So what?

Getting back to God: what you must do is demonstrate two things: that carnivorous animals are necessary / beneficial (which is quite possible, as in a recent post) and that God is unable to find a pain free alternative way of achieving the same necessary things (which is -------?)

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

Where did you get that qualifier “unnecessary”? If anything it was you who added

that God created animals for humans to do whatever the most negligent, ignorant , greedy , sadistic to do with as they wished -------- ‘suffering for the benefit of man’ (I quote!)

when I never made that claim. What I said was

is therefore not necessarily to avoid that thing’s suffering, especially if that thing’s suffering is for the benefit of man.

That does not necessarily mean man is the one inflicting the suffering.

I then mentioned evolution because it is exactly (at least in animals) the avoidance of suffering and death so they can pass on their genetic materials as well the succumbing to such that they cannot pass their genes that fuels it, and it was through those countless incidences of survival, progeny, suffering and death that man evolved. Yes, Catholics are allowed to believe in evolution.

And then I mentioned the food web: this endless cycle of eating and being eaten is one of the core components of the Earth’s ecosystems that sustains man’s survival on the planet.

THESE are the animal sufferings that I was talking about that benefit man.

Getting back to God: what you must do is demonstrate two things: that carnivorous animals are necessary / beneficial (which is quite possible, as in a recent post)

One thing less to discuss then.

and that God is unable to find a pain free alternative way of achieving the same necessary things (which is -------?)

Yes He can. In fact, He will when He renews heaven and earth on the last day.

Now does that disprove the omnipotence or benevolence of God? Of course not, because it does not erase the act of Benevolence of God to animals that we discussed.

 

[Wesrock]

Getting back to God: what you must do is demonstrate two things: that carnivorous animals are necessary / beneficial (which is quite possible, as in a recent post) and that God is unable to find a pain free alternative way of achieving the same necessary things (which is -------?)

Why? You never responded to my original post, either.

 

[Cimachol]

I don’t have an easy answer, but I suspect part of the reason was that God knew that mankind would fall, and that a universe in which pain and death existed was the only environment in which we might turn back toward Him for ultimate redemption.

 

[clayto1]

Why? You never responded to my original post, either.

Can you either past your original post or provide a link? If I did not respond to it that was not deliberate. I have mentioned in another post the difficulty in am having both in navigating an unfamiliar forum but more importantly with my PC -----eg. I could not get here from the email link, frequent crashing in the middle of typing and so on. I have been trying to reply to everything, I can only imagine not doing so eventually if faced with repeated assertions that animals do not feel pain, or if they do it dosn’t matter. But I will not be replying in a couple of days because I am preparing for a major OP on Friday, in this case meaning an operation, and I do not know when I will return to my PC.

 

[clayto1]

One small comment, here again is the word ‘prove’ or rather in this case ‘disprove’ ----- I have explained elsewhere that I am not concerned with proving / disproving anything, not least because I believe ‘proof’ either way is most likely impossible. My OP is a question ------ I do not see how a question or answers to it can be ‘proof’

 

[clayto1]

‘past’ should read ‘paste’

 

[clayto1]

Did I say anywhere that the ‘creation of carnivores’ is ‘evil’? My question is asking why it was done, to which you have now given what seems a reasonable answer ----I am clear about how important carnivores can be to the echo system we have got, not so clear why we have got it. Can it be that God could not find a way to achieve His purpose without so much suffering, given that the suffering is experienced by animals who could not have been guilty of Original Sin or responsible for the Fall? I have encountered Christians claiming that Adam’s Sin brought suffering to all other innocent creatures, that animals share God’s curse (their word not mine). Why? Where Is the justice in that? Why would a benevolent God arrange for that to be the case? Unless He could not find a more benign way to achieve his purpose? In which case how is He omnipotent?

As I have said, I am not trying to prove anything, I am just asking questions. But I am wondering about the way some people insist I am trying to prove something. I have friends who would conclude it is because deep down they are afraid there is no proof of what they believe. It is not my position, as one who does not believe proof is possible anyway!

 

[Ignatius64869]

Can you explain how a supposedly all powerful and benevolent God 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?

I cannot explain why an 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 in order to survive.

It seems to me that a greater good must be proportionate to the immense pain and suffering endured by animals.

We, as limited creatures, have no capacity to know what that greater good is, for it has not been revealed to us. However, it does not follow that just because I do not understand the greater good that there is not one.

 

[jcrichton]

Hi, Clay!

Could you expand or redirect the query?

I’m quite pedestrian (don’t know Nietzsche or Plato or any other–other than from general references–they wrote something some time ago); hence, I took your posting at its face value (theological question: God benevolence allows horrific death of poor unsuspecting animals–which sets up what looks like: God is a sadist or, at best, impotent (not wise and Omniscient but unable to do better in spite of Himself).

Of course, I may be tainted by my many encounters with those whose whole intent in generating an exchange about theology is to “demonstrate” (in their mind “prove”) that God is suspect if not non-existent.

I apologize if you feel I have misjudge your intent; please feel free to redirect the argument so that we may better understand and engage your initial purpose.

Maran atha!

Angel