Animal behaviour

[colmywaykurtz]

While I would like to think that, I know that is not true. Anyone who has ever kept a dog for instance, would know they do feel pain and suffer. Scientific studies have shown that even fish feel pain.

Not saying you are one but many/some ignore the fact that they cause pain and suffering by non needed use of animals.

Certainly they feel pain physically, and it’s quite possible many feel emotional pain—like if their offspring are killed and they’re helpless to prevent it. Or what a dog feels when its master is sick or demised.

But I tend to think man alone bears spiritual pain, the pain of guilt and remorse, the pain of separation from God—especially when it’s become eternal, with no going back. Animals have not taken that on that pain, and hopefully never will. I think that’s one reason why they tend to have a calming effect on many humans. IMO.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Certainly they feel pain physically, and it’s quite possible many feel emotional pain—like if their offspring are killed and they’re helpless to prevent it. Or what a dog feels when its master is sick or demised.

But I tend to think man alone bears spiritual pain, the pain of guilt and remorse, the pain of separation from God—especially when it’s become eternal, with no going back. Animals have not taken that on that pain, and hopefully never will. I think that’s one reason why they tend to have a calming effect on many humans. IMO.

What are your thoughts based on??

 

[severus68]

Certainly they feel pain physically, and it’s quite possible many feel emotional pain—like if their offspring are killed and they’re helpless to prevent it. Or what a dog feels when its master is sick or demised.

But I tend to think man alone bears spiritual pain, the pain of guilt and remorse, the pain of separation from God—especially when it’s become eternal, with no going back. Animals have not taken that on that pain, and hopefully never will. I think that’s one reason why they tend to have a calming effect on many humans. IMO.

I dont disagree with what you say. I do think animals praise God in their way. We also love them for a selfish reason, they love us unconditionally.

Studies have shown that petting an animal does lower blood pressure and family members have told me it has worked on them. Therapy animals are used all over the world.

 

[valentino]

No, we can’t say for sure, but we can have a good idea from looking at the reams of actual evidence. If you choose instead to deny all this evidence and instead believe that a supernatural deity made everything just the way it is; and further speculate arbitrarily that humans aren’t animals and that animals don’t feel pain, then I guess you’re not the sort of person who wants to actually learn anything.

OMG. Really? The “just a theory” line? Do you even understand what a scientific theory actually is?

Nobody can prove that a lion evolved from a domestic cat. But then, this is not what evolutionary theory claims. It’s clear you’ve made up your mind that “God did it,” and you’re not interested in even attempting to understand that which you summarily reject.

I thank you for you’re boldness in giving your opinion.i think we’ve both been down this road before.You believe in the evolutionary theory and I do to although in a limited way.Im not really against science and my mind is always open but Ive read and listen to so much about the evolutionary theory and no one has been able to prove to me that its a sound theory without the possibility of error.Many scientists want me to go beyond even what you believe an expect me to believe that I came into existence from the big bang.From the stufff of the stars.Like I said its a very interesting theory but no one (not Hawkings or any other phyisist)can give conclusive evidence that we originated in the big bang.Yes,I know what a scientific theory is.Its based on real repeatable facts.but there are assumptions that have to be made for this theory to work.And some of these assumptions go against the law of physics.Hawkings called it by a different name.Luck.There is no luck in physics.Its true or it isnt true.If its true then you have to prove it.Correct,we aren’t animals.We are made of the same stuff but we are world’s apart from any animal.No animal of any kind can come within a million years or miles from making an atom bomb.Then again I didn’t say animals didn’t feel pain I just said you donn’t know if they feel pain.their body may react that its in pain but you can’t say exactly how much pain they feel.We’ve heard of people cutting off their arms in tragic situations but the pain probably wasn’t as great if their was no reason to cut it off.

 

[tonyrey]

I would tend to agree. I don’t know that I believe that things will continue this way throughout eternity, but I believe that this way of things has been prevalent so far since the earliest Creation.

Being a zookeeper by occupation has given me some perspectives on this that many don’t get, I think.

At the establishment where I work, we have emus—the big flightless birds that originated in Australia (2nd only to the ostrich in size), and which have proven popular as a livestock animal in North America.

We had one weak male get killed by the most dominant male once. This dominant male, paradoxically enough, was one of only two individuals (out of a total population of seven) that would willingly let humans pet and groom him; indeed, he was amenable to human direction and non-aggressive toward humans even in the moments after he had slain the weak one, allowing himself to be led back to his own pen from which he had just escaped.

A couple of points here. One, I think this highlights the fact that animals aren’t being evil even when they kill. They’re just doing what nature/biology/instinct have programmed them to do.

Two, not trying to toot my own horn here, but obviously a human can understand this and not give way to visceral emotional reactions to such a situation that might otherwise have us feel anger or hatred toward an animal that’s just doing what nature programmed it to do. This highlights the fact that humans, when they rise to their full moral height, can rise above instinct and be the stewards of God’s creation in a moral and compassionate way. More is given to humans—a human soul and human understanding—and from humans God expects more.

Thank you for your fascinating post! You’re in an excellent position to make an objective judgment.

 

[Polak]

I wonder it people on here are of the belief that animals go to heaven. It is a tough on to call since they have no knowledge of God [at least I assume so, it could be they do]. If I am not mistaken in a description of heaven in the Bible it mentioned lambs who are obviously animals. Not sure here. Oh and some animal behavious does make me question things a lot such as a cat I have. I have a male and female cat and the female had a litter of kittens. When they were older we sold them except for one that did not seem to sell, she was female. Our male cat tried to mate with her all the time so he kept on seperating them. Why would it do that? Again why would God make creatures do this or is he just a psychopath who does this with his own choice?

 

[tonyrey]

I wonder it people on here are of the belief that animals go to heaven. It is a tough on to call since they have no knowledge of God [at least I assume so, it could be they do]. If I am not mistaken in a description of heaven in the Bible it mentioned lambs who are obviously animals. Not sure here. Oh and some animal behaviour does make me question things a lot such as a cat I have. I have a male and female cat and the female had a litter of kittens. When they were older we sold them except for one that did not seem to sell, she was female. Our male cat tried to mate with her all the time so he kept on separating them. Why would it do that? Again why would God make creatures do this or is he just a psychopath who does this with his own choice?

If an animal has given consolation, companionship and happiness to a lonely person on earth it is quite possible they will not be separated in heaven. Animals are not just biological machines…

God does not make individual animals act in any particular way. He works through the laws of nature. Instincts are not infallible!

 

[Sam_777]

It is the devil, “The Lord of this World” (Jn 21:31), “The God of this World” (2 Cor 4:4), who is responsible for the cruelty and futility of nature. Beelzebul means, of course, the Lord of Flies, but it could equally be wolves, owls, serpents, viruses, etc.

The Fall of the Universe is an ontological change, and is thus effectively the creation of the world as we know it (full of dangerous beasts, famine and pestilence). It is the product of sin, of the serpent, Lucifer, contrary to the will of God.

So we should never consider the cruelty and futility which are the essense of this “creation” as any part of the True God’s intention.

A good analysis indeed…http://forums.catholic-questions.or...atholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon14.gif

 

[Sam_777]

The fangs & claws in animals are not necessary meant to kill each others or eating meat !!!

We humans were not allowed to eat meat till the time of Noah’s flood, and we had sharp teeth since Adam & Eve, humans and animals need sharp teeth, fangs, and claws to eat vegetables and break nuts and other stiff food.

I personally believe the violence in animals to kill each others is similar to us humans when Satan is seducing us to kill each others, because I believe those meat eating animals are meat ADDICTED animals, they used to eat meat and they became addicted to it BUT they can survive by eating vegetables as well…

We should remember (Isaiah 11:6-9) from the Bible:
“The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearlinga together; and a little child will lead them. The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox. The infant will play near the hole of the cobra, and the young child put his hand into the viper’s nest. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.”

 

[Sair]

The fangs & claws in animals are not necessary meant to kill each others or eating meat !!!

We humans were not allowed to eat meat till the time of Noah’s flood, and we had sharp teeth since Adam & Eve, humans and animals need sharp teeth, fangs, and claws to eat vegetables and break nuts and other stiff food.

I personally believe the violence in animals to kill each others is similar to us humans when Satan is seducing us to kill each others, because I believe those meat eating animals are meat ADDICTED animals, they used to eat meat and they became addicted to it BUT they can survive by eating vegetables as well…

It’s not just the teeth and claws/nails that mark an animal as a carnivore - it’s also the digestive tract, particularly the length of the gut. A ready example to hand is the difference between domestic dogs and cats - dogs can survive on a vegetarian diet (although obtain slightly better nutrition from animal protein); they have a digestive tract that is equipped to break down some vegetable matter as well as meat, so can be omnivorous where necessary. Cats, on the other hand, would die if you didn’t feed them meat or fish, because they cannot break down vegetable matter at all, their guts being too short. They are carnivores through and through. In fact, a friend of mine had most of his bowel removed due to Crohn’s disease (sp?) and he has to have meat in his diet or he would not receive adequate nutrition. So I’m pretty sure this has nothing to do with any addiction to steak…

 

[severus68]

It’s not just the teeth and claws/nails that mark an animal as a carnivore - it’s also the digestive tract, particularly the length of the gut. A ready example to hand is the difference between domestic dogs and cats - dogs can survive on a vegetarian diet (although obtain slightly better nutrition from animal protein); they have a digestive tract that is equipped to break down some vegetable matter as well as meat, so can be omnivorous where necessary. Cats, on the other hand, would die if you didn’t feed them meat or fish, because they cannot break down vegetable matter at all, their guts being too short. They are carnivores through and through. In fact, a friend of mine had most of his bowel removed due to Crohn’s disease (sp?) and he has to have meat in his diet or he would not receive adequate nutrition. So I’m pretty sure this has nothing to do with any addiction to steak…

Which came first I wonder. Did biology change in the carnivores of today after the Fall?

 

[Sair]

If an animal has given consolation, companionship and happiness to a lonely person on earth it is quite possible they will not be separated in heaven.

Does that mean a nonhuman animal could only go to heaven via human intercession? Does the situation get reversed if the human is giving comfort to the nonhuman animal? My dog has cancer, so I know he’s going to die in the not-too-distant future, very likely before I do (short of accident or acute fatal illness) - theoretically, assuming I believed in an afterlife, what would happen to him in the meantime? Would he have to hang around and wait to see whether my life proved worthy, or would he go to heaven right away based on the happiness he has afforded me? For that matter, would my caring for him and easing his pains through his illness count in my favour when it came to weighing up the relative merits of my life?

Animals are not just biological machines…

What is it about animals (and as you know I include humans in this classification) that makes us “not just biological machines”? What’s a biological machine that one might compare it to an animal and know it wasn’t the same? Alternatively, what is your definition of ‘machine’ such that any animal, no matter how (relatively) simple, is not one? Is it just a matter of complexity and intricacy?

God does not make individual animals act in any particular way. He works through the laws of nature. Instincts are not infallible!

Again, there’s no getting away from the fact that if God made the laws of nature to be as they are, and knew all their probable consequences, then he is responsible for all animal behaviour resulting therefrom. That or your God is not actually the omnipotent, omniscient God of Classical Theism. Actually, there was probably nothing ‘wrong’ with the male cat’s instincts - they were finding an available outlet under the constraints of circumstance. The problem with instincts ‘misfiring’, so to speak, is not with the instincts themselves, but with the circumstances in which any animal finds itself. That’s part of the reason a neutered male dog will still hump your leg (although that particular instinct has more to do with displaying dominance than sex, since dogs don’t actually mate in what we tend to call ‘doggie style’…)

 

[Sair]

Which came first I wonder. Did biology change in the carnivores of today after the Fall?

That would have resulted in an enormous shift in the balance of extant ecosystems…and also would demonstrate, counter to some claims I have seen, that God could have created a world without predation and sundry other things that cause suffering to sentient creatures. Would parasites have existed before the Fall, I wonder…

 

[severus68]

That would have resulted in an enormous shift in the balance of extant ecosystems…and also would demonstrate, counter to some claims I have seen, that God could have created a world without predation and sundry other things that cause suffering to sentient creatures. Would parasites have existed before the Fall, I wonder…

I believe that God did create such a world. I suppose parasites, bacteria, mosquitos etc are just around to plague us for our sin - so definitely after the Fall.

 

[Sair]

I believe that God did create such a world. I suppose parasites, bacteria, mosquitos etc are just around to plague us for our sin - so definitely after the Fall.

Is the suffering of other animals, as a result of predation and parasites, intended to plague us for original sin? This doesn’t seem like the doing of a truly just God…

 

[severus68]

Is the suffering of other animals, as a result of predation and parasites, intended to plague us for original sin? This doesn’t seem like the doing of a truly just God…

That, like the suffering of babies, some who do not survive, I do not understand. The explanation given is that animals follow the fate of Man after the Fall - does not seem fair does it? However I do believe in a merciful, loving God whose love extends to all His creatures and I just have to have faith that all will be revealed and explained one day.

 

[Sair]

That, like the suffering of babies, some who do not survive, I do not understand. The explanation given is that animals follow the fate of Man after the Fall - does not seem fair does it? However I do believe in a merciful, loving God whose love extends to all His creatures and I just have to have faith that all will be revealed and explained one day.

I must say that when I was a Catholic, I could never accept the idea that other animals were somehow less worthy of regard than humans. If the human ideal of justice - that the innocent must not suffer for any crimes - were to prevail in religious circles, I would think it would be accepted that pretty much all other animals would precede us into heaven…

 

[wanstronian]

I thank you for you’re boldness in giving your opinion.i think we’ve both been down this road before.You believe in the evolutionary theory and I do to although in a limited way.

To what extent do you reject the Theory?

Im not really against science and my mind is always open but Ive read and listen to so much about the evolutionary theory and no one has been able to prove to me that its a sound theory without the possibility of error.

No, but this is what scientific theories are - they are provisional truths based upon the best available evidence. Evolution has so much correlating evidence from so many varied fields of science, and absolutely zero contradictory evidence, that to disbelieve it as a theory is like disbelieving in gravity. I don’t know what you’ve been told, but if you truly do have an open mind like you claim, then I suspect you’ve simply been told lies, and believed them. It would be nice to know the specific aspects of the Theory that you reject, and why.

Many scientists want me to go beyond even what you believe an expect me to believe that I came into existence from the big bang.From the stufff of the stars.

Yes - where else?

Like I said its a very interesting theory but no one (not Hawkings or any other phyisist)can give conclusive evidence that we originated in the big bang.

But from where else? You seem to be willing to reject the Big Bang Theory, supported though it is by plenty of evidence, but happy to embrace the God hypothesis, which has absolutely zero supporting evidence. This makes no sense. It’s irrational.

Yes,I know what a scientific theory is.Its based on real repeatable facts.but there are assumptions that have to be made for this theory to work.And some of these assumptions go against the law of physics.

Such as? I’d be very surprised if you can name a single assumption upon which any scientific Theory is based, that goes against the laws of physics. The whole point of science is that it’s self-correcting. If someone presents a hypothesis that relies on the rejection of one (or more) of the known laws of physics, it’s leapt upon during peer review. It would never make it to the status of “Theory.” So I think you’re just plain wrong here. Again, it makes me think that your sources have been lying to you. Lying is very common in religious circles when it comes to discussion of science, because science proves so much religious dogma to be just plain false. The only way to get around this is for the dogma junkies to lie - both to themselves and to others - about the facts of what science actually tells us.

Hawkings called it by a different name.Luck.There is no luck in physics.Its true or it isnt true.If its true then you have to prove it.

Correct - and Evolution, for example, has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt. It’s settled science.

Correct,we aren’t animals.We are made of the same stuff but we are world’s apart from any animal.No animal of any kind can come within a million years or miles from making an atom bomb.

What’s that got to do with it? Is that your criterion for what separates animal from non-animal? What about the abundance of evidence from embryology, physiology, genetics, fossil records, and so on, that proves that we most certainly are animals? Simply being significantly more intelligent than any other species, doesn’t somehow make us no longer animals. So, to call you on your own rule - “if it’s true then you have to prove it.” So go ahead.

Unless you’re just making an arbitrary semantic distinction, in which case I’d have to ask how it’s relevant within the context of the discussion (ie. pain and suffering).

Then again I didn’t say animals didn’t feel pain I just said you donn’t know if they feel pain.their body may react that its in pain but you can’t say exactly how much pain they feel.We’ve heard of people cutting off their arms in tragic situations but the pain probably wasn’t as great if their was no reason to cut it off.

That’s true - but you did speculate that they might not; and what I said was, there’s zero reason, given the abundance of evidence of shared ancestry between human animals and non-human animals, to even speculate that they feel pain or suffering to a lesser degree than we do.

 

[tonyrey]

I must say that when I was a Catholic, I could never accept the idea that other animals were somehow less worthy of regard than humans. If the human ideal of justice - that the innocent must not suffer for any crimes - were to prevail in religious circles, I would think it would be accepted that pretty much all other animals would precede us into heaven…

Animals are neither innocent nor guilty because they are not morally responsible for their actions.

 

[severus68]

I must say that when I was a Catholic, I could never accept the idea that other animals were somehow less worthy of regard than humans. If the human ideal of justice - that the innocent must not suffer for any crimes - were to prevail in religious circles, I would think it would be accepted that pretty much all other animals would precede us into heaven…

I still choose to remain Catholic and seek change from within. I do think and hope that the Catholic Church will lead the change where animals are concerned.

I recall my parish priest saying at a blessing of the animals that in a way animals are closer to God and I agree. The Church does not teach as dogma that animals go to heaven and I know what St Thomas Aquinas said about souls. However, there is enough from the Bible and from my knowing that my God is a compaasionate and loving God for me to know that God has plans for his other creatures too. Perhaps there will be another heavens for some animals and we will have with us the ones who.loved us in this world.