Creation is Cruel

[John21652]

Well in reality, this isn’t the case. If there was no balance to life…that is…if only the “strong” survived…then in fact…only the strong would survive, and we’d have few if any diversity of species. For only the strong would survive! But the reality is, there is an incredibly complex level of interrelationships happening among species, environment, etc…and each species has its own “strengths” and “weaknesses” - this creates balance. Because of balance, we have diversity.

But I would argue that there is one species…just one…that* is* exceptionally strong and is surviving, proliferating, and also destroying many others. And that is mankind. But I feel if we followed God’s teachings, this wouldn’t be the case…for God knows this about us - he gave us immense power. And with great power, comes great responsibility.

So he told us what to do, and how to behave - to essentially be stewards of the Earth. But because we haven’t…because we have usurped God’s teachings, and tried to claim his power for our own, we are effectively destroying this planet. Of course this is my opinion… But the pride of man is a dangerous and deadly thing…and I feel it has caused much pain and suffering. That is the only cruelty I can observe…and it is from our own doing.

Two posters so far have touched on why creation is not “cruel”. Blue Sprite touches on the “balance of nature” and Windfish points out the error of anthropomorphism.

The OP wrote of “predation”, which conjures up a sometimes emotive image of one species mercilessly preying on another. Most species on planet earth do not prey on one another, because survival is best gauranteed when species develop their own niche and competition is lessened. Predation is a part of the balancing act meat eating animals carry out with other species, but almost every species only preys on the weakest of the target species. Lions don’t eat the fittest, fastest Impala, because catching them involves way too much energy. Species that prey on other species are almost always keeping the target species stronger and fitter. Almost every single preying species kiils only for food, which is why you will often see films of predatory animals drinking from the same water holes as their prey. Nature, or Creation, is a wondrous thing, with systems balancing and counter balancing themselves in conjunction with other systems. We often hear the term “the balance of nature” and that is what it is. Now don’t, for a moment, think I’m suggesting some sort of Gaia system, because Earth is not a closed, self sustaining system as the Gaia worshippers would have us believe. Earth is always in a state of energy exchange with the wider universe and does not float in isolation in some imaginary ether . That is the wonder of creation.

Now I come to Windfish’s point…

Missing in all of this is the fact the question anthropomorphizes animal suffering, when, in reality, there is no moral question or dimension involved in nature at all.

We make a big mistake if we attempt to attribute human emotions to what goes on in nature, to the animals and plants and how it all seemingly fits together. A Lion eating an Impala is moral. The Lion is being what it is and the Impala being eaten is aiding the balance between the species. Does the Impala suffer? By our standard of measuring emotions, yes, but the assumption is that Impala’s have our emotions, or something approaching our emotional reactions. The eaten Impala I’m sure suffers pain and some fear, because, after all, that’s why it attempts to run away. The fact that it doesn’t escape is what keeps the Impala species stronger and better equiped to survive.

The morality of nature is to be found in nature operating as it does. Mankind, however, has a moral dimension that is above and beyond the natural world. Morality is, after all, a set of rules for living. In general terms, we consider it to be a set of rules for how mankind interacts with other members of the same species. We have free wills and we are able to be whatever we so desire. A Lion has, by its nature, no choice other than to be and act like a Lion, but man can, if he so chooses, be rapacious, greedy and careless. In other words we have control over our natures. Surely now, in this day and age we are once again discovering that our morality also extends to the natural world. If we choose, we can be the only species that will hunt purely for pleasure and the only species that can totally rip up our environment and rebuiild it to our tastes. We are now such a successful species, so numerous, that we can upset the balance of nature if we are negligent. The Bible tells us we were sent forth to multiply and given dominion over the earth, the plants and animals. With that granted dominion comes responsibility and we should recognise it and embrace it. If we don’t, then indeed, because we are upsetting the God given moral balance of nature, creation will be made cruel.

 

[IrishJoe]

Well, you may not want to die slowly or painfully, and on the other hand you may not want to die quickly and painlessly (or painfully) either. But one or other is going to happen to you regardless.

In a sense (given that we all have the option of suicide) you have some choice over the manner of your death. What you can’t do is sit on the fence wringing your hands and wishing you could avoid dying at all, ever. Or you can, but sitting on your fence wringing your hands would be useless as it won’t prevent the inevitable fact of death. That’s the unpalatable truth.

What is it about the fact of creation, or the fact of God’s existence, any more than the fact of death, that makes it unjust that our choices in each situation are limited? In most situations we don’t have an unlimited number of choices either, but we don’t whinge about the fact, we simply do the best with what options we have.

Is unlimited, or less-limited, choice necessarily a better thing? Are people truly better off and happier now that they have hundreds of cable tv channels to choose from, for example, as opposed to a handful of free-to-airs? Is the quality of our tv any better as a result? Viewing figures can tell you it isn’t.

I don’t watch TV so I couldn’t tell you, let alone see it’s relevance.

But according to Jesus, the possibility of that is small.
But assuming God does exist (again, because if He doesn’t, why are we having this conversation?), why would you not want to acknowledge Him? Didn’t He give you life and give you a world to live in? I admit, “love” is hard when you don’t know someone, but don’t you feel He is at least “there”?

He may be there, just as the Devil may be there, it doesn’t mean I want to follow either of them. Being there isn’t a valid reason to follow a deity. Moloch could be ‘there’ but I don’t want to sacrifice infants either ya know?

I find that Christianity is a source of emotional and spiritual pain, that forcing us into such a position (where we must turn or burn) is pretty twisted and essentially hedging our choices, and attempting to coerce us under threat of hell. I don’t like being bullied essentially.

 

[John21652]

I don’t like being bullied essentially.

Being bullied means you are being coerced. By whom are you being coerced?

 

[Spirithound]

I may not want to Love god but I may not want to choose evil… ergo I have no choice… that puts me in a 3rd but non-existant category.

No, the two constitute an exhaustive list. You may not want to murder someone, but if you do not want to love God, you are evil nonetheless.

 

[LilyM]

I don’t watch TV so I couldn’t tell you, let alone see it’s relevance.

The fact that you don’t watch tv is entirely relevant - THAT means, in this day and age, that you’ve made a conscious decision to limit your options as far as choice of entertainment goes and switch off that tv. And you see great benefit to yourself, presumably, in having one less set of choices to have to make.

Someone who enjoys tv would say ‘how could you possibly deny yourself the greater options that turning on that tube gives you?’ And you might say ‘because there’s no benefit to me in having those extra options’. So you might say to God ‘how could you possibly deny me the additional choice of opting out of this whole heaven/hell thing altogether?’ and God might say to you ‘my child, it’s because I know, better than you, that there’s no benefit to you in having the choice to opt out.’

 

[uglygal]

No, the two constitute an exhaustive list. You may not want to murder someone, but if you do not want to love God, you are evil nonetheless.

:ehh:

 

[Spirithound]

:ehh:

Thank you for bringing my miscalculation to my attention. I should have written:

if you do not want to love God, you are choosing evil nonetheless.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

I think the presupposition that predation is somehow cruel or unjust may not be correct. It can be looked upon in a different viewpoint. Natural predators cull the weak and control the population they prey on. This system keeps a *self-correcting balance *in place in order that the healthy survive and keeps overpopulation from destroying the ecosystem as well as from wholesale starvation of the various species that rely upon it. From a environmental perspective, this is highly desirable and is for the greater good.

 

[PeterK]

How does that reconcile with if one person disobeys god ALL get punished. It hardly seems fair or just or loving.

Hi Irish Joe,
I’ve also tried to understand this original sin thing. I’ve had several thoughts, none of which are an exhaustive explanation. The unity of humankind is a hard idea to accept with our “it’s all about me” mindset that seems to saturate the current culture.

One reflection is that mankind is a class or a category or a type of being. It is a certain kind of thing with it’s own unique-ness or humankind-ness, with unique characteristics and makeup. Just like bees can sting and earthworms don’t. That the first man and woman had knowledge of God and rejected him tells us something about this type of being called human. They’re ability to have preferences means the possibility of preferring themselves before all else is real.

So how does there preference extend to all humans?

These are poor examples but it’s kinda like the recent problems Toyota is having with marketing it’s image since the problems with the car breaks emerged. The mechanical problem was only with one model (I believe), other models and products continued to function perfectly. Yet the entire company and all lines of business seem to be suffering a serious public trust backlash as reflected in sales. No consumer wants the ‘potential’ of mechanical failure in their lives. The marketing mandate is damage control. All this is because Toyota is seen as one entity, one body so to say.

Another similar example is the child abuse priesthood scandal. Here, for some, the sins of a very few individuals have tainted all of Catholicism. Holy orders is seen as flawed. Yet the diligent work of many selfless priests is ignored.

These aren’t good examples but I think they illustrate in real time how the perception of a flaw in a part of a larger entity can be extended to the entity and all it’s other parts as a whole.

The same can occur with positive assessments. A couple somewhat racists cliches can illustrate this; all blacks are good dancers, all Japanese are good at math, etc.

So what we are taught with the story of one person disobeying (actually it was two people disobeying) is that none of us are better that Adam or Eve. We are made of the same stuff. We aren’t a different type or category of being. We are the same beings - human beings. We would reject God and also fall because we are human. This is who we are - all of us. The story is a hard cold look in the mirror and we see that to be human is to experience failure, is to not be perfect. An atheist can perceive as much in any age.

As far as the ‘not fair’ part I would have to say God was more than fair, even merciful in his ‘punishment’. How? Because to be fair in it’s simplest of forms is tit-for-tat justice. You hit me - I hit you. You throw a rock at me - I throw a rock at you. One for you - one for me, etc. Now the first couple of humans rejected God by disobeying him. The creature rejected the creator. However, to be simplistically fair the creator should get to reject the creature. You rejected me, so I’ll reject you and we’ll call it even and everything will be back to normal. But there is a problem with this simple justice. If the creator rejects the creature, the creature will cease to exist because the creator also maintains the existence of the creature. So to reject the creature would result with the creature’s existence coming to an end, because you can’t maintain a relationship and reject it at the same time.

When a full grown man who is a father is kicked in the shin by an angry toddler with all it’s might, the father doesn’t answer with a kick to the toddler using all his might - it might kill the toddler. A different response is necessary.

God didn’t reject the humans. God choose life, again, still. Somewhere in this understanding we begin to perceive on the part of the creator a sense of mercy and forgiveness and can only reach a conclusion that the motivation for such is love.

So right off the bat, whether you read the story literally or not, the story of the fall tells us who and what we are as humans.
We are creatures - that is, we have been created, we didn’t create ourselves. None of us decided to become alive and live. And we are not perfect but suffer our own limitations constantly, individually and collectively, in whatever we endeavor. Most of the trouble in the world we bring upon ourselves.

I don’t mean or dream of “turning” you at all. I’m too busy turning myself. But I do like very much being able to share my ideas regarding your own insights. Think what you will, I do.

Peterk

 

[cassini]

A priest friend and I have been asked an awkward question at RCIA and I thought you guys might be able to give me some useful thoughts, hints and tips on the matter.

The argument is that the nature of the world is inherently violent and relies on predation of the stronger upon the weaker and that seems to contradict the idea that this system was designed by a loving God. Do you have any ideas on how best to combat this argument?

Best wishes for a joyous Advent

Mark

Yes I do. First of all I do not adhere to the idea that all creatures were vegetarians until Original Sin. Given the amount of carnivore types on earth, that would mean there would have been a second ‘creation’, turning flora digestive types into fauna digestive types. The Scriptures clearly stste creation was finished on the sixth day.

The next thing to consider is the language used by us humans to describe animal behaviour. Violent and cruel. These are human concepts, not animal concepts. The problem today is that since the philosophy of evolution coupled with Walt Disney’s giving a mouse a human personality, both humans and animals have been placed on the same ‘understanding level.’ In truth however, animals do not think like humans. Animals do not recognise cruelty, merely survival. In Genesis, God said that the creation of the fauna order was ‘good’. In other words, He created them with the means to survive, be they vegetarians or predatory. The survival of the created type is good. It preserves nature and its ability to allow man to survive. Creatures killing one another is the means to that end. God did not make animals conscious of suffering or dying.

On the other hand, it cannot be denied animals can be subjected to pain and suffering, irrespective of their level or not of their ‘awareness’ of such pain and suffering. So, does man’s dominion over animals take account of this? Well, speaking as a Catholic, with this gift from God comes responsibilities towards God’s creation. I recall as a boy, some fifty–five years ago, asking a priest was cruelty to animals a sin, to which he replied, yes, deliberate cruelty is of course as sin, a sin against God.

Let us ponder on Genesis 1:26, the basis upon which Catholic culture takes its balance between man and animals. Genesis 1:26, as we know, states that God the Creator of all fauna gave man dominion over the animals, physically, morally and ethically. Indeed in the Old Testament, the slaughter of lambs as sacrifice to God was practically made compulsory. This right was practiced first by Judaism as we all know. The slaughter and burning of the lamb’s body was practiced until the year 70AD when the Temple was destroyed by the Romans. In Luke 2:24 it tells of Mary and Joseph sacrificing two doves. Jesus probably was present during a lamb sacrifice, used a donkey as a beast of burden, and He Himself ordered the Apostles to lower their nets to be filled with fish that were pulled aboard. St Paul continued to offer the lamb sacrifice. The death of the Lamb was done by cutting its throat. The death of trawler fish is one of suffocation, equivalent to a land animal being drowned. Could Christ be accused of animal-rights abuse or cruelty? My ponderings on this subject from early childhood came up with the following reasoning. Only God knows the ‘minds and feelings’ – for want of better words – of animals. Given God confined them to their natures and have no purposed other than for man’s use and benefit, we cannot compare their awareness of anything to that of humans. So somehow, these creatures died without any consciousness of death or cruelty, similar to death in the wild or death by slaughter. What happens when a pack of lions down and begin eating an antelope or zebra, sometimes before they are even dead? Do the other zebras think ‘Lets put as much distance between us and those lions or we will be next.’ No they do not. They simply get back to eating grass as soon as possible. In other words they have no consciousness other than run when a lion is chasing you.

 

[PeterK]

The argument is that the nature of the world is inherently violent and relies on predation of the stronger upon the weaker and that seems to contradict the idea that this system was designed by a loving God.

Hi Mark,
It sounds like the proof being supplied for the alleged fact that the world is inherently violent is the observation of the predation of the strong upon the weak. So it would seem some sort of rule is being put forth that ‘in nature the strong prey upon the weak’. I am trying to fit this into one statement so we can analyze it, because if there is a problem with the statement we’ll never arrive at an answer. So the statement is “In nature, and man is part of nature, if the strong prey upon the weak then the world is inherently violent.”

First of all these are broad sweeping generalizations. Weeds took over my back yard last summer, the violence was unbearable. I’m not mocking, I’m wondering if any flourishing of bioform resulting in the diminishing of another bioform is appropriately classified as predation. What if there is no contest. What if in a given region, one bioform adapts to cold, lets say, and another does not. The adapter flourishes and the stagnant diminishes, but activity is due to adaption or lack of and not competition for resources. Are viruses stronger than the more complex animals they sometimes bring to death. Are viruses competing with us? Or are they just thriving where it is thrive-able. Seeking an environment in which to thrive is not in itself an act of predation. Viruses are not on the prowl, they thrive where they can.

So my first response is that all natural activity is not to be classified ‘predation’. Since all activity is not violent predation this demands other classifications for the activity that is not predation and leaves room for ‘the world’ to be something other than inherently violent.

I sense the attempt to classify all the wondrous interaction of all the components of nature amongst themselves as ‘predation’ and this, I believe, it distorted and does not provide a foundation for asserting that ‘the world’ is inherently violent - which means violent in it’s most basic nature or from its inception.

Yes, predation exists as does violence but not on a scale to large enough to support the argument that the world is inherently violent.

The fact that a hawk swooped down, snatched and later ate a baby squirrel does not contradict the idea that creation is inherently good and created by a loving god.

Oh well, I’m rambling again.
Hope that helped.

Peterk

 

[Ichthys4121517]

Yes I do. First of all I do not adhere to the idea that all creatures were vegetarians until Original Sin. Given the amount of carnivore types on earth, that would mean there would have been a second ‘creation’, turning flora digestive types into fauna digestive types. The Scriptures clearly stste creation was finished on the sixth day.

There was no “second creation”. There was a curse. In Genesis, God Himself says to the serpent, “On your belly shall you crawl, and dust shall you eat.” This implies a change in the behavior of snakes. Would you argue that this was a second creation as well? No. You said yourself that God said that His creation was good. Personally, I wouldn’t call animals that need to feast on other animals to survive “good” (this is one of the reasons why I am a creationist, alongside trusting the infallibility of Scripture). Death came from original sin, for humans and animals.

Incidentally, this whole “argument from undesign” seems ridiculous to me. A better question would be, “If impersonal natural processes with no sense of reason, intelligence, purpose, or love created the universe through random, accidental mutations and chemical reactions, then how is that we humans can think, love, act consciously, or even ponder the reasons for our existence in the first place?” I wouldn’t expect a world in which such a great act of love as to sacrifice one’s life for a friend exists to be the result of mere chance.

Isn’t it easier to fall from the peak of a mountain than to ascend from the foot?

 

[FightingFat]

Hi Mark,
It sounds like the proof being supplied for the alleged fact that the world is inherently violent is the observation of the predation of the strong upon the weak. So it would seem some sort of rule is being put forth that ‘in nature the strong prey upon the weak’. I am trying to fit this into one statement so we can analyze it, because if there is a problem with the statement we’ll never arrive at an answer. So the statement is “In nature, and man is part of nature, if the strong prey upon the weak then the world is inherently violent.”

First of all these are broad sweeping generalizations. Weeds took over my back yard last summer, the violence was unbearable. I’m not mocking, I’m wondering if any flourishing of bioform resulting in the diminishing of another bioform is appropriately classified as predation. What if there is no contest. What if in a given region, one bioform adapts to cold, lets say, and another does not. The adapter flourishes and the stagnant diminishes, but activity is due to adaption or lack of and not competition for resources. Are viruses stronger than the more complex animals they sometimes bring to death. Are viruses competing with us? Or are they just thriving where it is thrive-able. Seeking an environment in which to thrive is not in itself an act of predation. Viruses are not on the prowl, they thrive where they can.

So my first response is that all natural activity is not to be classified ‘predation’. Since all activity is not violent predation this demands other classifications for the activity that is not predation and leaves room for ‘the world’ to be something other than inherently violent.

I sense the attempt to classify all the wondrous interaction of all the components of nature amongst themselves as ‘predation’ and this, I believe, it distorted and does not provide a foundation for asserting that ‘the world’ is inherently violent - which means violent in it’s most basic nature or from its inception.

Yes, predation exists as does violence but not on a scale to large enough to support the argument that the world is inherently violent.

The fact that a hawk swooped down, snatched and later ate a baby squirrel does not contradict the idea that creation is inherently good and created by a loving god.

Oh well, I’m rambling again.
Hope that helped.

Peterk

Thanks Peter, yes, it is helping!

I think it might help to distil the argument down further. Basically, that a loving God would be the author of a system which involves (although not necessarily is dominated by) powerful carnivores violently murdering smaller, more docile animals in order to feast on their flesh, is contradictory.

 

[FightingFat]

Most species on planet earth do not prey on one another, because survival is best gauranteed when species develop their own niche and competition is lessened. Predation is a part of the balancing act meat eating animals carry out with other species, but almost every species only preys on the weakest of the target species. Lions don’t eat the fittest, fastest Impala, because catching them involves way too much energy. Species that prey on other species are almost always keeping the target species stronger and fitter. Almost every single preying species kills only for food, which is why you will often see films of predatory animals drinking from the same water holes as their prey. Nature, or Creation, is a wondrous thing, with systems balancing and counter balancing themselves in conjunction with other systems. We often hear the term “the balance of nature” and that is what it is. Now don’t, for a moment, think I’m suggesting some sort of Gaia system, because Earth is not a closed, self sustaining system as the Gaia worshippers would have us believe. Earth is always in a state of energy exchange with the wider universe and does not float in isolation in some imaginary ether . That is the wonder of creation.

This is very helpful, thanks John. When someone asks a question (in a situation like RCIA) it is so hard to think about the logic of the question, rather than your mind just shooting off in search of a decent answer. Here you put the question into context for me and if we examine it’s veracity, we can see the inherent flaws in the premise.

We make a big mistake if we attempt to attribute human emotions to what goes on in nature, to the animals and plants and how it all seemingly fits together. A Lion eating an Impala is moral. The Lion is being what it is and the Impala being eaten is aiding the balance between the species. Does the Impala suffer? By our standard of measuring emotions, yes, but the assumption is that Impala’s have our emotions, or something approaching our emotional reactions. The eaten Impala I’m sure suffers pain and some fear, because, after all, that’s why it attempts to run away. The fact that it doesn’t escape is what keeps the Impala species stronger and better equiped to survive.

The morality of nature is to be found in nature operating as it does. Mankind, however, has a moral dimension that is above and beyond the natural world. Morality is, after all, a set of rules for living. In general terms, we consider it to be a set of rules for how mankind interacts with other members of the same species. We have free wills and we are able to be whatever we so desire. A Lion has, by its nature, no choice other than to be and act like a Lion, but man can, if he so chooses, be rapacious, greedy and careless. In other words we have control over our natures. Surely now, in this day and age we are once again discovering that our morality also extends to the natural world. If we choose, we can be the only species that will hunt purely for pleasure and the only species that can totally rip up our environment and rebuiild it to our tastes. We are now such a successful species, so numerous, that we can upset the balance of nature if we are negligent. The Bible tells us we were sent forth to multiply and given dominion over the earth, the plants and animals. With that granted dominion comes responsibility and we should recognise it and embrace it. If we don’t, then indeed, because we are upsetting the God given moral balance of nature, creation will be made cruel.

Another very good point! Choice. We have the ability to choose not to surrender to the wiles of our animal nature, but to strive to overcome our instinctual urges. For example, we might not like going to the dentist, in fact we might find that we are terrified of going, but we also now that it is for our benefit that we need to go, and so we overcome our terror and choose to do that which is best for us.

Wonderful! Thank you for your contribution!

 

[John21652]

Thanks Peter, yes, it is helping!

I think it might help to distil the argument down further. Basically, that a loving God would be the author of a system which involves (although not necessarily is dominated by) powerful carnivores violently murdering smaller, more docile animals in order to feast on their flesh, is contradictory.

This is a prime example of where the idea of creation being cruel becomes a very distorted idea. The distortion comes about by the use of strongly emotive language. Now that language, if we examine it carefully and clearly, is designed to describe human emotions and human concepts. Furthermore, those words which I underlined are dishonestly used when describing what goes on in nature. The concept of “murder” is an inherently human one. Furthermore, the concept of murder in the context of a human society refers to the “unlawful” taking of another human life. If it was not “unlawful”, it would not be "murder’. Now how is it possible for a predator to break a law when it eats a “smaller, more docile animal”? To survive, a predator must eat. No matter what it eats, the point to remember is that when it eats, it is obeying the ‘law of survival’. If it disobeys that “law”, it effectively commits suicide and that is against the law of nature, against the will to survive. That would be contradictory to its own self, its own nature.

Next, examine the use of the phrase “smaller, more docile animals”. As an example, a lion chases an Impala. The Impala is smaller and more docile. Or so we think! Examine a single Impala within the context of its own species and see how 'docile" they really are. Impalas have ‘issues’ and tendencies which we would label as ‘bullying’, ‘selfishness’, ‘greed’, etc. Compred to a lion, the Impala is smaller and would appear to be weaker, that is, not as strong. However, most Impalas manage to outrun a lion and if that were not the case, Impalas would be extinct. Therefore, Impalas might appear to be “smaller, more docile…”, yet they thrive and they thrive because they have strengths which allow them to “beat” the lion and strategies which ensure their species is fit to “beat” the lion. In other words, it is only our human perceptions and our willingness to project onto the animal world our emotions, expressed in our terms, based on our understanding of our own human relations, which leads us to eroneously attribute to animals concepts which are wrong, and if we are honest with ourselves, untruthful.

 

[SpectatorX]

missing in all of this is the fact the question anthropomorphizes animal suffering, when, in reality, there is no moral question or dimension involved in nature at all.

To the finder
The isle of koholint, is but an illusion
Human, monster, sea, sky
A scene on the lid of a sleeper’s eye
Awake the dreamer, and Koholint will vanish much like a bubble on a needle
Cast-away, you should know the truth!