Do animals have consciousness?

[o_mlly]

How could a loving and all-good God allow that if animals feel pain?

Thank you for the gift of pain, Lord. Pain does not translate into evil. Often pain protects us from damaging or lethal behavior.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Gorgias]

Don’t you think that homosexual sex is a sin that we can include? Not as a specific example but as a general example of the type of sins that you think cause these evils. Can we include it or exclude it?

Not to the exclusion of any other sin.

But you keep bringing up problems caused by us (such as global warming) and ignoring what is generally understood to be natural evils such as earthquakes or tsunamis. Or bush fires.

Not sure why you want to exclude AGW (except for the fact that it’s a really good example). Tsunamis, tornadoes, hurricanes, rising sea levels – all good examples of natural evils; and all good examples of how human immoral sinful behavior affects the physical world.

The creatures that threaten man’s health or life today may have preexisted man. The point is that Adam and Eve, in Original Justice, were not subject to the crippling or deadly diseases these creatures now present to fallen man.

I would love to see documentation of this.

I’m sorry: you’re asking me to document what the Church doesn’t teach?

Are you saying animals go to Heaven?

That’s an entirely different answer to an entirely different question. You haven’t asked “do animals have immortal souls?”, which is the question to the answer you suggest, in an indirect way. (The answer, of course, is that animals do not have immortal souls.)

The answer I always give to school-age children, when they ask whether their pets go to heaven, is, “God will create a ‘new heavens and new earth’, and there, we will be perfectly happy with God. If being ‘perfectly happy’ means that there will be puppies and kitties in heaven, then I believe that there will be puppies and kitties in heaven.”

But, for adults who ask, I add, “but that doesn’t mean that animals get to heaven in the way that humans do.”

This would definitely be a positive development in my understanding of Catholicism if you can prove that Catholics believe animals have souls.

Aquinas teaches it. Not “immortal souls”, but “souls”. Remember – a ‘soul’ is the principle of any living being. If they’re alive, they have souls. (Only humans are created “in the image and likeness” of God, though, and so, only humans have immortal souls.)

But if you do believe animals have souls and suffer

If you keep moving the goalposts, you’re never gonna get an answer. We just answered “do animals have souls?”. Why, then, do you change the question to “do animals have souls and suffer?”. Those are two completely different questions!

 

[Gorgias]

I appreciate your thoughts, but to be honest, they are very anti-Catholic in terms of underlying dogma.

They’re not. These ideas come straight from the Catechism. However, I can understand that this is your opinion, if you wish to continue to hold that the Church teaches nonsense or contradiction. It would be difficult for you to hold to your predetermined worldview if you had to accept that your understanding of Church teachings was in error.

His only rational for not being cruel to animals is as you said - it’s a training ground for being cruel to humans (which means it’s not a sin).

No – “which means it’s not a sin” is not the implication.

How do you respond to those that claim God is cruel and sadistic because he allowed animals to suffer, even having 999% of all species go extinct, for hundreds of millions of years before humans appeared on earth?

I respond that this thesis is mistaken.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Don’t you think that homosexual sex is a sin that we can include? Not as a specific example but as a general example of the type of sins that you think cause these evils. Can we include it or exclude it?

Not to the exclusion of any other sin.

But you keep bringing up problems caused by us (such as global warming) and ignoring what is generally understood to be natural evils such as earthquakes or tsunamis. Or bush fires.

Tsunamis – all good examples of natural evils; and all good examples of how human immoral sinful behavior affects the physical world.

At last we have agreement. And I hope you don’t mind…I took out the natural evils that could be considered man-made. We don’t want those sneaking in, do we. And we can add one or two others so it’s more comprehensive. Like earthquakes and naturally ocurring bushfires.

So we can now say without equivocation and without being specific in that not any one sin is responsible for any one natural evil, but that sins (such as those already mentioned) cause natural evils (such as those noted).

I’m not sure why did it took so long to get there. Well, actually I do know. And so do you. Because what you have said gives creedence to any fire and brimstone self proclaimed arbitrer of human morals to claim exactly what you have just done whenever there is a natural disaster.

But oh no, he wouldn’t necessarily be drawing a direct link between one specific sin and the disaster. And if he did, we could always call on you to point out that his nominated sin - homosexuality perhaps, isn’t the only one that’s causing the one specific problem.

Which will give some relief to all the gay people in the disaster area: ‘Phew, I’m obviously part of the problem but at least it wasn’t just me causing this after all’.

 

[lelinator]

Tsunamis, tornadoes, hurricanes, rising sea levels – all good examples of natural evils; and all good examples of how human immoral sinful behavior affects the physical world.

Could you please describe the causal connection between sin and tsunamis?

 

[Gorgias]

I took out the natural evils that could be considered man-made. We don’t want those sneaking in, do we.

The point is that the assertion really is that natural evils entered the world as such, following the first human sin.

But yeah, I get that this was what you were trying to do.

So, I don’t know what you think you accomplished, but I’m not seeing it.

not any one sin is responsible for any one natural evil

No – it’s that we don’t drill down to make a one-to-one correspondence, but that we say that sin caused natural evil to enter the world.

Because what you have said gives creedence to any fire and brimstone self proclaimed arbitrer of human morals to claim exactly what you have just done whenever there is a natural disaster.

Nope, but that’s why I’ve been insistent that we don’t make a claim that this particular sin (e.g., immorality in New Orleans) caused that particular event (e.g., a hurricane). Some non-Catholic Christian preachers have attempted that approach, but from a Catholic perspective, that’s inaccurate.

 

[Gorgias]

Could you please describe the causal connection between sin and tsunamis?

The same question keeps coming up, over and again, no matter how many times it’s already been answered. I’m gonna try a different tack: I’ll quote the US Catholic Catechism for Adults:

If God has created all things to be good and cares providentially for his creation, why does evil exist? There is no quick answer to this challenging question. Christian faith, after centuries of reflecting on the answers revealed in the Bible, provides the only comprehensive answer. This answer includes the drama of sin, the love of God who sent his only Son to be our Redeemer and Savior, and the call of God to sinful humanity to repent and to love him in return.

We may ask why God did not create a world so perfect that no evil could exist in it. God freely willed to create a world that is not immediately at its state of ultimate perfection, but one that must journey toward that perfection through time. “In God’s plan this process of becoming involves the appearance of certain beings and the disappearance of others, the existence of the more perfect alongside the less perfect, both constructive and destructive forces of nature” (CCC, no. 310).

Physical evil can thus exist alongside physical good because creation has not reached its ultimate perfection. On this journey, created realities remain limited and thus subject to decay and death.

As intelligent and free creatures, both angels and human beings must make their way to their ultimate destinies by using their intellect and will to make free choices. They can and must choose between loving God—who has shown his love for them in creation and Revelation—and loving something else. Thus moral evil—the evil of sin—can also exist in this state of journeying (cf. CCC, nos. 309-313). God permits such moral evil in part out of respect for the gift of freedom with which he endowed created beings. But his response to moral evil is an even greater act of love through the sending of his Son who offers his life to bring us back toGod. “Christ has ransomed us with his blood, and paid for us the price of Adam’s sin to our eternal Father. . . . O happy fault, O necessary sin of Adam, which gained for us so great a Redeemer!” (Easter Proclamation [Exsultet] at the Easter Vigil).

–from the U.S. Catholic Catechism for Adults, pp 56-57

 

[AlNg]

The point is that Adam and Eve, in Original Justice, were not subject to the crippling or deadly diseases these creatures now present to fallen man.

What would happen if they were bitten by a rattlesnake or hit by a tornado?

Tsunamis, tornadoes, hurricanes, rising sea levels – all good examples of natural evils; and all good examples of how human immoral sinful behavior affects the physical world.

So is it your contention that there were no tsunamis, tornadoes, hurricanes or rising sea levels before the appearance of homo sapiens?

 

[AlNg]

You realize how ludicrous that assertion you make, actually sounds, right?

No. I thought it was your assertion that was such.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Because what you have said gives creedence to any fire and brimstone self proclaimed arbitrer of human morals to claim exactly what you have just done whenever there is a natural disaster.

Nope, but that’s why I’ve been insistent that we don’t make a claim that this particular sin (e.g., immorality in New Orleans) caused that particular event (e.g., a hurricane). Some non-Catholic Christian preachers have attempted that approach, but from a Catholic perspective, that’s inaccurate.

Sure. You believe that it’s inaccurate to nominate one specific sin to a specific disaster. But your claim is undeniable: Sin causes natural disasters. Period. If there is a natural disaster then sin has been the cause. Period. It took a while to get to the point where we can say exactly what you mean but we have arrived there. Your insistence on the non-specificity of sins and the inclusion of man-made problems are just mud in the water.

I was in Thailand some time back. And we had a room in a hotel on the coast near Penang. The family was enjoying a few drinks on the balcony one evening and the discussion turned to the Boxing Day tsunami. Someone looked for information of the web about the town we were in and came up with a Youtube clip that showed the devastation. Horrifyingly, the clip appeared to have been filmed from the hotel we were in and, if not from the very same room, then one very close to it. So we could hold the iPad in front of us, matching the scene from the balcony, and watch as the waves rolled in. It was truly unnerving.

Hundreds died in that town. Men, women and children. Whole families drowned. A true tragedy. And you want to tell us they died because of gay sex and adultery and contraception and blasphemy and heaven knows what other sins you’d like to list. Oh, none of them were specifically responsible. But innocent people were killed because the Christian concept of morality had not been upheld. That almost none of them were Christians adds a certain irony to it.

 

[AlNg]

It is flat-out amazing how you go to extremes to dodge simple questions.

Unfortunately, this is an annoying technique used by debaters.

 

[Gorgias]

What would happen if they were bitten by a rattlesnake or hit by a tornado?

Prior to the first sin? They had preternatural gifts, including immortality (which they lost, due to sin). So, no harm.

So is it your contention that there were no tsunamis, tornadoes, hurricanes or rising sea levels before the appearance of homo sapiens?

In all charity, it’s getting pretty tiring explaining the same point over and again in the couple of threads discussing these matters simultaneously here. So, I’d recommend that you read the text of the catechism that I’ve posted, as well as the article on “Evil” in the old Catholic Encyclopedia, if you want additional background.

No. I thought it was your assertion that was such.

Fair enough. We both think the other to be foolish. Maybe that’s the closest we’ll come to “consensus”…

But your claim is undeniable: Sin causes natural disasters. Period.

Sin caused natural evil. Period.

And you want to tell us they died because of gay sex and adultery and contraception and blasphemy and heaven knows what other sins you’d like to list.

Nope. But thanks for continuing to mischaracterize my assertions. If you can’t get past that particular lampooning of the assertion, then I think we’re done here.

Catholic apologists almost universally on this is that NO- they do not. This is how apologists resolve the problem of animal suffering.

You realize you still haven’t demonstrated this assertion… right?

But it also implies that animals have no moral worth and their suffering is irrelevant.

It does no such thing. That’s your own assertion. And, of course, I reject that assertion. You can keep making it on your own behalf, but not reasonably asserting it on behalf of the Church and her teachings.

Are you saying the only reason you shouldn’t kill a puppy is because if you do, one day you could kill a person, would you take me at all seriously?

Nope. DIdn’t say that. Only you keep trying to make that non sequitur stick. It’s immoral to be a poor steward of creation. Period, full stop. (It’s also a step on the path to abusing humans. But that’s not the only reason.)

If everyday Catholics actually knew the underpinnings of their morality regarding animals, no one would believe it.

Meh. Says you. The Church doesn’t make the claims you say she does.

 

[Gorgias]

When my child asks if HIS dog Slurpey dies, will it go to heaven or not, why can’t you give a straight answer.

I did: not on its own merits. But perhaps through God’s creation of a new heavens and new earth. Are you really not reading my replies? It sure seems that way.

If you ever attended Catholic school (as I did)

I feel badly for you. With all due respect, you were either taught very poorly, or you learned your lessons quite poorly.

Unfortunately, this is an annoying technique used by debaters.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

And you want to tell us they died because of gay sex and adultery and contraception and blasphemy and heaven knows what other sins you’d like to list.

Nope.

So if I say that sin causes natural evils you’re in agreement. Naturally so, because that’s the point you want to make. But if I name some examples of sin…then all bets are off it seems.

Is there some variation of cognitive dissonance at work here? I guess we could try another tack…

OK, Gorgias. It seems that you believe that sin causes natural disasters. We know what comprises examples of natural disasters. But to make sure we understand, could you give us some examples of the type of behaviour you class as sin so that we’re all on the same page in that regard?

 

[Gorgias]

But if I name some examples of sin…then all bets are off it seems.

Right. Because we’re making a case about natural evil in general, and not about particular events as such.

Is there some variation of cognitive dissonance at work here?

No. I’m just unwilling to fall for the trap that’s attempting to be set.

But to make sure we understand, could you give us some examples of the type of behaviour you class as sin so that we’re all on the same page in that regard?

Nope, because I’m making an assertion about classes, not one about members of classes.

After all, it’s as if I said “cars cause automobile accidents”, and then you attempted to pin me down to make the ludicrous assertion that particular cars cause particular types of accidents. I’m not, so I’m not going to make the kind of assertion you’re trying to get me to make.

 

[Freddy]

After all, it’s as if I said “cars cause automobile accidents”, and then you attempted to pin me down to make the ludicrous assertion that particular cars cause particular types of accidents. I’m not, so I’m not going to make the kind of assertion you’re trying to get me to make.

OK. I’ll have to assume that when you say ‘sin’, your understanding of sin corresponds with the catholic church’s understanding of sin. That is, whatever the Catholic church considers to be sinful is, in your opinion, responsible for natural evil. But shhh…we’re not allowed to mention any of them because…well, who knows. But excuse me if I link to a list. It’s pretty long, but have a quick look and see if there’s any you’d like to take out: https://stmaryofthesevendolors.com/?page_id=3650.

Otherwise they are all included. And we now have a list of sins that cause natural evil. All members of that class that you mentioned. Took some time (and we’re not actually mentioning any by name) but I think we’re nearly where we need to be. Apart from causal links but I think AINg was asking you about that.

 

[Gorgias]

But shhh…we’re not allowed to mention any of them because…well, who knows.

Because then you’d simply turn around and say “what? this instance of sin caused that instance of natural evil? Are you serious?” or even “does this sin cause a thunderstorm while that sin causes a typhoon?”

No thanks. Not gonna subject myself to that.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

But shhh…we’re not allowed to mention any of them because…well, who knows.

Because then you’d simply turn around and say “what? this instance of sin caused that instance of natural evil? Are you serious?” or even “does this sin cause a thunderstorm while that sin causes a typhoon?”

No thanks. Not gonna subject myself to that.

No they are all to blame. I mean a sin is a sin, isn’t it? So whether we blaspheme or have gay sex it doesn’t matter. All sins are equal.

Edit: Actually I think I’m wrong there, aren’t I?

 

[o_mlly]

What would happen if they were bitten by a rattlesnake or hit by a tornado?

As already posted, their natural immunity would negate the effects of the snake’s venom and in the “garden” there are no tornadoes.

 

[Gorgias]

All sins are equal.

Edit: Actually I think I’m wrong there, aren’t I?

Yeah. Different sins are objectively of different gravity. Moreover, there are subjective considerations in play, as well, based on whether the person knew that the sin was grave, and whether they committed it fully willingly.

Nevertheless, I still say that this is immaterial in this context: it’s “sin”, considered generally, not any particular sin, that’s in play.