Do animals have consciousness?

[Freddy]

jan10000:

Similar but quite different. If you are a Creationist,

It was asked how the “problem of animal suffering” differs from the “problem of evil”.
As mentioned above, if you believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis (that the earth is 6000 years old and humans and animals appeared at the same time) then the problem of animal suffering is irrelevant because you do not accept the core assumption.

The problem of evil, however, applies regardless.

Hands up everyone who finds it odd that half way through a philosophical discussion, the question: ‘By the way, do you think the world is only 6,000 years old?’ isn’t out of place.

 

[Gorgias]

What you are suggesting is that Man is the only animal that has free will when it is patently obvious that it doesn’t at the early stages of a person’s development and equally obvious that it didn’t in the early stages of our specie’s evolution. So what other conclusion could we come to other than free will develops along a continuum and isn’t simply turned on like a light switch.

Ahh, but you seem to want to suggest that, since a human’s free will comes to be, that free will is something that other species are capable of attaining. The problem is, your assertion is without any evidence. No other species develop it; and so, your assertion fails.

The fact that a baby turns into a human with free will doesn’t prove that a puppy will do so.

But hey… nice try.

Well, let’s run forward a few million years and see if dogs develop free will to the extent that would keep you happy.

Look at what you’re attempting to assert: “dogs will develop human nature”. Yeah. Again… nice try.

I mean that we obviously didn’t have free will in our deep evolutionary past but we do now.

We didn’t have immortal souls “in the image and likeness of God”, but now we do. Are you really suggesting that God will give dogs souls in imago Dei ? If so… based on what evidence or logic?

It was asked how the “problem of animal suffering” differs from the “problem of evil”.
As mentioned above, if you believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis (that the earth is 6000 years old and humans and animals appeared at the same time) then the problem of animal suffering is irrelevant because you do not accept the core assumption.

And if we don’t? You haven’t accounted for that answer, nor have you provided any substantiation for your other claims.

Hands up everyone who finds it odd that half way through a philosophical discussion, the question: ‘By the way, do you think the world is only 6,000 years old?’ isn’t out of place.

Jan hasn’t provided any other substantiation for his/her wild claims. At this point, the trollish insult “you’re a YEC” is all that s/he has left in his/her quiver, it seems.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

What you are suggesting is that Man is the only animal that has free will when it is patently obvious that it doesn’t at the early stages of a person’s development and equally obvious that it didn’t in the early stages of our specie’s evolution. So what other conclusion could we come to other than free will develops along a continuum and isn’t simply turned on like a light switch.

Ahh, but you seem to want to suggest that, since a human’s free will comes to be, that free will is something that other species are capable of attaining.

No, not at all. I am suggesting that some aleady have it. Not to the same extent as humans. But have it they do as described.

 

[Gorgias]

No, not at all. I am suggesting that some aleady have it.

Outstanding. And the proof would be…?

Mind you – “behavior” isn’t the same as “exhibition of free will”. You’ll have to show the latter and not only the former. So… please demonstrate your assertion from the latter, and not just the former!

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

No, not at all. I am suggesting that some aleady have it.

Outstanding. And the proof would be…?

Mind you – “behavior” isn’t the same as “exhibition of free will”. You’ll have to show the latter and not only the former. So… please demonstrate your assertion from the latter, and not just the former!

You want me to repeat everything I’ve posted so far? I think I’ve said all I need to say and given all the evidence that’s required. Some people accept it. Some people don’t. That’s the way the world turns I guess.

 

[o_mlly]

Do you then have a resolution for the theological problem of animal suffering?

We won’t make progress if you continue to ask leading questions. What problem do you see?

Why is animal sacrifice not a “misuse of creature”?

Catholics do not and never have sacrificed animals.

Why is not “misuse of rock” also a sin? Why is “misuse of tree” or “misuse of book” not a sin?

The misuse of a creature is evil. Define for us what you think is the proper use of the creatures you list. Then give an example of a misuse and you’ve answered your questions.

You refuse to provide conscious status to animals …

? Read my posts. Animals are conscious beings.

Catholic apologists, theologians, and others, deny that animals feel pain and suffer?

The issue is not what individual Catholic may or may not think about animals but rather what does the church teach about the use of animals. After reading the teaching, let us know what, if anything, disgusts you.

[2415] The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity.195 Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man’s dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.196

[2416] Animals* are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.197 Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.

[2417] God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image.198 Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

[2418] It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

 

[Gorgias]

I think I’ve said all I need to say and given all the evidence that’s required.

You’ve demonstrated “behavior”, not “rationality.” So, yeah: if you want to assert “rationality”, then you have to demonstrate it. My response to you, all along, has been “extrapolation from animal behavior to animal rationality, merely by appealing to human rationality, is invalid”, and you’ve had no response at all. So, again, yeah… it’s hard to accept a thesis without substantiation.

 

[Gripper]

No. Some cats will eat Nine Lives chicken but not Whiskas chicken. They will freely choose to eat one and they will freely choose not to eat the other.

Is that the cat or the owner?

My mum’s cat has what can only be described as a buffet to choose from. Our cat is more like a dog and will eat anything.

 

[Gorgias]

The problem of animal suffering is a well-know philosophical issue that Catholic theologians must respond to. I didn’t make it up, it’s been around for decades.

Then please show us what you’ve asserted over and again:

It is common in Catholic apologetics that animals do not feel pain.

Let’s see it. Let’s see it in magisterial teaching, or in the discussions by Catholic theologians. You’ve been asserting it without showing that your assertion is true. Please?

(In the meantime, many posters here have demonstrated the falsity of your claim. In particular, @o_mlly has quoted the Catechism to you, showing that humans are called to responsible stewardship of the things of creation (including animals) and that needless animal suffering is contrary to human dignity.)

There are two well-known responses:

1. YEC - animals appeared on earth the same time as humans so there is no problem
2. Animals do not feel pain or suffer

You are literally making this up wholecloth. In the absence of any proof that Catholic sources are saying what you assert they’re saying, that can be my only conclusion: literally, you’re astroturfing.

Why did it seem to touch such a nerve when I am simply restating a well-known philosophical issue and common responses?

Because you’re not attributing any of your assertions in any meaningful way.

(And BTW, why do you keep saying I’m a YEC proponent? That’s just ludicrous.)

 

[EndTimes]

It was asked how the “problem of animal suffering” differs from the “problem of evil”.

That doesn’t equate to a not being allowed to comment on terms tossed

• such as the baloney ineffectual - 'creationist"

 

[Gorgias]

The problem of animal suffering specifically applies to the 2 billion years in the PAST where animals suffered despite there being no human beings present.

What does that demonstrate, though? You seem to be making an implicit claim that you’re unwilling to explicitly assert, and you certainly aren’t demonstrating that it’s a problem (although you are demonstrating that you personally want to claim it as such, which is something different altogether).

The problem of evil exists TODAY.

Says you (and other non-believers). As I’ve mentioned, there are many responses to this so-called “problem”, all of which are pooh-pooh’ed by those who want to assert it as either intractable or as proof that God isn’t all-good.

Why is that at all offensive?

I dunno. Why do you keep wielding the accusation of “YEC” as a weapon?

 

[AlNg]

As I’ve mentioned, there are many responses to this so-called “problem”,

The responses are not convincing to parents who have a child suffering from an incurable disease or to families of those gravely ill from a deadly insect bite.

 

[Gorgias]

The responses are not convincing to parents who have a child suffering from an incurable disease or to families of those gravely ill from a deadly insect bite.

The proofs of the moon landing aren’t convincing to some folks, either. The question isn’t whether an argument is helpful or convincing, though: it’s whether it’s true.

The question of whether the answer is helpful is a pastoral matter. (I’d never lead with the “question of evil” with a family who is grieving for a loved one. That’s simply not an appropriate approach.)

Nevertheless, “comfort” (or the lack thereof) doesn’t disprove the truth of an assertion.

 

[AlNg]

The proofs of the moon landing aren’t convincing to some folks, either.

It is really silly to bring up the moon landing in a discussion as to whether or not the existence of evil disproves the existence of an all Good and all Powerful God. If God is all Good and all Powerful, why does He allow evil. There is no contradiction for God to allow a man landing on the moon. Whether a man lands on the moon or not, it really does not have much to do with whether or not an all knowing and all Powerful God exists.
Why would an all Powerful and all Loving God allow a child to be bitten by a poisonous insect and be tormented by the horrible pain and suffering which he then has to endure?

 

[Gorgias]

It is really silly to bring up the moon landing in a discussion as to whether or not the existence of evil disproves the existence of an all Good and all Powerful God

No – what’s “silly” is to conflate “truth” with whether that truth offers comfort to the suffering.

If God is all Good and all Powerful, why does He allow evil.

Really? We have to go there again? OK… for the sake of @jan10000, who might not have engaged this answer yet, here we go:

• God created man and gave us free will as a gift that allows us to freely choose Him.
• One potential side effect of free will is that we won’t choose Him.
• Suffering is the result of this choice to reject God.

Good enough so far, right? Yet, is this “suffering” unchecked and supreme? No.

• Scripture tells us that “We know that all things work for good for those who love God”

So, God allows suffering, but He brings all things – good and bad – to bear “for good”. It doesn’t thwart God’s plans, nor does it condemn us. The good that God has in mind for us isn’t outstripped by the suffering found in this world.

Do we know what His plans are? No. We’re not omniscient; He is. To say “I don’t see how this could be” is merely either an admission that you don’t have the same perspective God has – or, the ultimate in hubris, suggesting that you do, and you think God is the one who has it wrong.

 

[AlNg]

God created man and gave us free will as a gift that allows us to freely choose Him

Suffering is the result of this choice to reject God

So you freely choose to reject God and as a result poisonous insects appear on earth? i doubt that you can prove that scientifically. According to science, poisonous insects appeared through an evolutionary process not because someone has rejected God. Do you think that God in heaven has seen someone on earth rejecting him and that is why there are poisonous mosquitos?

 

[Gorgias]

So you freely choose to reject God and as a result poisonous insects appear on earth?

Yep. Ever notice that poisonous bugs seem to follow you everywhere?

Although it’s fun to lampoon the idea, that’s not what’s being suggested. The theological construct is expressed in Scripture and is picked up by Christian theologians: the entire world is affected by sin. With the entry of sin into the world, this deformation of God’s creation causes natural evils.

i doubt that you can prove that scientifically.

Science would reject the premise (the rejection of God), let alone the argument. After all, it’s not a scientific argument, but a theological one. But… you already knew that, didn’t you?

According to science, poisonous insects appeared through an evolutionary process not because someone has rejected God.

According to Christian theology, natural evil came into the world through sin. “Poisonous insects” are an example of the evolution and progression of natural evil in the world. In a sense, science confirms the “progression” thing!

Do you think that God in heaven has seen someone on earth rejecting him and that is why there are poisonous mosquitos?

Now you’re going somewhere completely different: natural evil isn’t a punishment, it’s a natural consequence of sin.

 

[AlNg]

Ever notice that poisonous bugs seem to follow you everywhere?

No. Not at all. The vast majority of mosquitos will not kill you, but there is a species of mosquito called the Culiseta melanura which carries the deadly eastern equine encephalitis.

Yep

So your contention is that someone committed a sin of some sort, say looking at a beautiful woman with lust, and then after creating the numerous other mosquitos, God created the deadly Culiseta melanura mosquito because some young man willfully rejected His commands? And that the children who have died by being bitten from this and perhaps other insects such as the poisonous black widow spider had to suffer because a young male looked at a woman with lust?

“Poisonous insects” are an example of the evolution and progression of natural evil in the world.

i doubt that God works this way and suggest you consider the possibility that the painful and often times deadly illnesses which some children contract may be due to some natural cause explained by appeal to the biological evolutionary process. The evil caused by poisonous insects has nothing to do with a young man looking at a woman in a bikini bathing suit.

 

[Gorgias]

So your contention is that someone committed a sin of some sort, say looking at a beautiful woman with lust, and then after creating the numerous other mosquitos, God created the deadly Culiseta melanura mosquito because some young man willfully rejected His commands?

No, of course not! Did you not read my posts… or are you simply enjoying making fun of the idea too much to notice?

Natural evil entered into the world when humans sinned. Period. There’s not a one-to-one correspondence of each sin and each example of natural evil.

i doubt that God works this way

Fair enough. Your “doubt” doesn’t count as a proof, though.

The evil caused by poisonous insects has nothing to do with a young man looking at a woman in a bikini bathing suit.

Wow… you’re really hung up on this “evil == lust” thing. Is there anything you want to get off your chest?

 

[AlNg]

Did you not read my posts…

Here’s what you say:

Suffering is the result of this choice to reject God.

So thousands of years ago, someone rejected God and today a child who has nothing to do with that must suffer the deadly poisonous bite of an insect?