Do animals have consciousness?

[Gorgias]

Could you please provide at least one response (perhaps the one you think best) regarding the problem of evil?

Umm… I provided both that you mentioned here, upthread! (See post 130.)

We can talk about why you feel these to be unsatisfactory answers – and, in fact, your claim that ‘free will’ contradicts Christian theology is a fascinating one! – if you’d like…

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?

If you’re going to pretend you’ve never heard Catholic theological teachings, then it’s gonna be time to tag you of sealioning…

It’s not that we “have nothing to do with that”. Catholic teaching on original sin assert that we all sin, and that what we inherit is the fallen human nature. We have a share in sin, and although we don’t bear personal culpability for the sins of others, we do inherit the world our predecessors give us.

We could just as accurately rephrase your objection this way: “so, tens of years ago, humans failed to steward creation and honor God and each other… and today a child who has nothing to do with that must suffer the effects of global warming, terrorism, and all sorts of human ailments?”

See how that doesn’t reflect on God, but on humanity? And yet… you want to blame God for it?

I literally have no idea why you got upset about this. It is definitional. If you are a YEC

I reacted because I gave no indication of believing in YEC, and yet, that seemed to be your go-to reaction.

The problem with invoking free will in answering the problem of evil is that God intervenes constantly in human affairs.

I’m not seeing how that assertion follows. We choose; we act; we are subject to the consequences. How does that force God to “intervene constantly”?

Consider that He even miraculously created more wine because a party he was at was running out.

This is literally a one-time event. Are you seriously going to tag all free-will decisions on this single miracle? I’m not seeing how that’s reasonable.

 

[Gorgias]

God has relieved the suffering of many in the course of history

Has He, though? This feels like the standard non-Christian response to the question of prayer. (Hint: it ain’t a slot machine, and it isn’t about “getting the result that I asked for”.)

Let’s suppose, though, for the sake of argument, that you’re correct: God relieves earthly suffering. How does that invalidate free will? The two aren’t related! (In my experience, this is usually a result of conflicting definitions of what “free will” means. Usually, it comes from a mistaken idea that free will means “unfettered action”… which, clearly, it does not mean.)

Further, this defense does not address natural evil (natural disasters), the suffering of the innocent, and the suffering of animals.

It actually does, from a Scriptural and theological perspective:

• free will decisions may lead to sinful actions
• sinful actions have negative consequences
• natural evil is posited as a consequence of sin upon the world

It also fails to address the imbalance of suffering

Sure it does, albeit in an indirect way! Human sin leads to not only human suffering, but unequal (i.e., unjust) suffering. No one suggests that I experience the effects of global warming in proportion to my own personal culpability for personal sin. Is that fair? Nope. Is it representative of the lack of justice that’s characteristic of sin and its consequences? Yep.

It also does not explain why God does not limit suffer - for example, we need to suffer, but why so much?

Turn that on its head: do we suffer more than we experience eternal bliss, if we live a life in accordance with God’s will? Yep!

There are many more objections.

Bring 'em!

This of course simply passes the buck.

Which is not unreasonable. If I’m not privy to the plans and deliberations of those in my chain of command, then that doesn’t say anything about injustice or lack of fairness: it simply says that I am who I am, and those further up the chain of command are who they are. That God has perspective greater than ours isn’t “passing the buck” – it’s acknowledging that God is God and we’re not.

What hubris must we have to even question.

Nah… “question”, if you wish, but don’t expect that your perspective exceeds God. The ‘hubris’ isn’t in the questioning, but in the assertion that we’re God’s equals.

If we are not allowed to challenge the faith, it is meaningless.

Straw man argument. Please – challenge assertions of general relativity, of quantum physics, of the “P=NP?” problem! But, to assert that there’s an inherent injustice in the fact that specialists know more than the general public – merely on the basis that there is a difference – isn’t “hubris”, it’s “illogic”!

 

[AlNg]

it’s gonna be time to tag you of sealioning…

Sea lions have nothing to do with the question. The question concerns your statement implying that the suffering of a child is the result of someone else’s choice to reject God. This is the question of how to reconcile evil with the existence of an all merciful and all good God. Most mosquitos do not cause much harm. However, there are one or two species that can carry a deadly virus which can seriously harm and even kill a child. Parents of children harmed by this are oftentimes heard asking why God would allow this particular species to exist and to harm their child.

 

[Gorgias]

The question concerns your statement implying that the suffering of a child is the result of someone else’s choice to reject God.

The suffering of all humans proceeds from human sin. You’re stacking the deck.

This is the question of how to reconcile evil with the existence of an all merciful and all good God.

He allows it because, if He didn’t, He would be taking away the gift of free will, which is what enables a free choice to accept Him.

However, there are one or two species that can carry a deadly virus which can seriously harm and even kill a child.

Are there any which damn a child to everlasting hell? That’s the real question.

Parents of children harmed by this are oftentimes heard asking why God would allow this particular species to exist and to harm their child.

Agreed. And a philosophical discussion is not helpful to comfort those who grieve. One day? Maybe. But at the point of grieving? One hopes that you can see that that’s not a good approach.

 

[HarryStotle]

Express a preference? Sure: left or right? Eat or sleep? Walk or lay down?

Nevertheless, that doesn’t imply rational, conscious choice.

…
How can you say that he thought it out and made a rational decision? Without any evidence? And only looking at the ‘choice’ and presuming a rational process?

I suppose by the loose definition of “express a preference” being proposed to you, even plants would do so since their leaves grow towards the light and they root downward into the soil.

By that use of “decides,” it becomes a rather nebulous activity that pretty much every animate thing can exhibit.

That hardly clarifies anything, so you are correct in trying to make relevant distinctions, but it appears that expecting your interlocutors to follow you into that level of ratiocination might be expecting more than some can deliver.

Part of the problem with the question in the OP is that the dictionary definition of consciousness includes a number of possibilities.

con·scious | \ ˈkän(t)-shəs \

Definition of conscious​

(Entry 1 of 2)

1 : having mental faculties not dulled by sleep, faintness, or stupor : AWAKE became conscious after the anesthesia wore off

2 : perceiving, apprehending, or noticing with a degree of controlled thought or observation conscious of having succeeded was conscious that someone was watching

3 : personally felt conscious guilt

4 a : likely to notice, consider, or appraise a bargain- conscious shopper

b : being concerned or interested a budget- conscious businessman

c : marked by strong feelings or notions - a race- conscious society

5 : done or acting with critical awareness a conscious effort to do better

6 : capable of or marked by thought, will, design, or perception

7 : SELF-CONSCIOUS

8 archaic : sharing another’s knowledge or awareness of an inward state or outward fact

I suppose definition 6 sums up the problem since that meaning of conscious implies everything from mere action by design, to sentient response, to thought and deliberation.

The OPer, @Larquetta in Post #3 attempted to narrow the definition to perceptual “awareness,” but then clouded the reply by adding “ability to think.” And in Post #8 reiterated the ambiguity of the question by including 1) physical perception, 2) ability to deliberate on decisions and 3) experience of emotions.

You have attempted to get some clarification on the question, but it appears that a number of posters are unable to distinguish between those capacities, as if they amount to pretty much the same thing. Which they don’t.

That essentially summarizes the state of things, no?

 

[Gorgias]

I suppose by the loose definition of “express a preference” being proposed to you, even plants would do so since their leaves grow towards the light and they root downward into the soil.

In a sense. If all we’re talking about is “response to external stimuli”, then yes. (Then again, in biology, that’s merely the definition of “life”, and not of “rationality.”) However, I recognize that the way in which higher animal forms ‘respond to external stimuli’ is different than the way that sunflowers or earthworms do. Nevertheless, the fact that there’s a response – even a response that mimics some of the external appearances of human, rational behavior! – doesn’t imply “rationality”. I think that we’d need a stronger set of evidence in order to reach that conclusion. As I think through this question – in the context of the current threads here that are discussing the issue – my intuition is that we need to adopt a standard that requires the presence of the entirety of a set of physical capabilities and observed behaviors, before we can conclude “rationality”.

You’re correct, of course, that “decision” is a lower bar than “rationally decides”. If we’re willing to suggest that “expression of ‘rational preference’ by virtue of evidence of ‘choice’” is the definition of ‘rationality’, then we have to conclude that sunflowers are rational when they turn toward the sun. That strikes me as illogical.

HarryStotle:

it appears that expecting your interlocutors to follow you into that level of ratiocination might be expecting more than some can deliver.

Fair enough. If some folks deny that ratiocination is evidence of rationality, then they can make the case that it is not. (More to the point, they’d have to make the case that rationality doesn’t include ratiocination.) The question of human infants or embryos is an interesting approach… but I suspect that my response would be “human life is sacred, and embryos are human life with the expected potential for rational behavior, and not merely potential human life with the outside possibility of future rational behavior.”

With respect to your discussion of “consciousness”, I would point out two things:

• using a general-purpose dictionary as authoritative in discussions of specialized fields with distinct jargon is always a bad approach, IMNSHO.
• the definitions that I think you’re pointing to as damning are rather far down the list – that is, they’re less common, alternative definitions. “Definition 6” is a rather poor claim, I’d assert, that we must concede rationality to animals
• even the ones higher in the list: ‘mental faculties not dulled’, ‘perception’, ‘noticing’, ‘awareness’… these don’t prove or provide evidence of ‘rationality’, as such.

HarryStotle:

You have attempted to get some clarification on the question, but it appears that a number of posters are unable to distinguish between those capacities, as if they amount to pretty much the same thing. Which they don’t.

That essentially summarizes the state of things, no?

Yep. That’s the way I see it.

 

[HarryStotle]

With respect to your discussion of “consciousness”, I would point out two things:

• using a general-purpose dictionary as authoritative in discussions of specialized fields with distinct jargon is always a bad approach, IMNSHO.

I agree. Dictionary definitions are very misleading in terms of philosophical discussion which can only begin when a technical or specified definition is agreed upon.

Given that this thread is in the Philosophy Category, it shouldn’t be an extreme request to do as you suggest – agree upon a sound technical definition of what is being discussed as a philosophical question.

 

[Gorgias]

Well, it’s pretty obvious. The free will defense to resolve the problem of evil only is valid if God never intervenes in human affairs.

Nope. That’s what I thought you were thinking.

“Free will” doesn’t mean “free action”. If it did, I could trivially disprove the notion of ‘free will’ by ‘willing’ to jump off a cliff and fly, but then plummet to my death. (On second thought, I’ll let someone else provide that demonstration.)

“Free will”, then, speaks to the will and not to the instantiation of the will through action.

Therefore, whether or not God acts unilaterally – or, for that matter, if you act, in a way contrary to someone’s will – that person’s “free will” has not been thwarted. So… your assertion fails to hold up to logical scrutiny.

If you actually read the formal proposal by Plantinga, he admits this.

Plantinga holds to a libertarian view of free will: namely, he entangles “action” with “will.” Not all take that step, and neither do I. Your will is free even when you will the uninstantiable.

Think of it this way: does the kidnapper take away his hostages’ will, or does he merely take away their ability to act freely ? I would assert that it’s the latter, and not the former.

 

[Gorgias]

You can’t be serious. How many suffering people did Jesus heal?

Different situation. Then again, I’m thinking you’re talking about “prayer”, not “direct miracle”. Do you think that the distinction between the two is relevant in the current context?

Because the free will theory says evil exists because God wants us to have free will. yet if God intervenes and invalidates our choices whenever he wants (in fact, quite often), such a theory is obviously invalid.

I don’t know why you’re bringing this up twice, in the context of replies to two distinct posts of mine. Nevertheless, I’ve just replied to your first assertion of this claim. I’ll defer until I see what your reaction to my reply is.

So are you saying tsunamis, hurricanes, and tornadoes are the result of human sinning?

Not individually, no. But, as a general effect proceeding from a general cause, yes. @AlNg is having no end of a good time lampooning his mischaracterization of the case I’m making. I’m hoping that you don’t sink to that level as well.

No human being died or suffered due to a natural disaster until a human being sinned?

Correct. It follows from the Scriptural evidence and Church teaching:

• the first true human being was the first one to have an immortal soul + human body
• our first true human parents had preternatural gifts, including immortality
• human death entered into the world as a result of human sin
• therefore, there was no human death prior to human sin

So if I get struck by lightning, it’s because some human being sinned a millennia ago? That is what you are saying, no?

Nope. If you get struck by lightning, it’s because you should have gone indoors when the thunderstorm was approaching.

Seriously, though, what I’m saying is that natural evil entered into the world as a deformation of God’s “good creation” when humans first sinned. (We continue this deformation through our own sins, including our sin of not properly stewarding the resources God gave us.) So, let’s move this in a direction that’s less snarky, and more likely to be helpful: man takes actions that lead to global warming; global warming causes changes to the climate, including an increase in catastrophic hurricanes and tsunamis; humans die in these weather events. Are you saying, then, that the suggestion that humans suffer due to the physical side-effects of sin? Really?

 

[Gorgias]

But you just admitted that God is not “all-good”.

No. All I asserted is that God allows us to experience the consequences of our actions. This does not mean “God is not ‘all-good’”, unless your definition of “all-good” is “He treats us like spoiled children, who have no culpability or consequence to their bad actions.”

Are you admitting God is “unfair”?

Again, no. I’m saying that the consequence of sin is injustice. God is fair by allowing us to experience the consequences of our sins. Those effects aren’t uniformly distributed, but that doesn’t mean that God bears the responsibility for that distribution. We do.

I mean, are you just flat out acknowledging this?

Nope. I’m refuting it at every point. I look forward to seeing your response to my replies.

The point is that even if evil is necessary, why does God allow it to be so limitless?

Poor foundation. Evil isn’t limitless.

with all due respect, you haven;t even come close to answering even one yet.

Says you. All I’ve seen so far is a mischaracterization of the case being made. However, it’s possible that you honestly misunderstand the argument being made. If that’s the case, then your response will lead to continued discussion. If not, then I expect you and Al will continue to giggle in the corner at your jokes. (I think that’s not the case, though.)

 

[HarryStotle]

Could you please provide at least one response (perhaps the one you think best) regarding the problem of evil? There is no response I have yet heard that even comes close to being applicable - much less acceptable.

To leave aside for the moment the two “serious” responses you assert are the only two being taken seriously today, we might ask if you understand the difference between the 1) logical and 2) evidential arguments regarding the problem of evil?

The logical problem can be stated as…

1. There exists an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good God.
2. Evil exists
   Clearly, 2) is true. Therefore 1) is false because if God is omnipotent he has the power to stop evil, and if omniscient he is fully aware of evil, and if omnibenevolent he would want to stop it.

The standard free will defence against the logical problem is that moral agents (humans) are not helpless automata, but free agents capable of actual free choices and the ability to act upon them. As a result of having free will, we sometimes choose to do bad things. And so a great deal of suffering may result from our having free will. Since, most would acknowledge, it is better that we have free will than not, free will is a great good that outweighs the evil that sometimes results.

It is universally acknowledged that the free will defence has refuted the logical problem, so any philosophers who maintain that evil still poses a problem for the existence of God, have moved to the “evidential” version…

Even if we acknowledge that an all-powerful, all-knowing God might have created a world with at least some evil in it (perhaps for the sake of some greater good or as the result of moral free will), surely he would not have created a world with this much suffering in it?

The more thoughtful proposers of the evidential version distinguish between necessary evil and gratuitous evil. They admit the free will defence does allow some evil as being necessary to enable the exercise of free will in moral agents, but insist that gratuitous or unnecessary evil isn’t required for the exercise of free will.

Plantinga’s argument is against the idea of gratuitous evil in that he proposes we as limited moral agents constrained by limited knowledge in space and time cannot know whether any evil can be gratuitous in the sense of the impacts of such evil down through all time. Something apparently innocuous or gratuitous that happens now may result in some very significant impact a hundred or thousand years from now or even impact someone in the near future not immediately perceived to be affected by the action. We cannot know, but God would.

As such your two “responses” appear to be irrelevant and largely muddle the issues rather than demonstrate any real understanding of the problem.

You seem unaware of more recent discussion that continues to happen in philosophy today, such as…

There are no simple answers, although you seem quite willing to accept those which aren’t even clear, let alone simple.

 

[Gorgias]

I agree it is not unreasonable - it is basically admitting defeat and leaving the answer up to faith.

Certainly it is not! It’s merely making a proper claim: “this is above my pay grade”. Does one “admit defeat” when he refers a question to the proper authority? Of course not!

I is not a rational position, but it is reasonable - because that’s all that is left.

It’s rational if it rationally evaluates the question and proper sources of the answer. And yes… that’s exactly the case here.

There is NO answer to the problem of evil.

Nah. There’s just no answer that you like. Subtle, but critical, difference.

Gorgias - I don’t think you understand what the problem of evil is claiming. It doesn’t really matter WHY evil exists - the problem is that God ALLOWS it to exist. If God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-Good - evil cannot exist.

I think I do understand the “problem” as it’s stated. So… let me ask you: why does the presence of evil require that God not be what we say He is? Why does that definition require that He take certain courses of action, and not refuse to take others? That’s the illogic of the “problem of evil” claims, IMHO. So… let’s see if you can substantiate the claim, with something other than “but… but… but…!”

You also confuse ‘evil’ with ‘justice’. When you say evil is the result of human sin, you seem to imply that the consequences are just in terms of God allowing them

Nope. The consequences are merely physical consequences. You seem to be confusing “justice” with “karma” – that bad consequences are punishment in and of themselves. That’s not the claim that’s being made here.

 

[Gorgias]

I assume then you are a Creationist?

Where’s that “banging my head against a wall” emoji when I need it?

Let me be clear, since you seem to be enamored of answering that question, as if it’s damning or even relevant: no, I’m not a creationist in the strict fundamentalist sense of that tag.

Hint: one can be a believer in Catholic theology without being a creationist. Do you mean something non-standard by that question, though? I mean, do you take it to mean merely a belief that God created the universe? If that’s the case, then all theists are creationists. Is that what you’re asserting – that a belief in God is a belief in the assertion that God created the universe? And, if so, let me ask the question in the converse: do you believe that there is no entity who created the universe – that the universe, in and of itself, is uncreated and eternal in itself?

If you maintain that Genesis IS literally true

For the millionth time: no. The Catholic Church does not teach doctrinally that the entirety of Genesis is literalistically true.

If you maintain that Genesis IS literally true, then yes you can claim that there were no natural disasters prior to Adam sinning.

You’re mistaken: one does not have to assert a literalistic interpretation of Genesis in order to assert what the Church teaches – namely, that (following Scripture) there were no natural disasters prior to the fall of man. Why are you under this misperception?

However, I can’t take seriously the claim that no one died or suffered from any natural cause until another human being ‘sinned’ within the context of generally accepted evolutionary history.

That, I would gently suggest, is because you’re misunderstanding or mischaracterizing the claim. The claim is merely that no truly human person died until after the first sin of the first human person. In addition, there was no natural sin until after the first sin of the first human person.

If you’re having a hard time with the implications of these assertions, let me be even more explicit: “carnivores killing other animals” is not an example of “natural evil”. Rather, it’s an example of animals acting according to their nature.

 

[Gorgias]

So to resolve this - WHEN and WHERE did humans first sin? If this was not Adam and Eve

Umm… that’s precisely the definition: the first human sin is precisely the first sin of the first true human persons. “When”? “Where”? Immaterial – since we’re not talking biology, but theology. It’s simply the first sin of the first true humans. Does that present a problem?

what mechanisms were in place that prevented any natural evils from occurring? Is this your personal theory? It certainly does not match any Christian position short of literal Genesis.

Umm… it actually is the Scriptural and Catholic perspective.

For a couple of reasons - first, evil is defined as the opposite of, of absence of, goodness. If God is all-good, then evil is contrary to Go’d’s nature and he shouldn’t allow it to exist.

I’ll grant your first assertion – with caveats – but not your second. Why “shouldn’t God allow it to exist”? That’s the very crux of your argument. You’ll need to substantiate it and not merely assert it.

You MUST provide a resolution or your definition is false.

That’s an interesting assertion. However, it’s a positive assertion. You need to prove it before it’s reasonable to be required to refute it.

So in summary, the reason Christians must answer the problem of evil is because we are making the following claims: God is all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing. He can be 2 of the 3, but not all 3.

I think I have a response to the question, but I need to continue to ask: your assertions don’t address the question of “is God all-good?”. Unless you can refute that, then your musings don’t hold up. (After all, an all-good Good knows more than you do, so you can’t claim that His “all-knowing” is trumped by your questions from “partial-knowing”. Moreover, if He is all-good and all-knowing, then His decisions about how to implement His all-power really do trump your thoughts on the matter.)

 

[Freddy]

jan10000:

But you just admitted that God is not “all-good”.

No. All I asserted is that God allows us to experience the consequences of our actions.

I thought it was someone else’s actions.

 

[Gorgias]

I thought it was someone else’s actions.

Human actions in the physical world have consequences felt by beings in the physical world. That’s all we’re asserting.

On the other hand, if you want to assert that the fact that your car didn’t start up this morning is somebody else’s fault and therefore it’s unfair to you… you’re on your own, with that claim.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I thought it was someone else’s actions.

Human actions in the physical world have consequences felt by beings in the physical world. That’s all we’re asserting.

On the other hand, if you want to assert that the fact that your car didn’t start up this morning is somebody else’s fault and therefore it’s unfair to you… you’re on your own, with that claim.

But the claim is that evil entered the world because of the sin of one man. So evil is the consequence of his actions. A new born baby killed by a tsunami is paying the price for Adam’s sins.

 

[TK421]

If so, what differentiates humans from animals?

The question of consciousness is more scientific than theological, but the general consensus is that animals do have varying levels of consciousness.

 

[EndTimes]

Again, I was asked how the problem of animal suffering differs from the problem of evil.
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 animals of 2 Billion years ago were suffering?

Here’s God’s Teaching re: Animals

Respect for the integrity of creation

**[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]

But the claim is that evil entered the world because of the sin of one man. So evil is the consequence of his actions.

Not all evil. Adam got the ball rolling; we continue helping it in motion and making it grow.

A new born baby killed by a tsunami is paying the price for Adam’s sins.

And ours. Take my example of humans who cause AGW, and their descendants who suffer. Is that not a true statement?