Do animals have consciousness?

[AlNg]

Specifically, you have made the claim that “sin” is the cause of natural evil such as earthquakes, lightning strikes, tsunamis, and other natural phenomenon that cause suffering.

This is doubtful because i suspect that earthquakes, lightning strikes, tsunamis, and other natural phenomenon that cause suffering all were present before the appearance of homo sapiens.

 

[AlNg]

According to Catholic doctrine, animals do not have souls and cannot feel pain or suffer.

Wait. I think that Catholics generally believe that animals do not have immortal souls, however, there are some Catholics who apparently disagree because they say that their pets will be with them in heaven for all eternity. But i don’t know where it is Catholic teaching that animals do not feel pain.

 

[AlNg]

Thomas Aquinas.

Do you have a specific citation where Thomas Aquinas says that animals do not feel pain?
I thought that St Francis of Assisi and St Martin de Porres promoted compassion for animals?

 

[Gorgias]

My question is this:
Were there poisonous insects on earth before homo sapiens appeared?

In other words, you’re trying to ask whether there were natural evils on earth prior to human sin.

Look… I get it. You’re trying to be clever – after all, if you get the response “these insects pre-existed humans”, you’ll be able to claim “ah-ha! and therefore, natural evils pre-existed sin!”

Clever… but not all that effective. Kudos on the attempt, though…

Here’s the thing: if we said “these insects pre-existed humans”, would that prove your point? I don’t think so. After all, the question “poisonous?” requires not only the poisoner, but more importantly, the one who can be poisoned. Think of it this way: chocolate and onions are poisonous to dogs, right? Well… if there were no dogs, would we say “chocolate is poisonous” or “onions are poisonous”? Of course not!

So, your question devolves into absurdity. You’re really asking the question “were there insects whose bites are poisonous to humans, prior to the existence of humans?”. You see that the answer to that is “there were no humans, so… no.”

Let’s go back to the other salient points:

• Catholic theology doesn’t require that animals didn’t defend themselves or act according to their carnivorous natures, prior to the arrival of humans. So… if insects killed other insects or other animals: no natural evil.
• You might want to respond “ahh… but what if these insects killed humans before Adam and Eve?”. We’d respond "we’re only looking at ‘true humans’, which implies than any hominins prior to our first two true human parents weren’t human – so the first point applies.
• You might then want to attempt to suggest, “ahh… but once Adam and Eve were made ‘our first two true human parents’, couldn’t they have been killed by poisonous insects?” The answer there, too, is “no” – the Church teaches that our first two truly human parents were given preternatural gifts, among which were immortality.

So, let’s add it all up:

• Insects that kill insects and animals prior to the fall of man don’t count as “natural evil.”
• Insects do not kill true humans prior to the fall of man, so… no “natural evil”.

Hope that helps.

 

[Gorgias]

Again, the problem of animal suffering is that animals existed on earth for approximately 1.5B years, living, dying, suffering, most species going extinct.

So, your position is that, for God to be considered “all-good”, there would be no death.

You realize that the implication of that is non-sensical, right? You’re literally saying that overpopulation is “all-good”, and resource depletion is “all-good”, and unsustainable life is “all-good”. You see that, right?

So… with these two as the arms on the scale – “animal death due to suffering” on one hand, and “animal death due to over-population and resource scarcity” on the other… you’re really gonna suggest that God is not “all-good” because he allows one and not the other?

How’s that logical – or even sensitive to the lives of animals?

How could a all-knowing designer create such an imperfect world?

How does “imperfection” imply responsibility? What if this were the best of all possible designs? Would you claim “not perfect!” if this were?

As I have said, and you continue to dodge the question over and over again, is that there are two theological responses. One, the premise is false and animals and humans appeared together at the same time, and 2) animals feel no pain and do not suffer.

I’ve done neither of these. Your continued attempt to suggest I have done so, really compromises your credibility.

Specifically, you have made the claim that “sin” is the cause of natural evil such as earthquakes, lightning strikes, tsunamis, and other natural phenomenon that cause suffering.

My claim is merely that human sin has effects. I have not pointed to specific effects in the way that you suggest I have.

This violates cause and effect, first mover, and other varieties of the cosmological arguments.

Not in the least. It merely violates your desire to draw a direct line between a particular sin and a particular effect.

 

[Gorgias]

According to Catholic doctrine, animals do not have souls and cannot feel pain or suffer.

“According to Catholic doctrine, animals do not have souls”.

Incorrect.

“According to Catholic doctrine, animals cannot feel pain or suffer.”

Again, incorrect.

Our moral obligation to be merciful to animals is simply because they are part of God’s creation. In other words, you should not harm animals because it affects human well-being, not the well-being of animals themselves as animals hold no intrinsic spiritual or conscious value.

Ahh… now this is an interesting argument! I’d say “close” to the first half, and “not even close” to the second".

Humans should not harm animals because we are held to steward the resources of God’s creation responsibly. (Not because “it affects human well-being.”). I’ve read that Thomas argued that, if we abuse animals, we’re really training to abuse humans, so we should avoid doing the former so that we don’t do the latter; but, I haven’t found the text that says this. Nevertheless, “don’t abuse animals” is a sound principle of responsible stewardship.

To your second claim: It’s not that “animals in themselves hold no value”. It’s that all creation has value, and we’re called to uphold that value.

So… two strikes there. Care to try again?

I find this disgraceful, and it is one of the fundamental reasons why I disagree with Catholic moral teaching.

You mischaracterize Catholic teaching. If you find your mischaracterization disgraceful, and disagree with it… I agree with you! Such a mischaracterization is evil – and I disagree with it, too! (I just do not make the claim that this is Catholic teaching, and this is where you and I part ways…)

The concept of an ‘all-good’ God in terms of animal suffering only works with a young earth worldview.

Your personal opinion. Good luck with that.

Once you try to resolve them, you end up with untenable viewpoints such as sins committed by people 2000 years ago caused that lightning strike last night. It’s ridiculous.

It is ridiculous. No one is claiming that, though.

But i don’t know where it is Catholic teaching that animals do not feel pain.

Quote him, then, please, saying this.

Formal teaching is no pets in heaven.

Nope. You’ve misunderstood this teaching, as well! I’ll defer this discussion until we resolve some of your other misunderstandings, though…

 

[Freddy]

My claim is merely that human sin has effects. I have not pointed to specific effects in the way that you suggest I have.

I thought we could dispense with specific effects. But your point remains: sins have caused natural evils such as those mentioned.

Nobody is suggesting that a specific sin (say homosexual sex) has caused a specific natural evil (say a bushfire). But from what we can see, you are suggesting that sins in general (such as homosexual sex for example) cause natural evils in general (such as bush fires for example).

 

[Gorgias]

But from what we can see, you are suggesting that sins in general (such as homosexual sex for example) cause natural evils in general (such as bush fires for example).

Hahahahaha!

Wait, can I quote you, in paraphrase? “sins in general (such as this specific sin in particular) cause natural evils in general (such as this specific evil in particular)”? Really?

But, yeah: in general, and not specifically. As a general cause to a general effect, and not as a specific cause numerically to a specific effect numerically.

 

[Freddy]

Hahahahaha!

Is homosexual sex not something we could include as an example of sins causing natural evils? Is a bush fire not an example we could use as a natural evil?

 

[lelinator]

But, yeah: in general, and not specifically. As a general cause to a general effect, and not as a specific cause numerically to a specific effect numerically.

I’m curious, what’s the mechanism by which sin leads to “natural evils”? Because you do seem to be implying that there’s a direct cause and effect, but for the life of me I can’t figure out what it could possibly be.

 

[Freddy]

Gorgias:

But, yeah: in general, and not specifically. As a general cause to a general effect, and not as a specific cause numerically to a specific effect numerically.

I’m curious, what’s the mechanism by which sin leads to “natural evils”? Because you do seem to be implying that there’s a direct cause and effect, but for the life of me I can’t figure out what it could possibly be.

Natural disasters (aka natural evil in this context) are just that. If the earth slips or a volcano blows then there is no direct association with sin. I would think that’s obvious. But there is still a connection made. And the connection is that there was no evil before Adam and Eve sinned. That is, the earth didn’t slip and volcanoes didn’t erupt and there were no lighning strikes before then (yeah, I know…but that’s the argument).

So who do you think is responsible for a) preventing natural evil in the first instance and b) allowing it in the second?

 

[AlNg]

And the connection is that there was no evil before Adam and Eve sinned. That is, the earth didn’t slip and volcanoes didn’t erupt and there were no lighning strikes before then (yeah, I know…but that’s the argument).

And there were no poisonous insects, no hurricanes, no tornados, no poisonous snakes before the appearance of homo sapiens? I don’t think that science will back you up on that.

 

[Gorgias]

Is homosexual sex not something we could include as an example of sins causing natural evils?

Not a particular sin. Not a particular natural evil.

Is a bush fire not an example we could use as a natural evil?

A single fire? Nope. Or, are you trying to reference the kinds of out-of-control wildfires that endanger human lives?

I’m curious, what’s the mechanism by which sin leads to “ natural evils ”? Because you do seem to be implying that there’s a direct cause and effect, but for the life of me I can’t figure out what it could possibly be.

Nah. I’m not implying single-particular-cause to single-particular-effect. How many times do I have to say it?

But, if you want a “single-particular-sinful-cause to single-particular-effect”, in such a way that you might hope to laugh at it and lampoon it, I’ll continue to offer one in particular, as an example of how a general set of human sinful action has general negative effect: AGW.

And there were no poisonous insects, no hurricanes, no tornados, no poisonous snakes before the appearance of homo sapiens?

Again: there were no insects or snakes that poisoned humans, before the appearance of homo sapiens. You realize how ludicrous that assertion you make, actually sounds, right?

 

[lelinator]

Nah. I’m not implying single-particular-cause to single-particular-effect. How many times do I have to say it?

No, I don’t want you to connect a specific cause to a specific effect, I want you to give me a generalized mechanism. How does sin lead to natural evils?

 

[Gorgias]

No, I don’t want you to connect a specific cause to a specific effect, I want you to give me a generalized mechanism. How does sin lead to natural evils?

Human (sinful) actions have effects, both moral and empirical. How do the actions of the past couple hundred years lead to AGW? It’s the same question.

 

[lelinator]

Human (sinful) actions have effects, both moral and empirical.

But what’s the mechanism by which this happens?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Is homosexual sex not something we could include as an example of sins causing natural evils?

Not a particular sin. Not a particular natural evil.

Is a bush fire not an example we could use as a natural evil?

A single fire? Nope.

Of course not. Not a specific sin. Or a specific natural evil. I’m just giving examples of sin that might cause natural evils. And examples of natural evils that might have been caused by sin.

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?

And I’m just using bush fires as a natural evil (at least those caused by natural means) not as a specific example but as a general example of the type of natural evils that can be caused by sin.

So again, and I must emphasise this as strongly as I can so there is no misunderstanding: I am not using either as specific examples. Just general examples of sin and natural evils so that we know what you are talking about when you talk about each of them. Just to be clear as it were. By all means use different examples if you like. But we’d like to be clear about what you mean when you say ‘sin’ and when you say ‘natural evil’.

In fact, I think we know what you mean by 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.

 

[EndTimes]

Were there any poisonous insects before humans appeared on earth?

It’s the Fall which negatively impacted upon all Creation

 

[o_mlly]

Was this insect or any other poison carrying insect alive before the appearance of homo sapiens?

Poisonous is a relative adjective. For instance, shellfish may be poisonous to some and just tasty food to others. The insect and the shell fish existed before human beings. But the first human beings before Original Sin, I submit, had immune systems, as some human beings today have against certain viruses and bacteria, that completely protected them from all pathological illness.

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’m curious, what’s the mechanism by which sin leads to “ natural evils ”?

An volcanic eruption that harms or kills no one is not a natural evil but rather simply a natural event properly seen as ongoing creation of landmass. These ongoing acts of creation as in the earthquake, the hurricane, the tsunami preceded the first human beings. We believe the first human beings lived in a “garden”. This “garden” may logically be defined as a location safe from these ongoing natural acts of creation. After sinning against God, God forced the humans from the “garden”, the safe place. Man then became subject to these powerful forces.

In this sense, the “mechanism” that produced natural evils is rooted in the same moral evil of Original Sin.

 

[EndTimes]

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 ignore them…