More on animal suffering

[A_Dancer_Whirls]

Do you regard yourself as a “ruthless killing machine”? Even if you are a vegetarian you still have to kill or cause death in order to survive. Do you believe that is sufficient reason for not giving you the opportunity to live (and criticise the fact that you are a “ruthless killing machine”?

Do think a photosynthetic existence would rule out the necessity of death?
Can you devise a physical system in which advanced life is possible without having to depend on other life in order to survive? If so let us have the details…

No, i don’t. I see taking the life’s of plants as the lessor of to evils for they don’t have the same ability to suffer. I guess it comes down to me anthropomorphising.

I would rule out the need for animals to kill each other, the fact they do is extremely compelling evidence for evolution.

No i don’t think you could, but then i believe in evolution. However if we were created by an all powerful super-being, then yeah, anything could be possible.

 

[tonyrey]

                           Quote:
                                                                  Originally Posted by **tonyrey**                     [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5774908#post5774908)                 
             *Do you regard yourself as a "ruthless killing machine"? Even if you are a vegetarian you still have to kill or cause death in order to survive. Do you believe that is sufficient reason for not giving you the opportunity to live (and criticise the fact that you are a "ruthless killing machine"?

Do think a photosynthetic existence would rule out the necessity of death?
Can you devise a physical system in which advanced life is possible without having to depend on other life in order to survive? If so let us have the details…*

No, i don’t. I see taking the life of plants as the lesser of two evils for they don’t have the same ability to suffer. I guess it comes down to me anthropomorphising.

I’m not sure whether “No, i don’t” is the answer to my second question:
Do you believe that is sufficient reason for not giving you the opportunity to live?

I would rule out the need for animals to kill each other, the fact they do is extremely compelling evidence for evolution.

I agree! But not evolution by chance…

No i don’t think you could, but then i believe in evolution. However if we were created by an all powerful super-being, then yeah, anything could be possible.

Anything whatsoever? You don’t think there are physical impossibilities - like the ability to develop without the organs with which to develop?

 

[A_Dancer_Whirls]

I’m not sure whether “No, i don’t” is the answer to my second question:
Do you believe that is sufficient reason for not giving you the opportunity to live?
I agree! But not evolution by chance…
Anything whatsoever? You don’t think there are physical impossibilities - like the ability to develop without the organs with which to develop?

Yes it was the answer…

I’m not aware evolution is by chance, but that is OT so lets stay off that topic.

Well i don’t really see your need for bodies? Do you not believe in the spirit? Surly then there is no real need for physical bodies?

Why would god give some life the ability to feed their self’s and not others? I have to admit when i look at nature i see a cruel cruel world. It is one of the first things that made me question the existence of a loving god.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Why would god give some life the ability to feed their self’s and not others? I have to admit when i look at nature i see a cruel cruel world. It is one of the first things that made me question the existence of a loving god.

I previously asked what exactly you consider so cruel. You said, I believe, the way animals are killed. But what is the difference between dying violently and nonviolently? If anything, the construction of animal brains seems to suggest that those who die violently often experience comparatively little pain.

 

[tonyrey]

Yes it was the answer…

My question: “Even if you are a vegetarian you still have to kill or cause death in order to survive. Do you believe that is sufficient reason for not giving you the opportunity to live?”
Your answer: “No, I don’t”.
In other words you consider death is the necessary price for life?

I’m not aware evolution is by chance, but that is OT so lets stay off that topic.

Evolution by Design!

Well i don’t really see your need for bodies? Do you not believe in the spirit? Surely then there is no real need for physical bodies?

Why not? Christians have always maintained the value and dignity of the body
because it is a source of great beauty, satisfaction, enjoyment and fulfilment. It is a mistake to regard it, as Platonists did, as a burden we cast off when we die.

Why would God give some life the ability to feed themselves and not others? I have to admit when i look at nature i see a cruel cruel world. It is one of the first things that made me question the existence of a loving god.

You are looking at nature from the unrealistic viewpoint of a person living in an artificial, man-made environment. The world is not cruel but hospitable for living creatures. It is a distortion of the facts to say that “nature is red in tooth and claw” and that animals live in constant fear. A certain amount of competition are inevitable where there millions of different beings pursuing different goals but in nature there is far more co-operation than conflict and normal life contains far more pleasure than pain. I lived in Africa for fifteen years and spent a lot of time in the bush observing the day-to-day life of wild animals. For the most part there is peace and tranquillity. I have often seen zebras and gazelles grazing unperturbed by the presence of lions and hyenas nearby because they can sense when danger is imminent. Death occurs only once and it usually comes swiftly to the oldest or weakest member of the herd. There cannot be a more efficient and humane method of ecological organization.

 

[tonyrey]

Yes it was the answer…

My question: “Even if you are a vegetarian you still have to kill or cause death in order to survive. Do you believe that is sufficient reason for not giving you the opportunity to live?”
Your answer: “No, I don’t”.
In other words you consider death is the necessary price for life?

I’m not aware evolution is by chance, but that is OT so lets stay off that topic.

Evolution by Design!

Well i don’t really see your need for bodies? Do you not believe in the spirit? Surely then there is no real need for physical bodies?

Why not? Christians have always maintained the value and dignity of the body
because it is a source of great beauty, satisfaction, enjoyment and fulfilment. It is a mistake to regard it, as Platonists did, as a burden we cast off when we die.

Why would God give some life the ability to feed themselves and not others? I have to admit when i look at nature i see a cruel cruel world. It is one of the first things that made me question the existence of a loving god.

You are looking at nature from the unrealistic viewpoint of a person living in an artificial, man-made environment. The world is not cruel but hospitable for living creatures. It is a distortion of the facts to say that “nature is red in tooth and claw” and that animals live in constant fear. A certain amount of competition is inevitable where there millions of different beings pursuing different goals but in nature there is far more co-operation than conflict. Normal life contains far more pleasure than pain. I lived in Africa for fifteen years and spent a lot of time in the bush observing the day-to-day life of wild animals. For the most part there is peace and tranquillity. I have often seen zebras and gazelles grazing unperturbed by the presence of lions and hyenas nearby because they can sense when danger is imminent. Death occurs only once and usually it comes swiftly to the oldest or weakest member of the herd. There cannot be a more efficient and humane method of ecological organization.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

there is a guy here in KC who doesnt want the overgrown deerherd in the city park to be culled so they dont slowly starve to death. he had someone send him a deerhead and took it down to the parks department, and held it in his hand as he delivered some poem or something.

i thought i should go to the next meeting of the board, lift a head of cabbage, cracked, leaking mayo, over my head and recite some ode to the destruction of the innocence of cabbage at the hands of the vile, shameful deer of the park!

 

[A_Dancer_Whirls]

I previously asked what exactly you consider so cruel. You said, I believe, the way animals are killed. But what is the difference between dying violently and nonviolently? If anything, the construction of animal brains seems to suggest that those who die violently often experience comparatively little pain.

Not the method of death, but the removal of life. Taking the gift of life, when it is (in our case) not necessary.

 

[A_Dancer_Whirls]

My question: “Even if you are a vegetarian you still have to kill or cause death in order to survive. Do you believe that is sufficient reason for not giving you the opportunity to live?”
Your answer: “No, I don’t”.
In other words you consider death is the necessary price for life?

In our world yes, but like i said i believe in evolution.

Why not? Christians have always maintained the value and dignity of the body
because it is a source of great beauty, satisfaction, enjoyment and fulfilment. It is a mistake to regard it, as Platonists did, as a burden we cast off when we die.
You are looking at nature from the unrealistic viewpoint of a person living in an artificial, man-made environment. The world is not cruel but hospitable for living creatures. It is a distortion of the facts to say that “nature is red in tooth and claw” and that animals live in constant fear. A certain amount of competition is inevitable where there millions of different beings pursuing different goals but in nature there is far more co-operation than conflict. Normal life contains far more pleasure than pain. I lived in Africa for fifteen years and spent a lot of time in the bush observing the day-to-day life of wild animals. For the most part there is peace and tranquillity. I have often seen zebras and gazelles grazing unperturbed by the presence of lions and hyenas nearby because they can sense when danger is imminent. Death occurs only once and usually it comes swiftly to the oldest or weakest member of the herd. There cannot be a more efficient and humane method of ecological organization.

The world is exceptionally cruel to animals, i could post some videos but the content would be a little repulsive. I have to say if i was a god, i would have made things a little differently, in my mind i just find it impossible to equate such suffering and agony with love. Just my personal opinion though.

ADW.

 

[tonyrey]

“exceptionally” implies that you have some standard of comparison. On what is it based?

I have to say if i was a god, i would have made things a little differently, in my mind i just find it impossible to equate such suffering and agony with love. Just my personal opinion though. ADW.

 

[redhen]

Until you explain how to create a physical world containing millions of sentient creatures without any suffering and agony you are not justified in concluding that there is unnecessary suffering and agony.

I think this is the best defense, still, it’s not really an answer. It’s just a rephrasing of the old catch-all reply “It’s a mystery.” Anyways, this argument still fails. The fact that I can’t quickly come up with an alternative world that doesn’t involve pain doesn’t mean it’s not possible, it just proves I’m not omniscient. In other words, what you’re asking for is unfair.

It is impossible to assess precisely how much suffering occurs because all suffering is subjective and experienced only by the individual. External movements of the body are reflexes which tell us little about internal sensations. I know from personal experience that when one is paralysed with fear one’s awareness of sensations disappears altogether. …

Another modern day Cartesian, oh boy.

“For in my view, pain exists only in the understanding. What I do is explain all the external movements which accompany feeling in us; in animals it is these movements alone which occur, and not pain in a strict sense.”

• René Descartes, 1596 – 1650

*Nature red in tooth and claw *: theism and the problem of animal suffering
Michael J. Murray. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2008, p50.

You can remain in a pre-modern science worldview if you want, that’s your choice.

 

[A_Dancer_Whirls]

“exceptionally” implies that you have some standard of comparison. On what is it based?
Until you explain how to create a physical world containing millions of sentient creatures without any suffering and agony you are not justified in concluding that there is unnecessary suffering and agony. It is impossible to assess precisely how much suffering occurs because all suffering is subjective and experienced only by the individual. External movements of the body are reflexes which tell us little about internal sensations. I know from personal experience that when one is paralysed with fear one’s awareness of sensations disappears altogether. …

Ones sensations only disappear for a brief moment, anyway…

We know that animals can get by eating plants, so how about a world with no carnivores. I’m not saying it is ideal but it is definitely a step in the right direction, as plants do not have brains and are therefore not conscious.

 

[nordskoven]

Cleve Baxter in The Secret Life of Plants showed that plants show alarm and “faint” when in the presence of other plants being tortured. Our dear Lord created a world without sin and death. At the prompting of the “Father of Lies and Murder”, the free will “Sin of Adam” brought sin and death into the world. The Son of God became incarnate to defeat sin and death.

The lion will lay down with the lamb. I can only imagine that a superfood will sate the hunger of both the lion and the lamb. Christ gave us the Unbloody Sacrifice of His Body and Blood. “How great is Your name O Lord our God in all the Earth.” Let God’s idyllic kingdom come as we attune our hearts to His.

 

[tonyrey]

One’s sensations only disappear for a brief moment, anyway…

Persons and animals faint and die of shock and terror.

We know that animals can get by eating plants, so how about a world with no carnivores. I’m not saying it is ideal but it is definitely a step in the right direction, as plants do not have brains and are therefore not conscious.

Life depends on life. Death is an inevitable consequence of life in a physical world. So are competition and conflict even at the microscopic level. Otherwise there cannot be development. The more advanced living organisms become, the more complex their diet becomes. Even gorillas are carnivores: they eat ants, snails, termites and caterpillars but they also have to eat forty pounds of vegetation a day in order to survive. This is so time-consuming that it has restricted their psychological development.

Nor is there anything intrinsically evil about eating meat. If animals are killed humanely it is preferable to dying slowly of disease, accidents or infirmity. Even a lion crippled by a broken paw suffers far more from a lingering death by starvation rather than being killed by hyenas. It is easy to suggest improvements to nature but the disasters caused by human interference illustrate that the successful design of a highly complex ecological system is incredibly difficult. Until a feasible blueprint is forthcoming we are entitled to remain sceptical about “steps in the right direction”!

 

[tonyrey]

I
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyrey forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Until you explain how to create a physical world containing millions of sentient creatures without any suffering and agony you are not justified in concluding that there is unnecessary suffering and agony.

I think this is the best defense, still, it’s not really an answer. It’s just a rephrasing of the old catch-all reply “It’s a mystery.” Anyways, this argument still fails

.
It fails** in your opinion because you resort to faith in the mystery** of a fictitious accident-free, disease-free, pain-free world.

. The fact that I can’t quickly come up with an alternative world that doesn’t involve pain doesn’t mean it’s not possible, it just proves I’m not omniscient.

It just proves your objection is based on ignorance and prejudice…

In other words, what you’re asking for is unfair.

“unfair”! In other words you reject my reasoning simply because you disagree with my conclusion.
Let me rephrase my statement:

Until there is an explanation of **how **to create a physical world containing millions of sentient creatures without any suffering and agony one is not justified in concluding that there is unnecessary suffering and agony.

               *It is impossible to assess precisely how much suffering occurs because all suffering is subjective and experienced only by the individual. External movements of the body are reflexes which tell us little about internal sensations. I know from personal experience that when one is paralysed with fear one's awareness of sensations disappears altogether. ..

• Another modern day Cartesian, oh boy.

Your sarcasm fails to conceal the fact that you have **not **refuted my statements:

1. It is impossible to assess precisely how much suffering occurs because all suffering is subjective and experienced only by the individual.
2. External movements of the body are reflexes which tell us little about internal sensations.
3. I know from personal experience that when one is paralysed with fear one’s awareness of sensations disappears altogether.

You can remain in a pre-modern science worldview if you want, that’s your choice.

An irrelevant argumentum ad hominem.

 

[liquidpele]

It just proves your objection is based on ignorance and prejudice…
“unfair”! In other words you reject my reasoning simply because you disagree with my conclusion.
Let me rephrase my statement:
Until there is an explanation of **how **to create a physical world containing millions of sentient creatures without any suffering and agony one is not justified in concluding that there is unnecessary suffering and agony.

Haha, are you still asking your opposition to come up with a pain free reality?

The issue with that is that we’re born and grow up in a world where suffering is everywhere, so it’s natural that we are incapable of envisioning a world without any kind of suffering. However, just because we can’t imagine it doesn’t mean it is an impossibility, especially if God is omnipotent you think he would be up to the task.

 

[tonyrey]

Haha, are you still asking your opposition to come up with a pain-free reality?

Why not? If you can’t explain why suffering is unnecessary your argument collapses.

The issue with that is that we’re born and grow up in a world where suffering is everywhere, so it’s natural that we are incapable of envisioning a world without any kind of suffering.

It’s natural but not inevitable. A hundred years ago most people were incapable of envisioning a world with TV. For the more venturesome amongst us there are no limits to our imagination but imagination alone gets us nowhere. We need some substantial facts if we are to achieve anything. How about it?:hammering:

However, just because we can’t imagine it doesn’t mean it is an impossibility, especially if God is omnipotent you think he would be up to the task.

Do you know what omnipotence entails? Give us some idea…

 

[A_Dancer_Whirls]

Why not? If you can’t explain why suffering is unnecessary your argument collapses.

Not at all, as he said there is pain and suffering everywhere. Not just animals, just look at children in Africa. If god designed everything then he has made some pretty horrible organisms. All i am saying is i personally find it hard to believe this could be the result of love.

This video explains one of the issues with a loving god controlling design, i just could not believe a loving creature created such things…

youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/u/2/irVqVKdiohE

From the site… "This video is not sarcasm, it is parody and dramatic irony.

Only a tiny minority missed the point, so for their sake, the premise is this: Of all the things creationists could have used as the icon of Intelligent Design (theyre all equally flawed), they chose something that gives us typhoid, cholera and stomach cancer. Hence the irony."

 

[A_Dancer_Whirls]

Persons and animals faint and die of shock and terror.

Die of terror, that does not sound nice. Working in a jail i have seen some horrible things happen to people, and believe me the sensation does not disappear.

 

[latin_rite]

yeah the loonys are right. A lion eating a zebra is cruel. So lets get rid of all the lions. To restore their faith. Of course they’ll probably lose it again once the zebra population reaches a critical point and they start dying of starvation.