Why do animals suffer?

[catholic1seeks]

Answers to human suffering usually involve (1) original sin as the origin of human suffering,
and (2) Christ’s Passion and our redemption bringing meaning to suffering.

But what about animals? They don’t sin, so they couldn’t have caused their own suffering. And original sin/the fall isn’t a good explanation for their suffering because we know animals have suffered (and physical evil has existed) before the Fall occurred (assumingly about 150,000 years ago).

Is there a purpose, then, to animal suffering? Animals don’t have immortal, rational souls, so they don’t go to Heaven. So in that sense, their suffering isn’t meaningful like human suffering is. They don’t get an eternal recompense for meaningless suffering as–for example–an infant would.

So what can we say about the suffering of animals?

 

[NFrancis]

Maybe the fall of Adam and Eve brought suffering for the animals too and every living thing in this world. Since we can sin we can hurt animals. This is no longer a paradise we live in so both humans and animals will suffer.

 

[Nowhere_Man]

Maybe animal suffering is intended to have an effect on humans, like showing them how suffering can effect others on either a more personal level, such as your pet, or to show that suffering happens even to the littlest of creatures and that we are truly not along in our suffering; that from the smallest animal, all the way up to God himself have suffered (although God’s suffering was perfect, unlike ours).

 

[redhen]

But what about animals? They don’t sin, so they couldn’t have caused their own suffering. And original sin/the fall isn’t a good explanation for their suffering because we know animals have suffered (and physical evil has existed) before the Fall occurred (assumingly about 150,000 years ago).

I don’t have any answers, just more questions. Evolution throws a monkey wrench into several theological concepts, prelapsarian animal suffering is just one. Another one is; how can there be talk of dominion and stewardship over animals when so many species came and went before homo sapiens made a late appearance?

 

[Good_Fella]

Animals suffer strictly by necessity of nature as a consequence of the Fall.

PAX :heaven:

 

[Good_Fella]

I don’t have any answers, just more questions. Evolution throws a monkey wrench into several theological concepts, prelapsarian animal suffering is just one.

Mankind (Adam) is subjected to suffering on account of compromising its reason and will to its lower animal nature thereby forfeiting its many prerogatives of a preternatural state: freedom from suffering and death. Animals have always suffered and died because of their very nature.

Another one is; how can there be talk of dominion and stewardship over animals when so many species came and went before homo sapiens made a late appearance?

Animals weren’t created in the image of God. The original state of holiness and justice applies to mankind. Adam has brought suffering and death upon himself as a result of succumbing to his lower animal nature and falling from God’s grace. If Adam weren’t inclined to offend God by preferring the satisfaction of his lower appetites to what pleases God in His goodness and perfection, he wouldn’t have to suffer and die like the lower animals. Think of Adam (mankind) as an archetype of a natural human being, who has been created in the image of God (possessing reason and a free will which is governed by a conscience), not constrained to chronological time.

The Book of Genesis does not reveal that the lower forms of animals did not suffer and die before the creation of Adam and Eve, but that suffering and death was incurred for us on account of sin which essentially is the active gratification of our lower animal and ungodlike nature. Scripture reveals that of all life forms only Adam was originally created immortal and free from pain and death having been created in God’s image by possessing reason and a free will along with his lower animal appetites which forfeited his immortality and freedom from suffering.

“So be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
Matthew 5, 48

“That which is mortal must clothe itself with immortality.”
1 Corinthians 15, 53

PAX :heaven:

 

[KKPG]

I don’t for one second believe God created any creatures intending them to someday die. I believe that He can “make all things new” and when He comes to lift the curse off this world, he will lift the curse off the animals as well. And I believe there is a place in Heaven for them. No, - no beatific vision of course, but like there are levels of Heaven for people, there can be a place for the creatures too, and we will be able to see and know they are there. How awful to suggest God creates the animals and then causes them to die. God didn’t create disease and suffering - and even if He’d wanted animals to have limited lifespans, He wouldn’t cause them pain as a way to end their lives. He’s not a cruel God and I’m tired of the arrogant people who insist that animals die “just because”.

 

[redhen]

The Book of Genesis does not reveal that the lower forms of animals did not suffer and die before the creation of Adam and Eve, but that suffering and death was incurred for us on account of sin

That seems to contradict others on this thread who hold that “Animals suffer strictly by necessity of nature as a consequence of the Fall”. Which is why I prefaced my question by stipulating* prelapsarian* animal suffering.

Anyways, for the sake of argument, let’s assume you are correct, that animals did indeed suffer and die before the fall. My next question then is what about archaic hominids?

Surely Neanderthals died. Surely homo floresiensis died (they became extinct only 12,000 years ago). Homo sapiens has been around for 200,000 years. If none of these hominids died, why do we have their fossils?

I’m straying though. Back to animal suffering. Here’s some valuable insights from Andrew Linzey, director of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics

humboldt.edu/~essays/linzey.html

oxfordanimalethics.com/who-we-are/director/

“So far as we know beasts are incapable either of sin or of virtue; therefore they can neither deserve pain nor be improved by it.” C.S. Lewis

 

[catholic1seeks]

Maybe animal suffering is intended to have an effect on humans, like showing them how suffering can effect others on either a more personal level, such as your pet, or to show that suffering happens even to the littlest of creatures and that we are truly not along in our suffering; that from the smallest animal, all the way up to God himself have suffered (although God’s suffering was perfect, unlike ours).

From my original post:
And original sin/the fall isn’t a good explanation for their suffering because we know animals have suffered (and physical evil has existed) before the Fall occurred (assumingly about 150,000 years ago).

 

[catholic1seeks]

Animals suffer strictly by necessity of nature as a consequence of the Fall.

PAX :heaven:

From my original post:

And original sin/the fall isn’t a good explanation for their suffering because we know animals have suffered (and physical evil has existed) before the Fall occurred (assumingly about 150,000 years ago).

 

[catholic1seeks]

Maybe the fall of Adam and Eve brought suffering for the animals too and every living thing in this world. Since we can sin we can hurt animals. This is no longer a paradise we live in so both humans and animals will suffer.

From my original post:

And original sin/the fall isn’t a good explanation for their suffering because we know animals have suffered (and physical evil has existed) before the Fall occurred (assumingly about 150,000 years ago).

 

[catholic1seeks]

Maybe animal suffering is intended to have an effect on humans, like showing them how suffering can effect others on either a more personal level, such as your pet, or to show that suffering happens even to the littlest of creatures and that we are truly not along in our suffering; that from the smallest animal, all the way up to God himself have suffered (although God’s suffering was perfect, unlike ours).

Why should God have created animals just to suffer? It doesn’t seem fair for animals to come into existence and suffer without having a say (they didn’t cause their own suffering, like we did).

 

[catholic1seeks]

Mankind (Adam) is subjected to suffering on account of compromising its reason and will to its lower animal nature thereby forfeiting its many prerogatives of a preternatural state: freedom from suffering and death. Animals have always suffered and died because of their very nature.

Animals weren’t created in the image of God. The original state of holiness and justice applies to mankind. Adam has brought suffering and death upon himself as a result of succumbing to his lower animal nature and falling from God’s grace. If Adam weren’t inclined to offend God by preferring the satisfaction of his lower appetites to what pleases God in His goodness and perfection, he wouldn’t have to suffer and die like the lower animals. Think of Adam (mankind) as an archetype of a natural human being, who has been created in the image of God (possessing reason and a free will which is governed by a conscience), not constrained to chronological time.

The Book of Genesis does not reveal that the lower forms of animals did not suffer and die before the creation of Adam and Eve, but that suffering and death was incurred for us on account of sin which essentially is the active gratification of our lower animal and ungodlike nature. Scripture reveals that of all life forms only Adam was originally created immortal and free from pain and death having been created in God’s image by possessing reason and a free will along with his lower animal appetites which forfeited his immortality and freedom from suffering.

“So be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
Matthew 5, 48

“That which is mortal must clothe itself with immortality.”
1 Corinthians 15, 53

PAX :heaven:

Thanks for this response. But it doesn’t get to the core of my problem. Why do they suffer? They didn’t cause their suffering by sin like we did at the Fall. And our Fall didn’t cause their suffering because animals have died/suffered before then (dinosaurs, predators, etc.). Animals don’t go to Heaven (at least there’s no teaching on this. So it seems animals come into existence, can suffer, and die… Why?

 

[catholic1seeks]

I don’t for one second believe God created any creatures intending them to someday die. I believe that He can “make all things new” and when He comes to lift the curse off this world.

Curse? What curse? The animals aren’t in on the consequences of the Fall. If Adam and Eve were the first humans, then they would have existed about 150,000 (or whatever) years ago. And we know animals have suffered and died long before then.

 

[catholic1seeks]

That seems to contradict others on this thread who hold that “Animals suffer strictly by necessity of nature as a consequence of the Fall”. Which is why I prefaced my question by stipulating* prelapsarian* animal suffering.

Anyways, for the sake of argument, let’s assume you are correct, that animals did indeed suffer and die before the fall. My next question then is what about archaic hominids?

Surely Neanderthals died. Surely homo floresiensis died (they became extinct only 12,000 years ago). Homo sapiens has been around for 200,000 years. If none of these hominids died, why do we have their fossils?

I’m straying though. Back to animal suffering. Here’s some valuable insights from Andrew Linzey, director of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics

humboldt.edu/~essays/linzey.html

oxfordanimalethics.com/who-we-are/director/

“So far as we know beasts are incapable either of sin or of virtue; therefore they can neither deserve pain nor be improved by it.” C.S. Lewis

Hi Redhen. What was CS Lewis speaking about in the context of the quote? It sounds interesting, so what reasons does he give for animal sufferiing (since they don’t “deserve pain”)?

 

[catholic1seeks]

I don’t have any answers, just more questions. Evolution throws a monkey wrench into several theological concepts,.

Sort-of. It depends on who you talk to. I think original sin can fit well with evolution. The first ensouled creatures (humans) rejected some God-given spiritual gifts…

 

[catholic1seeks]

Sorry with all of the short and choppy posts. But one more thing: recognizing that there’s an evolution ban on these forums, lets stick with the topic without getting into evolution.

Thanks

 

[Moscati]

Why should God have created animals just to suffer? It doesn’t seem fair for animals to come into existence and suffer without having a say (they didn’t cause their own suffering, like we did).

It’s hard for me to say that animals living and dying and existing in the wild suffer. That’s the way they were made. I think we can all agree that to take wild animals out of their natural habitats and domesticate them to keep them from “suffering” out in the wild is not a good plan. They belong there. They were made for the wild, and that’s their proper place. God created animals out of his abundant love and creativity, and he cares for them as he does for us.

(FYI: I think domestic animals are different, but I assume the objection was to wild animals over the course of evolutionary history. The suffering of domestic animals is pretty much all our fault, not God’s, I think.)

 

[catholic1seeks]

It’s hard for me to say that animals living and dying and existing in the wild suffer. That’s the way they were made. I think we can all agree that to take wild animals out of their natural habitats and domesticate them to keep them from “suffering” out in the wild is not a good plan. They belong there. They were made for the wild, and that’s their proper place. God created animals out of his abundant love and creativity, and he cares for them as he does for us.

(FYI: I think domestic animals are different, but I assume the objection was to wild animals over the course of evolutionary history. The suffering of domestic animals is pretty much all our fault, not God’s, I think.)

But still. Human suffering has meaning in Jesus. What about animal suffering? As Redhen quoted C.S. Lewis (and I’d like more info on that), “So far as we know beasts are incapable either of sin or of virtue; therefore they can neither deserve pain nor be improved by it.” Animal suffering doesn’t seem to have any meaning for them. My dog has seizures, and it always hurts me to see her have one. A seizure to humans, for example, could be a way to unite one’s “cross” with the Passion of Jesus. But what about animals? What do they get of it?

I hope everyone can see my concern in this.

 

[Moscati]

But still. Human suffering has meaning in Jesus. What about animal suffering? As Redhen quoted C.S. Lewis (and I’d like more info on that), “So far as we know beasts are incapable either of sin or of virtue; therefore they can neither deserve pain nor be improved by it.” Animal suffering doesn’t seem to have any meaning for them. My dog has seizures, and it always hurts me to see her have one. A seizure to humans, for example, could be a way to unite one’s “cross” with the Passion of Jesus. But what about animals? What do they get of it?

I hope everyone can see my concern in this.

I’m very sorry about your dog. I still would say that most of the suffering of domestic animals is our (humans) fault, but certainly not all of it, and certainly not in your dog’s case.

The quote comes from C.S. Lewis’ The Problem of Pain, which has a whole chapter on animal pain. I went back and reread it. It seems to speak directly to your thoughts:

“The problem of animal suffering is appalling . . . because the Christian explanation of human pain cannot be extended to animals. So far as we know [see quote]. At the same time, we must never allow the problem of animal suffering to become the centre of the problem of pain; not because it is unimportant–whatever furnishes plausible grounds for questioning the goodness of God is very important indeed–but because it is outside the range of our knowledge. God has given us data which enable us, in some degree, to understand our own suffering: He has given us no such data about beasts . . . From the doctrine that God is good we may confidently deduce that the appearance of Divine cruelty in the animal kingdom is an illusion–and the fact that the only suffering we know firsthand (our own) turns out not to be a cruelty will make it easier to believe.”

Lewis then tries to answer three questions:
__

1. What do animals suffer?
2. How did disease and pain enter the animal world?
3. How can an animal suffering be reconciled with the justice of God?
   __
4. In short, he says we don’t know, since we are not animals. He cautions: “It may be we who have invented the ‘sufferers’ by reading into the beasts a self for which there is no real evidence.”
5. Used to be we said the Fall, but “This is now impossible, for we have good reason to believe that animals existed long before men.” Lewis gets creative here–he suggests that Satan and fallen angels had already corrupted the animal kingdom (hence the serpent’s presence in the Garden) when man with his rational, immortal soul came on the scene. Man fell prey to Satan as well. (He’s quite clear that this is very speculative.)
6. Lewis basically says lower animals (he uses a newt as an example) do not suffer. Higher animals, especially domesticated ones, “require deeper consideration”. He puts forth another theory–that domestic animals are only fully themselves because of their connection with people. “Man is to be understood only in his relation to God. The beasts are to be understood only in their relationship to man, and through man, to God. . . it seems to me possible that certain animals may have an immortality, not in themselves, but in the immortality of their masters.” This part seem very fuzzy to me, and I’m not sure what Lewis is trying to say.

Is this at all helpful?