Why, do you think, animals suffer?

[Hokomai]

The literal interpretation of Genesis is inconsistent with the Church’s acceptance of evolution and has been rejected by Catholic theologians including such eminent intellectuals as St Augustine.

God created the physical universe in which physical evil is an inevitable by-product. It is absurd to demand total absence of negativity!

I am not suggesting the church says that Genesis should be interpreted literally. I am suggesting that the Church considers that original sin affected all of creation and not just humans.

As a believer, how can you call the “total absence of negativity” “absurd”. Is that not what you think heaven is? If God can create a heaven without suffering, why could he not do so for innocent animals?

 

[tonyrey]

*The literal interpretation of Genesis is inconsistent with the Church’s acceptance of evolution and has been rejected by Catholic theologians including such eminent intellectuals as St Augustine.

The Church considers that original sin affected creation to the extent that human activity affects the world - as in the case of pollution.

As a believer, how can you call the “total absence of negativity” “absurd”. Is that not what you think heaven is? If God can create a heaven without suffering, why could he not do so for innocent animals?

Heaven is not a physical world! Nor is there any reason to believe higher animals are excluded from heaven… Our ideas of reality tend to be too parochial!

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, pain is an evolved mechanism for alerting sentient beings to danger and harm, but as previous posters have pointed out, this is hardly useful if there is no means of escaping the harm (oh, and by the way - birth is more painful for human women than for other animals largely because of the orientation of the pelvis that results from our upright stance - not a bad argument against ‘intelligent’ design…)

I should add that it is only pampered women who regard the pain of childbirth as a valid argument against the value and beauty of childbirth. It is regarded as a natural event in most societies. Men have to suffer in other ways because their work often entails being more exposed to danger and accidents than being at home. The aversion to pain is a symptom of an unrealistic hedonistic mentality which puts pleasure and freedom from hardship at the top of one’s scale of values - as if we can have everything for nothing…

 

[nemmark]

I think we naturally look too deep at things around us, and less at things inside of us. The true problem probably lies not in the past, in evolution, in how/why God created things the way they are, but with our emotions. Most people need a logically as well as emotionally satisfactory response to quiet all anxiety that arises from doubt. This is very problematic, because each human person is different and naturally sees things from different prespectives. Yes, it is, and has been, a logically (with our corrupt human logic keep in mind) valid theory that an onmipotent God can’t exist with suffering and evil in this world, but does this arise as a logically, well thought through conclusion, not based off of strong emotions? It appears that most distancing from faith starts not with pure logical issues, but with emotional ones. Fear strikes people when everything just doesn’t make sense to them, sin deprives people of the light of faith, and personal events that strongly move us into a state of depression or suffering make us question things in a very troubled state.

None the less, if one does come to a state of disbeleif due to a series of doubts, logical problems, and/or emotional problems, Faith can never be taken from them. Faith is merely a choice enacted by our free will, and sustained and enlivened by the other supernatural virtues of hope and charity.

Once again, there are five mysteries of the rosary geared towards suffering. And like someone said in the past in this thread, Jesus and Mary, being totally pure, suffered much, but could endure it with joy and love. Also, animals are naturally not of a level of goodness (closeness to God, closeness to godliness, closeness to perfection) to be without any type of suffering. Although they are sinless, they are naturally not extremely close to God due to the reason they were created (to be inferior to man, give him companionship and provide service to him/ and also to give glory to God our almighty Father). Now if one is to take a step back and think about this key principle to our understanding of our relationship to that of animals within our faith, it would make sense that animals were designed to suffer just as human would one day. Not because God is cruel or lacking in wisdom, but because he created the best, most logical world possible for his divine plan of redemption. Animals naturally have and do suffer because they were designed to be lower creatures than man not capable of experiencing beatific vision.

We must truly understand, just as the saints have, the pure value of suffering. I’m surprised no one’s questioning why Christ or Mary suffered so much, although they were without sin like animals. This is an even more profound mystery involving suffering that we can contomplate in the ROSARY. Illogical we are to a certain extent, we let our emotions drive us, but faith is to sustain our beleif in all emotional states. God understands our suffering arising from doubt, and he will always help us through it though. I strongly beleive that we should not think along the venue of “having” faith, but simply utilize what we have, God has and will always give us enough. The notion of lacking in faith is just another way Satan uses fear to distance us from God.

And once again, suffering and evil are not at all, even in the slightest bit, the same. Nor are they things, they are states of being rather than created things. God never created evil, but he did create animals and human beings that were capable of suffering. He also created man’s free will which could allow him to choose evil (which is not a thing but the distancing and seperation from the source of all Truth and goodness: God). Saint Augustine was able to explain this far better than I could. Here’s a link to elaborate on this more, which I posted before as well. I strongly encourage people to read this, especially if they think suffering proves God is not completely good (thus can’t exist), or if they confuse suffering with evil at all:

str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5124

 

[Hokomai]

Heaven is not a physical world! Nor is there any reason to believe higher animals are excluded from heaven… Our ideas of reality tend to be too parochial!

So you reject the doctrines of the incarnation, the assumption of Mary and the resurrection of the dead?

 

[tonyrey]

Heaven is not a physical world! Nor is there any reason to believe higher animals are excluded from heaven… Our ideas of reality tend to be too parochial!

Non sequitur! They have glorified bodies.

 

[Hokomai]

Non sequitur! They have glorified bodies.

So where in Catholic teaching does it say that glorified bodies are not physical?

 

[tonyrey]

So where in Catholic teaching does it say that glorified bodies are not physical?

Jesus said “God is spirit” and told us to pray to “Our Father who art in heaven”. It follows that heaven is not a place but a spiritual realm beyond time and space in which glorified bodies no longer have features that can be observed with the senses…

 

[LittleSoldier]

Oh, sorry.

I was not aware of the ban. The thread already had references to that topic in it before I joined in.

I now see the sticky post announcing the ban.

This is what I will do. I will personally self-ban myself from CAF for my infraction.

I do not know how to discuss the philosophy of animal suffering without exploring both the nature of God and the banned topic.

So goodbye CAF! Have fun!

Just in case you read this, I think you should know that the ban was put in place for a very good reason. I participated in the last thread in which it was discussed. Until posters can learn to be charitable to each other I’m afraid the ban will remain in place.

My warning was posted so that you would not receive an infraction and so that the thread could remain open. I wasn’t participating in this thread until a short time ago. I didn’t have time to read all the posts. That’s why I posted a warning to you and then a posting to everyone.

I am sorry you have decided to leave, especially as you did not give me a chance to explain my actions. I didn’t mean to single you out. I’m sorry for that.

 

[LittleSoldier]

So are you saying that time is not real, or that for God nothing happens ‘before or after’ and event?

I am sorry if my post was not clear. It is a difficult subject to discuss (especially using the English language and via the Internet), new to me, and I have problems when trying to conceive of eternal life (if I concentrate on it long enough I will have a full-blown panic attack and will turn into a puddle of jello, whimpering in a corner somewhere). I am not saying that time is not real. Time *is *real (isn’t it commonly known as the fourth dimension?). I used the terms “eternal time” and “chronological time.” I never stated that time is not real.

Please let me try again.

What I am saying is that God, in an eternal and divine sense, does not use the same system of time as we do although, because of His omnipotence, He certainly has the power to adapt His actions to those who use chronological time. He may work using chronological time when He wishes to do so. Because He is omniscient He is certainly aware of everything that has ever happened, is happening now, and will ever happen through eternity. *That *is what I mean by “eternal time.” Human beings are not omniscient and, with the exception of the prophets, cannot see into the future. We rely on chronological time because it works for us. If we didn’t use chronological time, everything would be an even bigger mess than it currently is.

Why then are Catholics required to marry before, and not after, having sex with each other?

Because they are human beings and human beings measure time in a chronological way.

Why is baptism required before admittance to the church or the other sacraments?

Because human beings measure time in a chronological way and because Baptism is the base upon which the other Sacraments rest. When one is baptised, one becomes a member of the Church (assuming that the Baptism is a Catholic Baptism). It wouldn’t make sense for a non-Catholic to receive the Eucharist or become a priest.

Is your statement about time Catholic teaching? Where is it stated?

I honestly don’t know if my statement correlates with Catholic teaching. If I did know I would have stated “The Church teaches…”. I did not do that. And as I do not know if it is Church teaching I don’t know where it would be stated, if it is.

 

[Hokomai]

have problems when trying to conceive of eternal life (if I concentrate on it long enough I will have a full-blown panic attack and will turn into a puddle of jello, whimpering in a corner somewhere).

Me too. Maybe our differences indicate that I am already puddlified!

 

[Sair]

I should add that it is only pampered women who regard the pain of childbirth as a valid argument against the value and beauty of childbirth. It is regarded as a natural event in most societies. Men have to suffer in other ways because their work often entails being more exposed to danger and accidents than being at home. The aversion to pain is a symptom of an unrealistic hedonistic mentality which puts pleasure and freedom from hardship at the top of one’s scale of values - as if we can have everything for nothing…

Wow - what a great example of picking up a point and running with it in a direction of your own choosing, rather than the sense in which it was intended.

The religious teaching - whether the Catholic church takes it literally or not - is that the suffering of women in childbirth (which was, by the way, before we began to understand the value of hygiene and to develop beneficial ways of intervening in the birthing process, THE primary cause of death for women) is the result of Eve’s participation in the Fall - thus introducing an element of moral judgement into what is a perfectly natural process. In fact, it’s because humans evolved from quadrupedal animals, and now the orientation of the human pelvis is such that childbirth is considerably more traumatic for a human female than for other mammal females. My point was simply that if there was any kind of intelligent design involved, this could have been re-jigged to avoid the extremities of suffering many women experience in giving birth. I did not intend this as any sort of argument against human reproduction.

 

[Sair]

Fantasy is not an adequate reason for rejecting reality!

Well, this kind of sums up why I rejected theistic belief in the first place! This is only a fantasy because your god didn’t bring it about, whether because he does not live up to hype, or because he doesn’t exist. You asked how it would be possible to avoid certain natural evils, such as predation - I merely suggested a way it could have been avoided, had an omnipotent god chosen to do so. You required only possibilities to answer your argument - I provided one.

Suffering is an inevitable consequence of sentience which does not outweigh the immense value of life.

Tell this to any person who is suffering to the extent that they wish to end their life. Tell them where the value of their life is, if they can’t experience it.

No, suffering is not an inevitable consequence of sentience in a world over which an omnipotent god presides. Sentience only affords the potential for suffering, given conditions that cause said suffering; said conditions are not inevitable in a world over which an omnipotent, loving god presides - nothing is inevitable if that is the case. That is why the existence of suffering is such a good argument against the existence of the God of Classical Theism.

 

[Della]

Getting back to the topic, animals do not suffer AS HUMAN BEINGS DO. They do not project their fears into the future. They do not know the cause of their pain. They do not expect it to end or continue. All the know is what they are experiencing within any given moment of time. Only those who can understand and can project their fears into the future are suffering mental anguish. Animals don’t suffer that kind of anguish. Certainly they experience great pain, but without a context in which to put that pain, it only means they feel pain, not that they have desires based on the eleviation of pain.

I have been owned by several cats over my life time. I have buried at least 5 in my yard. I know the kind of pain they can endure and what they can’t. People who know little about animal sensitivity don’t understand that they cannot “buck up” and endure as a human being can. They can only endure for as long as they are able under the circumstances, but they can’t hope for a better outcome.

Animal bones/fossils clearly show that if caught in mud/tar/amber, they struggled to get out. That is a natural response, one we share with them. But they didn’t have dread of what might happen to them if they didn’t get out. That requires sentience/self-knowing, which they DO NOT possess. As I wrote before, this a blessing for them, not a curse. It is better that they not know or their pain would be tenfold. In their case ignorance is bliss and a blessing.

Adam and Eve were created in a state of innocence. There were no bad consequences for them. They spoke directly with God and were in union with him. It was only after the Fall that women now would experience what animals do–pain in childbirth. But, for women this is a curse because we are capable of understanding what causes pain and that it can be eleviated. Once again, animals DO NOT have this ability, which is why the DO NOT suffer as we understand the word. They suffer pain, but not dread of the future, which often makes pain unendurable for us. We have learned, from them, that being put under helps the healing process because there is no long any stimulus of pain causing stress on the body. And in the case of human beings, stress on the mind, as well.

 

[tonyrey]

I should add that it is only pampered women who regard the pain of childbirth as a valid argument against the value and beauty of childbirth. It is regarded as a natural event in most societies. Men have to suffer in other ways because their work often entails being more exposed to danger and accidents than being at home. The aversion to pain is a symptom of an unrealistic hedonistic mentality which puts pleasure and freedom from hardship at the top of one’s scale of values - as if we can have everything for nothing…

Your argument that the pain of child-birth is evidence against Design is undoubtedly a
symptom of an unrealistic hedonistic mentality which puts pleasure and freedom from hardship at the top of one’s scale of values - as if we can have everything for nothing…
**It is regarded as a natural process in most societies - **including Christianity.

The religious teaching - whether the Catholic church takes it literally or not - is that the suffering of women in childbirth (which was, by the way, before we began to understand the value of hygiene and to develop beneficial ways of intervening in the birthing process, THE primary cause of death for women) is the result of Eve’s participation in the Fall - introducing an element of moral judgement into what is a perfectly natural process.

You will not find the primitive notion that the suffering of women in childbirth is due to the Fall in the Catechism or any Church doctrine.

In fact, it’s because humans evolved from quadrupedal animals, and now the orientation of the human pelvis is such that childbirth is considerably more traumatic for a human female than for other mammal females. My point was simply that if there was any kind of intelligent design involved, this could have been re-jigged to avoid the extremities of suffering many women experience in giving birth. I did not intend this as any sort of argument against human reproduction.

You imply that the pain of childbirth is excessive, detracts from the value of childbirth and is a good reason for some women to avoid having children. After all if we exist for no reason or purpose and life is so traumatic why be so cruel as to inflict it on others?

 

[tonyrey]

Fantasy is not an adequate reason for rejecting reality!

One is which so absurd that no reasonable person would regard it as a rational argument - unless you explain how homo sapiens could photosynthesise like plants and also be completely impervious to serious injury. Anyone can suggest piecemeal improvements to the world but to give a detailed account of **how **they could be integrated into the process of development is an entirely different matter - as the disastrous consequences of human interference have made abundantly clear. You are setting yourself up as an expert on the design and creation of immensely complex biological systems without pausing to think of all the factors that have to be considered.

Suffering is an inevitable consequence of sentience which does not outweigh the immense value of life.

Tell this to any person who is suffering to the extent that they wish to end their life. Tell them where the value of their life is, if they can’t experience it.

A non sequitur. Does suffering outweigh the value of life?

No, suffering is not an inevitable consequence of sentience in a world over which an omnipotent god presides. Sentience only affords the potential for suffering, given conditions that cause said suffering; said conditions are not inevitable in a world over which an omnipotent, loving god presides - nothing is inevitable if that is the case.

Your concept of omnipotence is undermined by the fact that you are not omniscient.
How do you know what is feasible in a physical system? You are assuming sentience is possible without suffering. How would you justify that hedonistic hypothesis?

That is why the existence of suffering is such a good argument against the existence of the God of Classical Theism.

It has been rejected by the vast majority of philosophers of religion - including atheists - as you will discover if you care to consult any textbook on the subject.

 

[Sair]

One is which so absurd that no reasonable person would regard it as a rational argument - unless you explain how homo sapiens could photosynthesise like plants and also be completely impervious to serious injury. Anyone can suggest piecemeal improvements to the world but to give a detailed account of **how **they could be integrated into the process of development is an entirely different matter - as the disastrous consequences of human interference have made abundantly clear. You are setting yourself up as an expert on the design and creation of immensely complex biological systems without pausing to think of all the factors that have to be considered.

Lack of imagination is no excuse for dismissing possibilities when you believe that anything is possible for your god…

A non sequitur. Does suffering outweigh the value of life?

To people who can see no possible alternative, perhaps it does. Is it better to live for a year in unbearable torment, knowing you will die anyway, than to end your life when you wish to?

Your concept of omnipotence is undermined by the fact that you are not omniscient.

And you are?!

How do you know what is feasible in a physical system? You are assuming sentience is possible without suffering. How would you justify that hedonistic hypothesis?

How would you justify your assertion that it’s not? I am merely going upon the axiom, stated in your holy book, that “all things are possible with God”. Are you saying that’s just a figure of speech? What’s more, upon my belief about the universe, it is not required for me to say that such things are possible in a physical system - I am not the one who believes there is some supernatural aspect to reality.

It has been rejected by the vast majority of philosophers of religion - including atheists - as you will discover if you care to consult any textbook on the subject.

I have consulted numerous textbooks that have stated unequivocally that even if an omnipotent god were incapable, for some reason, of creating a perfect world, it is still more than possible to conceive of a better one. Your attempt to argue that this is an invalid position because no-one can know what is possible for an omnipotent god cuts both ways - you are no more capable of delimiting what is not possible than I am of defining what should be possible, given the condition of omnipotence ascribed to your god. Bend over backwards, if you must, to argue away the implications of omnipotence, but you still have no satisfactory answer to the problem of evil generated by assuming the existence of the God of Classical Theism.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I should add that it is only pampered women who regard the pain of childbirth as a valid argument against the value and beauty of childbirth. It is regarded as a natural event in most societies. Men have to suffer in other ways because their work often entails being more exposed to danger and accidents than being at home. The aversion to pain is a symptom of an unrealistic hedonistic mentality which puts pleasure and freedom from hardship at the top of one’s scale of values - as if we can have everything for nothing…

Have you ever given birth? If not, please do not speak for those who have. Giving birth, at least in most Western societies, is considered the most physically painful experience that a human being can normally undergo. I disagree with this because I have experienced pain greater than that of childbirth; however, the pain of childbirth can reduce a woman who is full of love and hope for her child and who has thanked God endlessly for His gift, into a creature who is writing in absolute agony.

It has nothing to do with being pampered. It has everything to do with “IT HURTS!” Men do not normally ever experience *anything *remotely as painful as childbirth.

Also, women suffer in ways other than childbirth as their work often also entails “being more exposed to danger and accidents than being at home.” Do you honestly think that women who have given birth remain at home and are not exposed to danger?

 

[tonyrey]

I should add that it is only pampered women who regard the pain of childbirth as a valid argument against the value and beauty of childbirth. It is regarded as a natural event in most societies. Men have to suffer in other ways because their work often entails being more exposed to danger and accidents than being at home. The aversion to pain is a symptom of an unrealistic hedonistic mentality which puts pleasure and freedom from hardship at the top of one’s scale of values - as if we can have everything for nothing…

1. Do you believe the pain of childbirth is a valid argument against the value and beauty of bringing a child into the world?
2. Do you believe the pain of childbirth is a valid argument against the belief that God designed and created the universe?

 

[tonyrey]

One is which so absurd that no reasonable person would regard it as a rational argument - unless you explain how homo sapiens could photosynthesise like plants and also be completely impervious to serious injury. Anyone can suggest piecemeal improvements to the world but to give a detailed account of how they could be integrated into the process of development is an entirely different matter - as the disastrous consequences of human interference have made abundantly clear. You are setting yourself up as an expert on the design and creation of immensely complex biological systems without pausing to think of all the factors that have to be considered.

“Anything is possible” is a simplistic definition of omnipotence.

A non sequitur. Does suffering outweigh the value of life?

To people who can see no possible alternative, perhaps it does. Is it better to live for a year in unbearable torment, knowing you will die anyway, than to end your life when you wish to?

A false dilemma. No one is compelled to live for a year in unbearable torment.

Your concept of omnipotence is undermined by the fact that you are not omniscient.
And you are?!

Unlike you I don’t claim to **know **that physical evil can be prevented…

How do you know what is feasible in a physical system? You are assuming sentience is possible without suffering. How would you justify that hedonistic hypothesis?

How would you justify your assertion that it’s not? I am merely going upon the axiom, stated in your holy book, that “all things are possible with God”. Are you saying that’s just a figure of speech? What’s more, upon my belief about the universe, it is not required for me to say that such things are possible in a physical system - I am not the one who believes there is some supernatural aspect to reality.

You are presuming to have knowledge that invalidates belief in supernatural reality…

I have consulted numerous textbooks that have stated unequivocally that even if an omnipotent god were incapable, for some reason, of creating a perfect world, it is still more than possible to conceive of a better one.

“to conceive” is not equivalent to “know that it is feasible”.

Your attempt to argue that this is an invalid position because no-one can know what is possible for an omnipotent god cuts both ways - you are no more capable of delimiting what is not possible than I am of defining what should be possible, given the condition of omnipotence ascribed to your god. Bend over backwards, if you must, to argue away the implications of omnipotence, but you still have no satisfactory answer to the problem of evil generated by assuming the existence of the God of Classical Theism.

Your **assumption **that there is no satisfactory answer to the problem of evil is falsified by the inevitable dysteleological coincidences in any immensely complex system. A universe devoid of negative factors and consequences is an infantile fantasy…