Why, do you think, animals suffer?

[LittleSoldier]

I am sorry but I do not understand your comment.

I don’t, either.

 

[LittleSoldier]

It makes more sense to think that God designed us to have the internal pain sensors than to think that it evolved that way, but He must have done it knowing that some day we would invent medical care. The first appendectomy was performed in 1735, so for most of human history there was no point to having the appendix have pain sensors, nothing could be done for it.
But I get what you are saying. It tells us to seek medical care (now that we have medical care)
Evolution could not have done that since evolution does not think and have reasons.

Thanks

Evolution is a banned topic in every CAF forum. If it is discussed this thread will be closed.

 

[maplebug55]

because humans eat them.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Please do not discuss evolution. It is a banned topic!!!

 

[scm]

So prior to Adam (who the Church considers to have been a real person), and his sin, why did god allow billions of years of animal suffering, as shown by the millions of fossils of animals who died in pain and distress?

I do not see how pain and distress can be recorded in a fossil.

About the why question… Whenever someone comes to me and asks me why someone else did or didn’t do something, my response is always to say “Go ask them why.”

So if you really want to know why God did or did not do something, Go ask Him.

Anyone else can only offer an opinion.

 

[Hokomai]

I do not see how pain and distress can be recorded in a fossil.

About the why question… Whenever someone comes to me and asks me why someone else did or didn’t do something, my response is always to say “Go ask them why.”

So if you really want to know why God did or did not do something, Go ask Him.

Anyone else can only offer an opinion.

There are fossils of animals trapped in mud, or amber, for example.

 

[Hokomai]

You are right in that the Church considers Adam to have been a real person. I agree with that teaching, even though my background is in science. But God does not work in chronological time; we do. This is another situation when we need to climb out of the box and try to view things from an eternal perspective (and we will fail but hopefully come to some sort of understanding). To God, all time is now.

This is coming dangerously close to a banned topic; please be careful. I don’t want an infraction and I don’t want you to receive one, either.

So are you saying that time is not real, or that for God nothing happens ‘before or after’ and event? Why then are Catholics required to marry before, and not after, having sex with each other? Why is baptism required before admittance to the church or the other sacraments? Is your statement about time Catholic teaching? Where is it stated?

 

[scm]

Evolution is a banned topic in every CAF forum. If it is discussed this thread will be closed.

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!

 

[scm]

There are fossils of animals trapped in mud, or amber, for example.

See my previous note regarding bans of topics.

Sorry to cut the discussion off with you, it looked like it would get interesting, but I am picking up my marbles here and going elsewhere.

see ya…

 

[Hokomai]

See my previous note regarding bans of topics.

Sorry to cut the discussion off with you, it looked like it would get interesting, but I am picking up my marbles here and going elsewhere.

see ya…

“Fossils” are not the same thing as “evolution”.

 

[Sair]

You need to explain how animals could be prevented from suffering and also prevented from harming themselves…

Well, we could all photosynthesise, like plants, and perhaps be impervious to serious injury, in which case pain would be but a minor inconvenience.

If I’m interpreting the OP correctly, it is essentially asking why, in a universe created by an omnipotent, all-loving god, animals whose existence is apparently not ‘justified’ by ultimate union with said god are subjected to the suffering they undoubtedly experience as sentient beings.

Well, I don’t think there is any good answer to that question. Certainly not one that does not call into question the supposed attributes of the God of Classical Theism.

All animals, including ourselves, experience fear, pain and privation. That is part and parcel of our existence in this world. 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…)

There’s a fundamental problem with the idea that humans introduced suffering into the animal kingdom through original sin. An omniscient god would have known this would happen, and even if free will for humans was the ultimate goal, why should innocent animals have been condemned to suffer because of human fallibility? That doesn’t even touch upon why a perfect creator would create imperfect beings. And why would an omnipotent, loving god create animals which can only survive by inflicting suffering and death upon other animals? How does this have any bearing upon the supposedly supreme value of human free will?

In short, there is no argument that can absolve the God of Classical Theism from responsibility for the suffering (whether we perceive such suffering as necessary or not) of all sentient beings, except the argument that no such being exists. The state of affairs in which we find ourselves, and in which other animals exist, is far more parsimoniously explained by the operation of indifferent natural forces, than by a loving and all-powerful deity’s creative activity. Of course, there may be a loving, compassionate god somewhere within or outside the universe, but this being clearly does not have the ability to intervene in the operations of daily life for mortal beings. Wouldn’t any of you do what you could to prevent suffering? Why doesn’t god, if he has the ability?

 

[Sair]

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 by the bye, to what extent are the “temporary” bans upon discussion of atheism and evolution (in place for well over a year now) enforced? It seems to me that plenty such discussion has made it through… And it’s rather difficult to pursue a topic such as this - how the problem of evil relates to nonhuman animal suffering - without broaching the subjects of evolution and atheism.

 

[Sair]

There are fossils of animals trapped in mud, or amber, for example.

Not to mention fossils that clearly show signs of trauma - not just teeth marks and evidence of violent dismemberment, but also healed and partially healed injuries. Broken bones are not pleasant to deal with…

 

[Hokomai]

Not to mention fossils that clearly show signs of trauma - not just teeth marks and evidence of violent dismemberment, but also healed and partially healed injuries. Broken bones are not pleasant to deal with…

Yes there is overwhelming evidence of hundreds of millions of years of animal suffering before the arrival of the real people, Adam and Eve, whose existence is taught by the Church. The Church appears to have no explanation as to why the sin of these people should be visited in anticipation upon these billions of creatures by an omnipotent and all-loving God. The obvious conclusion, that there is no such God, if of course an explanation not open to believers.

 

[tonyrey]

Your concept of omnipotence is obviously flawed. It does not entail inconsistency for a start…

1. Irrational omnipotence is the capricious exercise of infinite power
2. Rational omnipotence does not entail inconsistency as a result of constantly rescinding previous decisions
3. There is no point in establishing the laws of nature if they are going to be constantly suspended
4. In any immensely complex system there are bound to be unfortunate coincidences
5. It is impossible to prevent every accident and disaster without undermining the order and predictability of events
6. No one has ever produced a blueprint of a perfect world for the simple reason that it is an illusion
7. Every advantage has a corresponding disadvantage
8. It is absurd to expect to have everything for nothing
9. Sacrifice is a fundamental fact of existence
10. The negative aspects of life are outweighed by its immense value

 

[tonyrey]

Just by the bye, to what extent are the “temporary” bans upon discussion of atheism and evolution (in place for well over a year now) enforced? It seems to me that plenty such discussion has made it through… And it’s rather difficult to pursue a topic such as this - how the problem of evil relates to nonhuman animal suffering - without broaching the subjects of evolution and atheism.

To **refer **to evolution or atheism is not the same as discussing the details of those theories.

 

[tonyrey]

Yes there is overwhelming evidence of hundreds of millions of years of animal suffering before the arrival of the real people, Adam and Eve, whose existence is taught by the Church. The Church appears to have no explanation as to why the sin of these people should be visited in anticipation upon these billions of creatures by an omnipotent and all-loving God. The obvious conclusion, that there is no such God, if of course an explanation not open to believers.

The Church does not teach that moral evil is the cause of all** physical **evil.

 

[tonyrey]

You need to explain how animals could be prevented from suffering and also prevented from harming themselves…

Fantasy is not an adequate reason for rejecting reality!

If I’m interpreting the OP correctly, it is essentially asking why, in a universe created by an omnipotent, all-loving god, animals whose existence is apparently not ‘justified’ by ultimate union with said god are subjected to the suffering they undoubtedly experience as sentient beings.

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

Well, I don’t think there is any good answer to that question. Certainly not one that does not call into question the supposed attributes of the God of Classical Theism.

All animals, including ourselves, experience fear, pain and privation. That is part and parcel of our existence in this world. 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 …)

The hypothesis that a physical existence can be totally devoid of fear, pain and privation has never been supported by a feasible blueprint.

…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.

It is a pathetic objection that does not deter every woman from having children because the vast majority appreciate the immense value of life, love and motherhood. It is based on the false assumption that Design totally excludes the element of chance in the process of development.

There’s a fundamental problem with the idea that humans introduced suffering into the animal kingdom through original sin. An omniscient god would have known this would happen, and even if free will for humans was the ultimate goal, why should innocent animals have been condemned to suffer because of human fallibility? That doesn’t even touch upon why a perfect creator would create imperfect beings. And why would an omnipotent, loving god create animals which can only survive by inflicting suffering and death upon other animals? How does this have any bearing upon the supposedly supreme value of human free will?

The notion that our ancestors introduced suffering into the animal kingdom through original sin is a misinterpretation of the effects of the choice of evil on humanity. It confuses **moral **evil with physical evil.

In short, there is no argument that can absolve the God of Classical Theism from responsibility for the suffering (whether we perceive such suffering as necessary or not) of all sentient beings, except the argument that no such being exists. The state of affairs in which we find ourselves, and in which other animals exist, is far more parsimoniously explained by the operation of indifferent natural forces, than by a loving and all-powerful deity’s creative activity.

The “operation of indifferent natural forces” is a grossly inadequate explanation of the existence of rational beings with free will, moral principles, appreciation of beauty and a capacity for unselfish love.

Of course, there may be a loving, compassionate god somewhere within or outside the universe, but this being clearly does not have the ability to intervene in the operations of daily life for mortal beings. Wouldn’t any of you do what you could to prevent suffering? Why doesn’t god, if he has the ability?

You are assuming that God never intervenes yet the world could be far more catastrophic with natural disasters being a daily - or even hourly - event which afflicts the vast majority of sentient beings. Leibnitz remarked that there are far more houses than hospitals, thereby introducing sanity into the discussion rather than emotional nonsense…

 

[Hokomai]

The Church does not teach that moral evil is the cause of all** physical **evil.

Umm - does it not teach that as a result of sin, God’s original design in which animals ate only plants and not each other, was changed, and animals started eating each other? (Genisis 1:29-30)

Is your position that an all-loving god created physical evil?

 

[tonyrey]

  		*The Church does not teach that **moral***

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.

Is your position that an all-loving god created physical evil?

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