Reconciling animals and suffering

by Pacopoolio 34 Replies latest jw friends

  • Pacopoolio
    Pacopoolio

    We know that Christians generally go through ridiculous mental voodoo to explain why a benevolent God allows human suffering, and none of it makes any sense, or is filled with bunk logic. That's what happens when you try and retrofit a Jewish "God is good and evil" religion into a benevolent religion.

    One of the biggest "trips" to a JW/Christian in continuing this line of thought is asking them why God would create animals simply to suffer and die, then, after they try to blame everything on Adam (whose brain God supposedly created, and who put him into the exact situation that had an influence on that brain to cause him to sin). Answers and their rebuttals include:

    - Animals didn't kill each other in the Paradise - sin messed that up.
    *There is TONS of evidence that dinosaurs killed, fought, and ate each other, and they still suffered and died in painful ways even without that.

    - Animals don't think and work on instinct unlike us superior humans.
    *Any pet owner would tell you that's idiotic. They feel, have emotions, predict pain, avoid pain, etc. on various levels. They recognize "self." Apes, dogs, dolphins, pigs, and other animals "feel" on a level close to humanity. The "animals are stupid robots" idea has long been phased out.

    Then, if you want to REALLY attempt to hit home, ask them, "In fact, knowing that animals suffer, why do you EAT them and add to their suffering?"

    - God told Noah he could eat animals.
    *So why would God ADD to animal suffering on top of what they already experienced by creating one more predator for them? Why would a loving God cause suffering like that?

    You will never, ever, not get a blank stare where you immediately see the cognitive dissonance breaking and them walking away. In fact, in JW land, this is one of the easiest ways to get someone to stop talking to you - as it's something they encounter on a day to day basis and can't really reconcile. It generally bothers them to come to this realization, so they think that this "bother" is coming from the Devil as opposed to their natural logical senses seeing an obvious contradiction.

  • Magnum
    Magnum

    Very good post. Have a lot to say about it. Will come back later; at work now.

  • cognisonance
    cognisonance

    Yep... great way to get the cognitive dissonance flowing. In fact, I still have that issue with eating meat... We share so much in common with other animials. Our limbic systems (areas of the brain that control variety of functions, including emotion, behavior, motivation, long-term memory, and olfaction) are very similar, not just to our closest relatives such as chimps and bonobos, but also even the fly!

    Did you know that flies when they get regected sexually, get depressed and go get drunk? Don't believe me? Check this out: Learning From the Spurned and Tipsy Fruit Fly

  • Pacopoolio
    Pacopoolio

    Yeah, I became a vegetarian as it was the best balance of not purposely causing animals pain for my pleasure (ie. animals don't -need- to be harmed or killed to support a vegetarian diet, even though they sadly are in most instances), while still being able to survive somewhat comfortably, since a vegan diet would make eating a giant pain and my health would start to suffer. I want to go vegan eventually, but weaning myself to be able to do a livable vegan diet is taking a while.

    When my mom would talk to me about Christian morality and my reasons for not practicing, etc. my response became, "you torture and kill animals strictly for your pleasure." Her response was always a variation of "well it's not the Paradise yet."

  • FatFreek 2005
    FatFreek 2005

    To preface my comments, I am having a turkey breast sandwich for lunch. Sorry, Tom, for your suffering.

    A very good post. To go further, where is the line in the creature kingdom that we humans should treat them "humanely"? I regularly kill and poison armadillos, mosquitos, roaches, and fire ants. When riding my bicycle, I will go that far when a dog invades my space. Inside my house, anything not invited is fair game. When I hit a deer while driving a few years ago I stopped and turned around. If I had found the ailing deer I was prepared to put it to sleep. Why? If I kill a squirrel or cat why don't I do the same?

    Len

  • BluesBrother
    BluesBrother

    A post that creates problems only for people that actually care about animal suffering and have a conscience about eating meat, or indeed the way that food is reared and slaughtered. Most dubs are not in this category.

    They recognize that a) unknown animals died in "The Flood", b) God decreed that men could kill and eat meat , so that makes it right, c) millions of animals were needlessly slaughtered and burned in sacrifice in Jewish times of the O.T. - all for no more reason than "as a teaching aid to understand the sacrifice of Jesus" ...vegetarians are looked on as cranks .

    While they may struggle to provide a sensible answer to your questions, they will go away and think that you are an overly sensitive nuttter

    (NB the thoughts expressed in this post are to explain the views of others and not necessarily my own)

  • Pacopoolio
    Pacopoolio

    That's why pets are generally used as the illustrative point.

    Many people have a cognitive dissonance between animals for food and animals for companionship. We/They generally just block off giving anything we eat any kind of "personhood" while granting it to animals that we let into our homes as a way to continue enjoy what we're eating.

    When you know those people have Fluffy or Fido or whatever and cuddle next to them, -that's- what you generally use as the point. Instead of their minds going to "dumb cows" (they aren't really, but it's easy to get that impression) or "dumb fish" or whatever, if the point of reference is something that they care about, -then- it typically becomes an issue. It's something like:

    "What would you do if I grabbed your cat, slit its throat while it screamed, put it on a rock, set it on fire, and then happily went home?"

    - Angry answer.

    "Why would God demand that of countless animals then?"

    That same allegory can also be applied to any way an animal is killed in the wild via the natural order that God supposedly designed. "What if I disembowled your dog and let it slowly bleed out in pain for the rest of the day in torture?" "Why did a loving God create a system where similar has happened BILLIONS of times?!" Etc.

    It's true that it only works with people that can actually empathize with non human suffering, however, a TON of meat eating humans have animals they empathize with. If that's the point of relation, it's a bit of inescapable logic that drives them crazy.

  • raymond frantz
    raymond frantz

    I had the same problem until I read this .It might not solve all your questions but definetely sheds light to why whould a benevolant God let animals suffer ,let me know what you think:

    In his book Nature Red in Tooth and Claw, Michael Murray explains on the basis of neurological studies that there is an ascending three-fold hierarchy of pain awareness in nature:

    Level 3: Awareness that one is oneself in pain
    Level 2: Mental states of pain
    Level 1: Aversive reaction to noxious stimuli

    Organisms which are not sentient, that is, have no mental life, display at most Level 1 reactions. Insects, worms, and other invertebrates react to noxious stimuli but lack the neurological capacity to feel pain. Their avoidance behavior obviously has a selective advantage in the struggle for survival and so is built into them by natural selection. The experience of pain is thus not necessary for an organism to exhibit aversive behavior to contact that may be injurious. Thus when your friend asks, “If you beat an animal, wouldn't it try to avoid the source of pain so that way 'it' wouldn't suffer? Isn't that a form of 'self-awareness?'," you can see that such aversive behavior doesn’t even imply second order pain awareness, much less third order awareness. Avoidance behavior doesn’t require pain awareness, and the neurological capacities of primitive organisms aren’t sufficient to support Level 2 mental states.

    Level 2 awareness arrives on the scene with the vertebrates. Their nervous systems are sufficiently developed to have associated with certain brain states mental states of pain. So when we see an animal like a dog, cat, or horse thrashing about or screaming when injured, it is irresistible to ascribe to them second order mental states of pain. It is this experience of animal pain that forms the basis of the objection to God’s goodness from animal suffering. But notice that an experience of Level 2 pain awareness does not imply a Level 3 awareness. Indeed, the biological evidence indicates that very few animals have an awareness that they are themselves in pain.

    Level 3 is a higher-order awareness that one is oneself experiencing a Level 2 state. Your friend asks, “How could an animal not be aware of their suffering if they're yelping/screaming out of pain?" Brain studies supply the remarkable answer. Neurological research indicates that there are two independent neural pathways associated with the experience of pain. The one pathway is involved in producing Level 2 mental states of being in pain. But there is an independent neural pathway that is associated with being aware that one is oneself in a Level 2 state. And this second neural pathway is apparently a very late evolutionary development which only emerges in the higher primates, including man. Other animals lack the neural pathways for having the experience of Level 3 pain awareness. So even though animals like zebras and giraffes, for example, experience pain when attacked by a lion, they really aren’t aware of it.

    To help understand this, consider an astonishing analogous phenomenon in human experience known as blind sight. The experience of sight is also associated biologically with two independent neural pathways in the brain. The one pathway conveys visual stimuli about what external objects are presented to the viewer. The other pathway is associated with an awareness of the visual states. Incredibly, certain persons, who have experienced impairment to the second neural pathway but whose first neural pathway is functioning normally, exhibit what is called blind sight. That is to say, these people are effectively blind because they are not aware that they can see anything. But in fact, they do “see” in the sense that they correctly register visual stimuli conveyed by the first neural pathway. If you toss a ball to such a person he will catch it because he does see it. But he isn’t aware that he sees it! Phenomenologically, he is like a person who is utterly blind, who doesn’t receive any visual stimuli. Obviously, as Michael Murray says, it would be a pointless undertaking to invite a blind sighted person to spend an afternoon at the art gallery. For even though he, in a sense, sees the paintings on the walls, he isn’t aware that he sees them and so has no experience of the paintings.

    Now neurobiology indicates a similar situation with respect to animal pain awareness. All animals but the great apes and man lack the neural pathways associated with Level 3 pain awareness. Being a very late evolutionary development, this pathway is not present throughout the animal world. What that implies is that throughout almost the entirety of the long history of evolutionary development, no creature was ever aware of being in pain.

    Viewed theologically, this discovery magnifies the mercy and goodness of God. God has shielded almost the entire animal kingdom throughout its history from an awareness of being in pain! For those of us who are pet owners and lovers of animals, this is a tremendous comfort and a cause of praise to God for His goodness and wondrous, even ingenious, care of creation. Who would have guessed that God had done such a thing? These neurological insights, documented by Murray, greatly reduce the force of the problem of evil posed by animal suffering.

  • raymond frantz
    raymond frantz

    Also God in order to create viable compex ecosystems that can sustain life had to introduce predators ,otherwise such ecosystems wouldn't have been viable.

    Animals are part of a broader ecosystem in which the human drama is played out. And such an ecosystem must be balanced if it’s to be viable. It is no accident that every ecosystem involves predators of some sort. For example, recently the Canadian authorities started reintroducing wolves into the wild in Canada. Why? Because in the absence of these predators the caribou herds were over populating because there was no one to pick off the diseased and the aged. And as a result they were over grazing and therefore dying of starvation! The predators actually enhanced the survivability and the health of the caribou herds on which they preyed, so that predators are an essential part of an ecosystem. In a world without predators, the insects would soon take over, since there would be nothing to eat them, and all the animals would soon die because all the vegetation would be consumed by insects. And once the insects had consumed all the vegetation, they would die off as well. So any viable ecosystem needs to have predation in it in order to succeed.

  • prologos
    prologos

    marked.

    even our pain can be totally overridden, wthout effecting consciousness.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit