cajela

This morning one of my cats brought in a mouse. It was a little distressing - it was clearly alive; and the cat was, in the way of cats, playing with it. I could hear it squeak when it was picked up and flung in the air. So I rescued it and threw it in the garden. It will probably die, and anyway, before we had cats we used to put out mousetraps, so I'm inconsistently sentimental, OK?


But here's the train of thought:

Why did God make animals that prey on others? Nature contains an enormous amount of suffering for animals, which are clearly capable of pain annd distress. Why didn't God make all animals vegetarian? Or provide anaesthetics in predator's bites?

Now, Xians usually argue that suffering is required for free will, and is caused by the human exercise of free will. But I don't see any human agency in a pack of wolves running down a deer and starting to eat it while it's still alive; or in the good old ichneumon wasp story. And if "by man came death", isn't that pretty harsh on the deer and possums and roos and mice and caterpillars? What did they do to offend God?

I work in an area where people kill mice for medical research, and we have ethics committees to ensure that a minimum of suffering is imposed on the animals. Are we better than God?

What is the usual Xian argument here? Animal suffering doesn't matter?

(Should I put this in EOG? It's a bit chatty.)

DaMan121

Well.. I dont see appolegetics succesfully working for excusing human suffering, but yeah, when you add in ALL of the suffering in this world... its alot! Not to mention natural disasters,bacteria,diseases etc that have ziltch to do with free-will. If you've been here longer enough, when backed into a corner, all thiests will conceed that we are nothing, and only god's play things, so he can do whatever he wants with us... after that, there is nothing left to debate.

johntheapostate

Fundementalist insist that before the time of Noah all animals, even those who are now carnivorous were herbavours. Genisis 1:30 "And to all beasts of the earth, and to all the birds of the air and to all the creatures that move on the ground - everything that has the breath of life in it I give every green plant for food. And it was so" It was only after the flood that the eating of meat was allowed. Genesis 9:3 "Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything." some christians insist that we take Genesis literaly, but how can I believe that lions and other carnivours ate grass. How did any sustainable system function without the balance we see in nature. I guess it was done in the same way that the ecosystem operated without rain untill the time of Noah.

orac

Here's my favourite christian explanation: "That mouse deserved to suffer. After all, when Adam and Eve ate that stupid fruit when they were told not to do it, their disobedience hurt God so terribly that he had absolutely no choice but to condemn every last creature that would ever exist to a life of suffering and pain (and, of course, eternity in hell for all of Adam & Eve's descendants)."

And some people wonder why I question the compassion of some christians.

sstahlecker

Cajala, interesting observation. Don't believe I've ever run across any good biblical reason for it. I think it real problematic for Christianity that the whole issue of evil and why bad things happen on earth is covered in only a handful of texts.

orac- Almost embarassed to admit that I once believed that God had the right to reign terror on humanity in the form of the curse. Maintaining this idea is a bit like inflicting oneself with a psycological wound. A person really has to believe that he is wicked and deserving of such punishment, and so is the human race.

You said: I wouldn't wonder this. Might it be because Christianity forces people to think in cruel and unusual ways? For example, as the destruction of the wicked is the most highly anticipated events of the Bible, a believer is obligated to look forward to this event with the same excitement as God.

www.escapereligion.com

cajela

DaMan, I don't agree with the apologetics on human suffering either. I'm just setting it aside for the sake of argument.

capsaicin67

Making shit up as you go about a mutable, frequently unverifiable, antiquated story of made up magical shit leaves plenty of wiggle room.

Let's see. Animals do not have souls. The beasts of the field are lessers and subordinate to humans. They are our playthings. We are special children of god and more godly than they, and god expects a bit more from us damn it. It is somewhat expected that the beasts of the field are going to be beastly as they do not get to go to heaven anyway. Just as the beasts are subordinate to humans, humans are subordinate to god and his capos.

Any other questions?

God moves in mysterious ways and it will all become clear to us later, after we've paid up front, when we join god in heaven blah blah blah.....

seebs

This actually leads to an interesting question: What do we mean by "good"?

Are cats morally good? I don't think so.

Are cats "good predators"? I think so.

Perhaps the judgment of creation as "good" is not a question of morality, but of suitability for purpose.

cajela

I think my cats are morally neutral. They follow their instincts in tormenting mice, and purring at the Giver of Food. They have some sense of "wrong" because they know the human will punish them with a slap on the nose when they try to steal the vegemite toast. But that's not a moral question, that's recognising behaviour patterns.

The moral issue only comes in when you consider that cats (and other predators) are casuing suffering to other beings. So if someone designed them to do that, then that someone has much to answer for!

NearNihil Experience

I believe the standard apologetic for that one is that there is really no suffering, because suffering is just needless harm and pain...and since God wills everything, then everything is necessary..needed. So suffering is part of the divine plan and in no way should be construed as negative.

Actually I happen to agree with them in a wierd way. Though I don't think or believe that all springs from a divine spring, I do think suffering, of all creatureswho can suffer, is not evil, or bad, or not to be appriciated becuase of its necessity. Rot and filth and disease and violence and gore and eating raw stuff is just an ugly part of life and death. But ugly and unpleasant doesn't inherently mean evil or bad.

Anyway, thats how I disassociate myself from\deal with the earthquakes and cute little animals getting squished on the road and cats killing mice, and people killing each other, and famine and plague...

2 cents.

And those are "good" kitties doing kitty things.

Really, moralizing natural behaviors is just such a stretch.