Animal suffering and God's nature

[dawny0826]

How utterly convenient, isn't it?

Just my honest answer, Koldo.

This is a world dominated by human beings and caring for animals is our responsibility. I care for my animals out of love. It's a reflection of what's inside of me.

I also believe in kindness to animals that are not my own. Though I believe that animals can be utilized for food, when they are utilized for food, their lives should be eliminated in the most humane way possible and while alive, they should be treated as kindly as possible.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Koldo;2946578]Because a loving God wants the well-being of all the living beings. And therefore, considering that unwanted pain stands in opposition to well-being, then a loving God must necessarily prevent it, unless there is a justification for not doing so.

And the justification would be that God does not cause pain and suffering, its the Laws of Karma and nature which to us as humans seem that animals are suffering and God hates them.
Form Hindu (My) POV, the Atman is not the body, and it feels no pain or suffering, so as i said earlier all Atman are on a path to higher consciousness, Ishwar provides opportunity for the betterment of the individual Atman, Ishwar's Love is in its mercy and justice. Ishwar does not show Love, it is Love. Its the Love we feel from our personal perspective of life. its the Love that we as Human beings can share with each other and the rest of the world.

From Hindu (My) POV, Ishwar is not a single entity somewhere showering love on only a few chosen, its the actual Love it self.

This problem may arise as we have different religious backgrounds, because, in my background, the word 'pain' means 'physical suffering'. However, let us not debate over definitions as this isn't not only unneeded as it is also irrelevant.

Agreed

The main contention is that (unwanted) 'pain' is an unpleasant feeling. And that it doesn't have to be a fact for physical lives. It is completely possible, given one has enough power to do so, to change ( or create since the start ) our environment and our bodies to a state where 'pain' is unrequired for survival.

What is the point of a painless existence. that would have been a ideal Universe, i guess even sharp objects would not exist, and death would be useless.

But hay, we are here and its the way it is.

 

[Penumbra]

Well if God dose not exist, why blame it for suffering?

There is no blame in nonexistence.

It's an argument to point out the concept that a claim (personal benevolent deities), and an observation (animal suffering), don't mix very well.

If some of that is dropped, like either the whole existence of deities, or simply the personal or benevolent aspect of any deities, then the discrepancy disappears.

Or if an effective argument is put forth that somehow maintains both the claim and the observation.

I never have pets, but if someone is concerned about the suffering of animals, then protesting against the ownership of animals will help lesson the suffering.

By a negligible amount, and maybe not at all.

Well, suffering in what way?

I mean is how is the natural world suffering?

Same as human suffering. A biological creature naturally develops with an aversion to harm, but sometimes gets harmed anyway.

And what is its cause?

Cutting of flesh, breaking of bones, predators and prey, disruptions of the environment that cause fire or starvation or suffocation, tar pits, disease, parasites, etc.

Ahh, so its natures fault now, as many would say.

No need to add the word "fault" in. Why be so critical towards nature? That just adds an element of human emotion.

Fault implies intent. Without intent, there is not fault. It just is.

Nature does not magically kill animals, there is a Law, as i said earlier. Law of survival, and as i said earlier, in nature its only survival not suffering.

It's not "only" survival. There's survival, and there's failure to survive. Both exist.

I quite agree to this, this is more the reason for me to infer that suffering of animals are caused directly or indirectly by human intervention.

Doesn't fit the facts.

Complex life has existed for hundreds of millions of years on Earth. Human life has existed for hundreds of thousands. That's an order of magnitude of roughly 1/1000th of the time. The largest known mass extinction events occurred before humans existed.

I agree, instead of correcting our wrongs committed against the natural world, we blame God or some supernatural entity.

Do you?

Rather, I view this as a failure to grasp the other view. A theist's inability to view from a standpoint that doesn't include theism. It's an argument to point out discrepancies between an observation (animal suffering) and a claim (benevolent deities), casting doubt on the validity of the claim (benevolent deities). Assuming the other party believes that the claim (benevolent deities) is true, misses the point of the argument.

-It has nothing to do with blaming any gods, if no gods exist, or no personal gods exist. If there are no supernatural entities that exist, there are none to blame. Without intent, there does not exist fault.

-For the purpose of understanding the position, put aside the concept of blame. There is no blame in such a position. It's an argument that an observation and a claim don't fit together very well.

I agree, but if there is a purpose for pain, then there is no needless suffering.

There's a purpose for hammers but it doesn't mean the hammers can't be often used incorrectly and for something totally unfitting their purpose.

An animal's pain has a purpose- it helps it survive. But once the prey is caught by the predator and begins being killed, the pain doesn't help any more, yet is still felt. Nature has no reason to foresee this and avoid it.

If we keep the deity out, then why are animals suffering?

Because nature doesn't optimize itself for comfort.

 

[Road Warrior]

There's a purpose for hammers but it doesn't mean the hammers can't be often used incorrectly and for something totally unfitting their purpose.

An animal's pain has a purpose- it helps it survive. But once the prey is caught by the predator and begins being killed, the pain doesn't help any more, yet is still felt. Nature has no reason to foresee this and avoid it.

Because nature doesn't optimize itself for comfort.

Agreed 100%. That's the way it is.

A theist's inability to view from a standpoint that doesn't include theism. It's an argument to point out discrepancies between an observation (animal suffering) and a claim (benevolent deities), casting doubt on the validity of the claim (benevolent deities).

A curious and highly prejudicial sidestep. "A theist's inability"? While I agree the person in question is wrong in their assertions, this doesn't mean all "theists" are wrong nor that it is the typical "theist" point of view. Perhaps I misinterpreted your intentions, your point of view or your remark about theists in general.

 

[Koldo]

Just my honest answer, Koldo.

This is a world dominated by human beings and caring for animals is our responsibility. I care for my animals out of love. It's a reflection of what's inside of me.

I also believe in kindness to animals that are not my own. Though I believe that animals can be utilized for food, when they are utilized for food, their lives should be eliminated in the most humane way possible and while alive, they should be treated as kindly as possible.

This answer does not involve God in any sort of manner. Therefore, i don't have anything in particular to say about it.

 

[Koldo]

And the justification would be that God does not cause pain and suffering, its the Laws of Karma and nature which to us as humans seem that animals are suffering and God hates them.

A loving God would not only 'not cause pain' but it would also prevent pain as well.

Form Hindu (My) POV, the Atman is not the body, and it feels no pain or suffering, so as i said earlier all Atman are on a path to higher consciousness, Ishwar provides opportunity for the betterment of the individual Atman, Ishwar's Love is in its mercy and justice. Ishwar does not show Love, it is Love. Its the Love we feel from our personal perspective of life. its the Love that we as Human beings can share with each other and the rest of the world.

From Hindu (My) POV, Ishwar is not a single entity somewhere showering love on only a few chosen, its the actual Love it self.

But from what I understand, the Atman is not the entirety of the living being. Therefore, it is not justified to be caring only about the Atman. Otherwise, if all that matters is the Atman then it would be fine to chop off limbs from people as the Atman does not depend on them to exist.
In essence, this life does matter, and as such the pain felt does as well.

What is the point of a painless existence. that would have been a ideal Universe, i guess even sharp objects would not exist, and death would be useless.

But hay, we are here and its the way it is.

The point of a painless existence? Isn't this like asking what is the point of a existence with a higher well-being?

The main point is that a loving God necessarily wants a existence with utmost well-being for all living beings.

 

[Penumbra]

A curious and highly prejudicial sidestep. "A theist's inability"? While I agree the person in question is wrong in their assertions, this doesn't mean all "theists" are wrong nor that it is the typical "theist" point of view. Perhaps I misinterpreted your intentions, your point of view or your remark about theists in general.

No, the intention was not to suggest that all theists make that assumption. It was worded to imply that specifically the person I'm debating at the moment seems to be making that mistake of point-of-view more than once in the discussion. Literally, "a theist", singular.

Meant to be worded in such a way to refer to specifically one theist in this case, without making it too personal. An observation of what I view to be a mistaken attempt to view the issue from the other side.

 

[dawny0826]

This answer does not involve God in any sort of manner. Therefore, i don't have anything in particular to say about it.

It does. The manner in which animals are treated is determined by humans. God gave humans dominion over animals.

My motivation to be kind comes from God.

 

[Koldo]

It does. The manner in which animals are treated is determined by humans. God gave humans dominion over animals.

My motivation to be kind comes from God.

Now this answer is related to God, so i can talk about it.

Let us being: How do you justify animals' suffering/pain that is not caused by humans?

 

[Road Warrior]

No, the intention was not to suggest that all theists make that assumption. It was worded to imply that specifically the person I'm debating at the moment seems to be making that mistake of point-of-view more than once in the discussion. Literally, "a theist", singular.

Meant to be worded in such a way to refer to specifically one theist in this case, without making it too personal. An observation of what I view to be a mistaken attempt to view the issue from the other side.

Thank you for the clarification.

 

[dawny0826]

Now this answer is related to God, so i can talk about it.

Let us being: How do you justify animals' suffering/pain that is not caused by humans?

This is my entire point. I don't believe that God can be blamed for the suffering of animals. Human beings are responsible and I'm belief that we reflect that which is inside of us. I personally, believe that my good deeds are a reflection of God's love.

 

[Koldo]

This is my entire point. I don't believe that God can be blamed for the suffering of animals. Human beings are responsible and I'm belief that we reflect that which is inside of us. I personally, believe that my good deeds are a reflection of God's love.

How can humans be responsible for the suffering of animals they haven't harmed?

 

[dawny0826]

How can humans be responsible for the suffering of animals they haven't harmed?

They can't be.

 

[Koldo]

They can't be.

Then, How do you justify animals' suffering/pain that is not caused by humans?

 

[dawny0826]

Then, How do you justify animals' suffering/pain that is not caused by humans?

As part of natural life processes. Critters aren't designed to live forever. Humans endure pain as part of natural aging processes as do animals.

If we didn't raise animals for eating or breed them for domestication - they'd still eat each other. It's a natural balance. I don't think that's cruel and unusual, whether you believe in God or not.

 

[Road Warrior]

As part of natural life processes. Critters aren't designed to live forever. Humans endure pain as part of natural aging processes as do animals.

If we didn't raise animals for eating or breed them for domestication - they'd still eat each other. It's a natural balance. I don't think that's cruel and unusual, whether you believe in God or not.

Well said and agreed. Deists believe God created the Universe then, like a watchmaker, just lets it run. Atheists are bent on trying to prove the impossible, that God doesn't exist. In the Natural Universe, it is impossible to prove a negative, yet they keep trying. Saying "how can God let animals suffer" is just one method they use on this goal. It's silly, but what else can one expect of those who are "evil".

 

[Penumbra]

Atheists are bent on trying to prove the impossible, that God doesn't exist.

Unwise statement, especially considering this post:

A curious and highly prejudicial sidestep. "A theist's inability"? While I agree the person in question is wrong in their assertions, this doesn't mean all "theists" are wrong nor that it is the typical "theist" point of view.

 

[Road Warrior]

Unwise statement, especially considering this post:

Perhaps you should have included the rest of the post:

Perhaps I misinterpreted your intentions, your point of view or your remark about theists in general.

Yes or no, Penny, do you blame God for the suffering of animals?

 

[Penumbra]

Perhaps you should have included the rest of the post:

You asked if I was making a generalization of all theists. I explained, no.

You went on to make a generalization of all atheists.

You don't see the issue there?

Yes or no, Penny, do you blame God for the suffering of animals?

Not any more than I blame Poseidon for hurricanes.

 

[Road Warrior]

You asked if I was making a generalization of all theists. I explained, no.

You went on to make a generalization of all atheists.

Sure, I could have phrased it better such as "several of our most vocal atheists on this forum are bent on trying to prove the impossible, that God doesn't exist."

Thank you for the correction.

Agreed about Poseidon, hurricanes and critters.