Also, a quick note about the Bayesian argument from animal pain: yes, one can come up with auxiliary theses that, when conjoined with theism, make the data of animal pain less surprising. But this will only be a good response to the extent that these auxiliary hypotheses *themselves* are not unexpected on theism. So, while it may be true that P(animal pain facts | Theism & auxiliary hypothesis H, for some H in your list) is (perhaps much) greater than P(animal pain facts | Theism), this will only mitigate the evidential force of the Bayesian argument if P(auxiliary hypothesis | Theism) isn't low. And I've seen many people unfortunately neglect to roll up their sleeves and determine this latter probability. [And given the implausibility of many such auxiliary hypothesis, their probability is likely to be low whether or not theism is true.]
True! My goal was to outline a wide variety of auxiliary theses so that instead of evaluating P(auxiliary thesis | Theism) (which might be individually low), we’re evaluating P(auxiliary thesis 1 or auxiliary thesis 2 or auxiliary thesis 3 or ... | Theism). Since we have such a wide variety of theses in the disjunction, it doesn’t seem that the probability is low (to me at least). Have a nice day! :)
@@emiledin2183 Should be obvious, no? Dogs are more relatable, i.e. they have a more similar social understanding and methods of communication to us than spiders do, and thus we feel a lot more empathy for them.
Trent Dougherty, in his book on animal suffering, defends the idea that animals not only go to heaven, but can be transformed into Narnia-esque rational animals who can then look back on their past lives and find purpose there as part of the ecosystem of creation in its early stages and other stuff. It's certainly an interesting proposal. I am surely convinced that animals go to heaven, at least.
Lmaoooo! Some articles quoting this book 'Thomism and the problem of animal suffering' says the suffering is actually good for them. As it is necessary for survival or something along the lines of some awkwardly stated hover hand type hugging of statements with modal fallacy. It's fun to read the mental gymnastics though
@Miso Who are you to ask God this first of all? First of all why are you supposing that God must be ' good ' as you think goodness to be? There are many things internet evil to us but not to God , like taking life , doing whatever He wishes etc! Why do you think what is inherently evil to you is inherently evil to God as well! And why do you forget that God is also the most wise?
Thanks for the numerous options to explore. One problem I had with the responses that deny animal pain is that this reply arguably removes or at least reduces our obligations to animals. Presumably it's not wrong to "harm" or kill robots. So if animals are like robots, then it seems hard to justify treating animals well while denying robots moral protection.
@@Godlimate we haven't found the edge of the universe, so the possibility that it is edge less could be true, which implies that everyone is at the center of universe
A few years late but this is a really good response to one of the questions I struggle with the most. Currently I lean towards an angelic fall theodicy for animals for, the fact that God because he allowed the consequences of Christ death on the cross to last before Christ could allow the consequences of Adam's fall do the same and last before Adam, thus animal pain is linked to human free choices.im a Calvinist so I use different theodicys to explain human suffering, but those are my thoughts and my go to theories.
I agree with you (and pruss), the amount of possibilities an omniscient and omnibenevolent God would have at his disposal in these cases is so substantial that it is to the point of making any of them very reasonable to believe. I think animal suffering although on its face seemingly noble is an entirely insufficient reason to reject theism. And I'm an animal lover; 2 dogs and 2 cats! Whatever the answer is, I know God deals with animals in a just and loving manner.
Also animals have really great lives. They are actually pretty happy according to many studies. They may have to feel pain for a short amount of time like when a zebra gets bitten in the neck by a lion. However animals typically have good lives and mostly have pleasurable lives. The problem is over-exaggerated. If anything, human pain and suffering is beyond animal suffering
You could also say that animal suffering can lead to better goods later on, similar to how one might argue this from human suffering, for example there could be a situation where you hit a turtle while driving and this startles you so much that you run off the road, but had you kept driving you would have been killed by a drunk driver who was speeding, in this case the lesser evil of the turtle’s death led to the greater good of the preservation of a human life. Of course this seems like it wouldn’t work for all instances of animal suffering (especially ones before humans existed or in places with no humans), but perhaps one could say that animal suffering and death leads to environmental goods, for example if an invasive species fails to survive in the habitat it is invading it will help all of the creatures in that habitat.
Nice video. One quick note: it's not quite true that one's view of animal pain must be based on one's belief about God's existence, since--as Dougherty has pointed out in his rather forceful criticism of philosopher Michael Murray's speculations about animal pain (not unlike to some of the ones proffered in this video)--there are common sense and phenomenal conservative approaches to justifying the relevant claims about animal pain. The empirical equivalency of the hypotheses doesn't detract from the common sense epistemological evidence for animals' consciously feeling pain. :)
True-the theist is going to need to posit enough evidence for theism to counteract the seeming that animals do feel theologically problematic pain. But I think we’re up to the task. :) (Or (maybe?) the theist could push a ‘compensation thesis,’ like an animal afterlife; those don’t require anyone to deny any of the common sense facts about animal pain. But it does require a very specific view of what would justify God’s creating animals.) Have a nice day! :)
Man, you’ve made all the videos I wanted to make! Great stuff. I personally go with your first two theories. I don’t actually see how they’re different from each other. As I see it there is no evidence that animals are not P Zombies. They don’t seem to have the faculties for symbolism (languages of any kind) or of grasping abstract concepts. Or at least not nearly to the degree that we do. So it’s not at all weird for me to think of them as highly evolved biological machines, with no “ghost” inside.
So the theist response to "Animal Pain" is to make up whatever makes them personally feel OK with it? Pain in any vertebrate brain creates the exact same neurological response as it does in a human brain. To suppose that animals don't feel pain, and just show all the physical signs of pain, and responses to pain that we do, because your belief in God requires it, is a level of denial that seems to border on psychopathic indifference.
How do I know that you dont feel Shmain instead of pain? its impossible to compare our personal experiences, so we should not assume that some people just dont feel pain. for all i know, everyone else could be not conscious at all but just behaving the same as a conscious person
This is a good argument against someone who says the problem of animal suffering makes God impossible. If it’s a question of probabilities there is a lot of work to be done to flesh it out. Would you accept a similar kind of argument from atheists about the resurrection? Multiple auxiliary hypotheses etc. even if each has a low probability only one of them must be true for the resurrection not to have occurred. That would similarly be a good argument against someone who says it’s impossible that the resurrection didn’t happen.
It seems that the idea of Judeo Christian spiritual heirarchy explains this. Maybe I'm missing something but animals may have both spirits and consciousness without them being the unique human version of either of those pbenomena. As a part of creation they experience suffering in a metaphysical sense because of human sin, in the same way a servant is subject to his masters mistakes. I think this because of the preoccupation in Judeo Christian tradition (relative to pagan tradition)with the wellbeing of animals and the apparent connection with mankind's fate and all creation.
If we accept the idea that maybe the animals don't *experience* pain and contains simply a mechanical reaction, then wouldn't the moral action of torturing animals be considered indifferent? On the view of *non-experience* (I don't know what to call it), animals are merely reduced to robots, and if we decide to kick a robot (let's suppose that there's no civil law jargon like destroying another person's property), then on this account, kicking it is not immoral. Unless I'm misunderstanding something, correct me!
That does appear to be a quirk of the “non-experience” view. The two avenues I see: -God commands us to care for His creation. Harming animals would be violating that command, and therefore animal torture is nonetheless immoral. (Not my preferred route.) -Since we can never be *certain* of the non-experience view, there is some probability (let’s call it P) that animals do in fact experience torture. So, torturing an animals would be morally equivalent to pushing a button that has a probability of P of activating a device which would torture an obviously sentient creature. Obviously, unless P is very very low, such an act would be immoral. Thus, animal torture is immoral. (Now, if the only way to dodge the problem of animal pain was to maintain the non-experience view, we would want to say that P *is* very very low. But, with the plentitude of options available to us, we don’t need to.) Have a nice day! :)
I think it’s worth saying as well: inflicting “torture” on a robot, or perhaps a video game character, or even just passively watching videos of torture, would cause no genuine harm in themselves.. But doing so could well have the effect of desensitising us, and hinder our ability to empathise with and love people. Really, our aim in life is to love and appreciate and serve God and love others. This is hard to do! I think “fake torture” is one of many kinds of things that, while not strictly immoral, would generally just make it even harder.
The immorality is not judged by where the action is directed, but where the action originates. That’s why a thief is not less guilty of theft if he steals from a huge supermarket than if he stole from a small store; he’s still a thief. Empathy is a virtue, & virtues are fragile. The appearance of pain should trigger our empathy. So even though I don’t believe animals experience, I still don’t torture puppies, not because of any cognitive dissonance, but out of empathy, which is a virtue I don’t care to kill in myself. I’m disgusted by the character of people who are ok with cruelty to animals just as much as I’m disgusted by the character of people who enjoy playing being cruel in computer games. The immortality is not measured by where the cruelty is being directed, but by where the cruelty is coming from.
@@geomicpri Hello, thank you for your response. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you're accepting the claim that possibly, animals could just be robots. Consider these two scenarios: (1) Suppose you're at a cliff and your friend tells you to throw down a mechanical robot since he does not want to walk up there. You throw it, it falls and it breaks. (2) Suppose you're at a cliff and your friend tells you to throw down a dog since he does not walk up there. You throw it, hits the ground and breaks (dies). Let's also add that both person who throw it down are virtuous people. It seems to me there is something wrong with scenario (2) more than scenario (1). In fact, it seems to me that (2) is an immoral thing to do. But in this scenario, the origin of the action comes from a virtuous person (by assumption), and so, it seems on your view, this would not be immoral. In this scenario, how would empathy play a part if the person's mental states directed towards the robot is the same as towards the dog (i.e., that the dog and robot both experience no pain)?
@@Geosten Well, does the robot have “cute” eyebrows that pout up when its sad like we do? Is the robot programmed to make bonding connections with you as its master? Does it get all “excited” when it sees you & miss you when you’re gone, like we do with our loved ones? Etc.? If not, then you should empathise way more with the animal, or any creature who does. Like, take your same example & add a few more, like 1) a smartphone with Siri or Alexia, 2) an “affectionate” robot (that demonstrate some of the things I mentioned above), 2) a reptile, & 4) a dog. I’d probably drop the reptile before the “affectionate” robot, because I’d value more what inspires most empathy.
I'm theist, but I don't agree with these, for I think they can be dangerous. Saying animals aren't conscious or lack feelings and such can lead to more neglect or abuse. Some animals have highly adapted nervous systems, so they can feel pain "cats, snakes, birds, etc." Some animals can't really feel pain or we are unsure "starfish, clams, urchins, etc." Even so, pain or no pain an animal is an animal nonetheless and still needs to be respected.
I think the theories regarding animals lacking consciousness or full consciousness seem to resonate well with how they're represented in the Bible. If we're supposed to establish absolute dominion over them (and some scholars, IIRC, say that the word used for this in Genesis indicates violence) then these creatures probably don't have a conscious experience of pain. In other words, it seems inconsistent for God to create animals with consciousness if their purpose is to be violently ruled over; should they be given consciousness just to experience pain and suffering? Furthermore, if they did possess consciousness, we would expect them to have greater value and for their position in the world to not be as low as it is-their design and purpose wouldn't be solely relegated to living physically and primally. I could elaborate on this point some more, but I think it's clear enough as is.
From evidence alone, from what's concrete and directly available, it's not provable, but it is more plausible that animals do in fact feel pain. A misinterpretation is less plausible, given that we share evolutionary history with them. Either way, there are tests that show pretty conclusively that at least some animals are self-aware. So even if they didn't feel physical pain, they'd have to feel the psychological terror of being torn apart, or having their children torn apart by a predator (and how would one square the idea of an animal being self-aware, with that self-awareness having something to do with the animal's choices, actions, yet it not feeling any pain, yet still expressing it? That's a very contrived scenario - one could even ask, is God a liar?). As for the "pain with possible compensation" argument - that leads to a discussion of the set up of reality by God in the first place. At that point, I'd simply say, compensation of an evil being done, doesn't remove the fact that some evil was being done. There, one has to question the apparent design of God that would lead to such a situation. Within the scope of logical possibilities that one can derive from the intuitions of what it would mean to be all-good, perfect, just, etc., all animal pain (and human pain for that matter) is completely avoidable.
Ah, a thought-out response as always! My thoughts: // A misinterpretation is less plausible, given that we share evolutionary history with them. // If God exists, why does a shared evolutionary history matter? // Either way, there are tests that show pretty conclusively that at least some animals are self-aware. // Well, tests cannot actually prove that animals (or even humans!) are self-aware. All we can show with any empirical test is that, "in circumstances C, X will do Y." We need to interpret whether X's doing Y is actually a marker of self-awareness. It isn't necessarily; in theory, you could have a robot with a program complex enough to always do X in Y. // and how would one square the idea of an animal being self-aware, with that self-awareness having something to do with the animal's choices, actions, yet it not feeling any pain... // What I had in mind with the first proposal (the non-conscious proposal) was that animals aren't self-aware. Their brains are just really, really complex. // one could even ask, is God a liar? // Great question! Only if God stated that animals were conscious. I am unaware of any such proclamation. // At that point, I'd simply say, compensation of an evil being done, doesn't remove the fact that some evil was being done. // True, but I now need to know what moral theory you're using to raise the problem of animal pain. The one I was addressing was a vanilla, Utilitarian-style objection where the suffering shouldn't outweigh the pleasure. // Within the scope of logical possibilities that one can derive from the intuitions of what it would mean to be all-good, perfect, just, etc., all animal pain (and human pain for that matter) is completely avoidable. // I'd respond with a pretty vanilla freewill theodicy: pain is avoidable, but if that goes out the window, then we are far more likely to use our freedom incorrectly, and we need freedom for true love, and true love outweighs all pain, so God allows the pain not because He needs it, but because we need it. Have a nice day! :)
@@ApologeticsSquared I don't know about always, depends on time and experience ;) "If God exists, why does a shared evolutionary history matter?" You can point to a common, specific brain wirings and analogous brain activity that's a correlate to awareness of pain that we feel. You can also point to pain receptors in the first place, based on the same 'design'. You can make an evolutionary argument, that nature selected for the feeling of pain, because it's 1. available, 2. essential in survival in complex mobile animals, so that they can escape (unlike plants for instance, where experience of pain would be of no benefit, because they can't run away anyway). Book of Scripture and Book of Nature should be both taken seriously, I hear. Typically from believing scientists who say that if science strongly shows something in contrary to scripture, then scripture might have to be re-interpreted (so of course any purely "revealed truth" about the spiritual realm or ultimate questions are not really under any threat of reinterpretation). Nature strongly says: animals are aware and feel pain. You have to fill in the gaps as to what, if anything, the Scripture says. If it says nothing, we should definitely go by the Book of Nature. If you still try to avoid the necessity to take pain of animals into account, based on contrived scenarios, then you're not reading the Book of Nature, you're seeking excuses. ;) "Well, tests cannot actually prove that animals (or even humans!) are self-aware. " As we discussed in the past, epiphenomenalism is false. So it's definitely provable in some humans that they are aware. Besides, to assume that they aren't - to escape the problem of suffering - would be unreasonably hyperskeptical and solipsistic. Less so, in the case of animals, but very close. They can't communicate that they are aware, but have all the correlates that say so. Additionally, tests like "seeing a dot on the body in the mirror that otherwise wouldn't have been seen" that show their reaction to it, show that they are apparently aware of their bodies and how those bodies should look like. To try to avoid the conclusion would be hyperskeptical (again, I don't care about proof much, just what's most reasonable to conclude). "Great question! Only if God stated that animals were conscious. I am unaware of any such proclamation." The point is, again, that the Book of Nature is pretty clear on the matter, at least to the degree that we should give most of the animals benefit of the doubt, until it's shown otherwise. The Book of Nature is a part of God's proclamation. If God makes things otherwise that they pretty clearly seem, then he deceives us. That's especially a problem in situations of moral considerations. As for the moral theory, I'm only stating that if God is perfect and all-good, it's inconsistent with him causing any evil things (especially causing them directly). Yet it's inescapable to conclude otherwise than that he does. "pain is avoidable, but if that goes out the window, then we are far more likely to use our freedom incorrectly, and we need freedom for true love, and true love outweighs all pain, so God allows the pain not because He needs it, but because we need it." Animals don't need it. Especially that in most cases, their reasoning skills/understanding seems very limited. That's simply a torture of aware beings some of which are apparently child-like in their understanding of what's happening to them. I don't think we need some forms of pain either, but we're specifically talking about animals here. On a side note, does God have freedom in whether he truly loves or not? I seem to recall people saying he doesn't... If God is not free to love and is perfect, then it's perfect not to have the freedom in the matter. Then creation would be perfect if we didn't.
So if animals don't feel pain then it should be ok for me to beat up your pet? If it doesn't feel pain then what would be wrong with that? Also I'm assuming that we don't need to admister pain medicine when operating on them afterwards to fix the wounds and deny them living in paradise without pain?
I don't see why most animals would have more pain than pleasure (not merely existence) during their life. To me, pain seems a necessary mechanism in our fallen world. If I had a "painless internal red light" instead of pain, I'd have hardly half of my teeth left, I fear. (I lost one tooth for ignoring/numbing the real pain for weeks.)
Just a quick correction, the skeptic raising the problem of evil wouldn't necessarily need to prove one of these theodicies are false if their version if the problem of evil is an evidential one rather than a logical one. In the evidential problem of evil their conclusion is that God probably doesn't have a good reason to allow evil unlike the logical problem which confuses God can't have a good reason. So in this case their argument is inductive so they would only have to show your theodicies are unlikely.
couldn't you use the same idea that we assume that animals have the same conscious experience for humans with solipsism? That you have never consciously experienced how it is outside of your own human body and thus it's an assumption that other humans experience the same pain you do. humans give the outward appearance of pain, same thing with other animals, but its an assumption to assume other humans experience pain. Yes unexpected under theism but it is still the same assumption except it is not applied equally due to assuming theism is true.
This is a terrible non-answer. If animals didn't feel pain, they would not need to act in such a way. What would be the purpose of such a reaction. Also, if you say that they feel pain but are not conscious of it, then it is like saying that they are not feeling pain. Feeling means sentience. No sentience - no pain. No theory was given in this video that gives any answer. The pain of animals remains always unanswerable
Interesting thing about animal pain, animals don't have pain in the birthing process. A dog will push out 13 puppies and not even whimper. Humans take drugs injected into thier spines to avoid the agony that accompanies child birth. After all, God said He would greatly increase woman's pain in child birth. Just something to consider
@@Eddieshred have you watched an animal give birth? Have you watched a woman give birth? Perhaps, 'no' pain was an over-satetment. But, there is nowhere near the same level of pain.
@@Joseph221b Agreed but then we’re back at the premise that animals feel less pain all together which is kind of reasonable. Make no mistake, labour is still very painful for animals.
04:42 You can use this paragraph in every video. If one wants to actually raise an objection to theism based on [atheist argument] they would be forced to claim that all these theories about [atheist argument] are false (because if one of the theories weren't false, then [atheist argument] would be unproblematic). But, since the objector can't provide evidence that these theories are false, then they can't actually raise the objection! It's an objection built on unprovable assumptions. So, your view of [atheist argument] needs to be based on your belief about God's existence, rather than the other way around. This drastically minimizes the problem of [atheist argument].
I think perhaps the best response to animal pain is also an adequate response to human pain- being some degree of sceptical theism. God may allow the pain to obtain higher order goods, and one is not committed to claim its any specific good. One only has to hold that we are not in a good enough epistemic position to make rigid probability judgements either way, which is a very reasonable position.
True, but I think that the theist’s position gets better and better with each new thing we can point to as a *possible* higher order good. I’m not really sure what possible higher order goods to posit for animals, so I went the route of positing possible reasons why the evil wouldn’t be as bad as it seems at first glance. Have a nice day! :)
I've not even gotten past how free will (which doesn't work with an all knowing god and which that god frequently disregards in the bible) explains pain, sure it explains man made pain, kind of (it wouldn't prevent free will for god to stop some of those either, just like if I stopped a mugging it doesn't mean that I've denied the muggers free will), but it doesn't really explain every other form of pain. No amount of studying can prove or disprove this hypothesis? If that's the case then morally you'd have to assume that the animal isn't a robot otherwise there is the potential that you'd be causing pain to an animal. But secondly there are test that have established evidence for consciousness in animals and even self awareness, we know that animals aren't squishy robots. So this argument doesn't work, not to mention that it's based on very outdated religious views that just aren't supported by modern day knowledge, like that humans aren't animals and are somehow separate from animals. Shmain, so just pretend that animals don't actually feel pain. Sure if just make something up that solves everything, this is why I don't take religion seriously. So pain and suffering is ok because they get a nice lovely afterlife? That's kind of messed up. So would it be ok to beat a child until they're an adult so long as I make their adult life wonderful? No of course it isn't but that's literally the same argument that was just made. Yeah no, we can prove some of those arguments false, like animals aren't conscious/are robots. One side does have evidence that animals do feel pain. It's also more of an assumption that they react to pain but don't feel it, as that would mean assuming that other living things that we are closely related to don't feel and process pain in the same way, this claim would require evidence, which you admit doesn't exist. All these arguments might convince a theist who doesn't know anything about biology but outside of that these are terrible and would strongly advise never to use them in an actual discussion or debate about the topic because anyone who understands biology or even basic debate skills would destroy these points.
Your analysis of how we attribute emotions to animals I notice a lot in people who have pets. It irritates me because I don't perceive animals like this since it's quite obvious they're not high-level creatures. However, people will say, "Oh, Sammy is such a jokester, he does this and that". Though Sammy can't be a jokester, he doesn't know what jokes are, he can't perceive something to be "funny". If he did, we have no way of knowing that because it can't communicate at our level. The owners perception of personality is just thrust upon the animal. Personally, I don't see this as an issue and find it pointless to discuss just because I'm not really a fan of pets and I know this objection arises out of the strange (to me) affection people have for animals. However, for those who struggle with it, I'm glad there's folks like you. I like your theories. 👍
Humans are animals and all of this applies to humans. If you disagree, mr. philosophical zombie, then, please, demonstrate your pain experience and your free will. Also can you demonstrate this for a baby, fetus, Homo or Hominidae?
See, my worldview leads me to certain commitments about the experiences of humans. However, my worldview does *not* lead to the same commitments about non-humans. For example, if everyone besides me was a philosophical zombie, then the Gospel seems to be false. But, if cats don’t experience reality, that doesn’t affect the Gospel’s truth. Have a nice day! :)
Apologetics Squared Hey man if Your going to do that watch out for an athiest troll called "Ressuraction expert* he básically storms christian channels channels when they talk about the ressuraction so watch out
Maybe God only made animals appear to suffer so that human psychopaths could get their heinous yayas out on non humans, thereby mitigating the amount of suffering we humans inflict on each other. Maybe if torturing puppies wasn’t satisfying enough for them, they’d torture other humans instead & there would be unmanageable amounts of suffering.
You must first prove that consciousness, or rather a soul, exists. You cannot just appeal to an entity that lacks meaning. Also, if you say that animals are really suffering, then I don't really see where your counterargument is going, it is simply a suffering that spans all "theodocy", to say that in a certain way animals are inferior to humans doesnt fix the problem. The analogy that you make between an animal and a robot is not precise, because a robot does not feel, here also you try to say that there is a certain type of pain that is not pain? I think you are appealing to non-existent concepts or lack of meaning to test your idea, this is why the first part of your video does not convince me at all, since I do not see that it solves the problem, if the animal feels that amount of pain, then you have to prove that the pain is justificable. Later on you say that god may create a type of "animal" paradise, in order to compensate that pain, but, again this doesnt answer the question in first place, why would god allow such unecessary evil and pain, you give no answer to that, even if an afterlife exists for animals, this does not justifies the pain they are feeling on earth. Honestly, i saw no strong contraargument to Alex position
Hello! I'll try to be brief. :) // You must first prove that consciousness, or rather a soul, exists. // I don't think that my arguments rest on a soul. Just that mental things like pain are not identical to neurons firing, so that God could stop one even if He doesn't stop the other. // The analogy that you make between an animal and a robot is not precise, because a robot does not feel, // The thesis that I was offering was that animals do not feel! Sure, when they get certain inputs, certain neurons fire in their brains. However, when robots get certain inputs, certain transistors are flipped. Why couldn't these be comparable? // even if an afterlife exists for animals, this does not justifies the pain they are feeling on earth. // There are two ways we can think of "justifying" animal pain. 1) We give reasons that God would have for allowing animal pain. It's true, I didn't give justifications of this sort. But not having justification of this sort doesn't seem to be as problematic as: 2) God gives compensation for animal pain. This is what I was offering. Have a nice day! :)
@@ApologeticsSquared Thank you for answering. "*Just that mental things like pain are not identical to neurons firing*" i think that is what physical pain is, those neurons firing is what makes physical paing possible, in both, animals and humans. Now, what most animals are NOT able to "feel" are the potential consequences of, for example, not having legs, in other words, they can´t be depressed (in most of the casses, since depression on animals is very common, in torture, for example, or starving) I think that´s the most accurate in "mental " pain , and "physical" pain, but the thing is that most animals do feel that human "mental " pain(depression, anxiety and so on), even though is not that complex, since humans have a more developed brain, so our feelings are also, more developed. having this idea into account, humans, instead of animals, are able to think about the consequences of NOT having a leg, but this is not a feeling. *"The thesis that I was offering was that animals do not feel! Sure, when they get certain inputs, certain neurons fire in their brains. However, when robots get certain inputs, certain transistors are flipped. Why couldn't these be comparable?"* Because a robot can´t feel either physical pain or mental pain. Now the second point. I believe that you cannot speak about compensation when there is no free will involved. If a paradise for animals exists, this means that every pain that they suffered on earth, really doesnt matter and will never matter, it doesnt matter if you are a lion and all you did was sit on the ground while eating meat and then naturally die, or either being a pig and being locked up all your life in a limited space, injecting you with antibiotics and giving you bad food, then killing you or even torturing you. That means that "life" has no value at all, but also does not even have sense.
Wow, this guy is terrifying. He not only doesn't understand how the burden of proof works, but more insidiously, somehow thinks it's intellectually honest to claim that it's possible that animals don't REALLY feel pain to justify his presupposed Christian worldview. You are sick, dude. For real. Doesn't matter how folksy your try to make your tone of voice...this stuff is messed up. Maybe I should just go out and kick puppies. Why not, right? You can't show that it is false that puppies are truly feeling pain any different than a robot, right? I mean, their cries and screams could just be fake pain, or schmain, right? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU, DUDE?
Hello! If I understand your comment, you are saying: 1) If animals don’t feel pain or feel schmain, being a sadistic animal torturer would be okay. 2) Animals don’t feel pain or feel schmain [according to Squared]. 3) Therefore, being a sadistic animal torturer is okay [according to Squared]. Now, I think being a sadistic animal torturer merits one of the worst punishments our justice system would allow, so I understand your indignation with (3) and me. However, I don’t actually believe (2) is true. I think it’s possible, and should be discussed rather than being hand-waved away. But I am far from actually believing it. Furthermore, I don’t agree with (1). I think that even if animals don’t feel pain, torturing them is still a moral abomination. Why? Well, precisely *because* we can never prove whether or not they feel pain. Say I come to believe that there is a 90% chance animals feel pain and a 10% chance they do not. That means that the Problem of Animal Pain would be 10% weaker. Okay. Now, say I was walking in the woods and I saw a guy torturing a bunny. Well, there’s a 90% chance severe torture is occurring! That’s enough for me to do everything in my power to stop him. Torturing an animal would become equivalent to pushing a button that has a 90% chance of activating a machine which will go torture some individual. That is obviously evil. Have a nice day! :)
@@ApologeticsSquared Well, first let me say that you do a good job of being polite and courteous in your response, something that I was not. Not that I was rude, but I could have phrased my comment less aggressively. You do a good job of exemplifying Proverbs 15:1: "A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger." I loved that verse when I was a Christian. :-) The Bible has SOME wisdom, but soooo many bad things... Anyway, to our discussion: your biggest problem is that your logic doesn't work when I extend it to other situations. Your smaller problems come with the implications of your logic, even if you were right. Biggest Issue: You contend that consciousness is a differentiating factor between real pain and just pain response (non-important pain). This is wrong on two levels: 1) It ignores non-conscious human pain. You would not feel ok to hurt a baby, but a baby does not have consciousness in the same way that human adults do. Indeed, intuitively, among pro-choice advocates, the argument gets more difficult the older the fetus becomes. Most people you talk to would start to balk at pro-choice arguments the more human-like the fetus' pain response is. This gets even more obvious once the baby is born. Who, in their right mind, would argue the moral neutrality of hurting babies, apart from sociopaths? Virtually no one. This is because we intuitively recognize real, true pain whether or not the subject is fully-conscious. 2) Your conclusion is just wrong. The ability to suffer is what makes causing suffering morally wrong. Your example was incorrect. It WOULD be wrong to hurt WALL-E, because WALL-E was able to feel pain! If a being is conscious enough to feel and respond to pain, then it is wrong to inflict pain on that being. How are you able to distinguish meaningful pain and non-meaningful pain? It seems from your video that you're just claiming by fiat that humans have more meaningful pain because God made humans special given theism. How is that not arguing in a circle? We're trying to test whether or not a moral God is a rational concept. If you're granting God's decisions being moral from the outset, then you're question-begging. The other issue is this "our intuitions of what pain is may be wrong" thing you're doing is borderline dishonest, and you admit as much in your response to me. If you don't believe it, then why even bring it up as an argument? How do you quantify your level of confidence in something you don't actually believe? This 90% number seems very fishy. You mean, you're only 90% sure that hurting puppies is wrong? Really? Your 10% skepticism seems completely manufactured as a post-hoc loophole for not being able to "prove" animal pain. I mean, if you can't prove animal pain, then you can't prove baby pain. What's the difference? Neither babies or animals can TELL us they're in pain, but we all universally acknowledge their pain because of everything our intuition tells us. Are you 90% sure that it's wrong to hurt babies, too? Have you seen Plantinga's justification for natural evil? He takes the free will defense and extends it to supernatural entities, like angels and demons. He postulates that angels and demons MIGHT cause all the natural evil in the world, like tornados and cancer, so if that's possible, then the free will defense can extend to natural evil as well, since angels and demons need free will! Problem solved! That laughable theodicy is the kind of thing you're doing, man. Is this something you want to hang your hat on, something you're honestly going to believe about the world? When cancer kills your loved ones, are you going to say, "well, I'm glad I have a just God that allows angels and demons to have free will," or are you going to acknowledge that finding BS loopholes so you can say to atheists, "you can't prove it's logically impossible" is lying to yourself to help you feel good about God? You want a loophole for animal pain. Fine. If you want to fake-believe that puppies have a 10% chance of feeling schmain instead of pain, go ahead. I just don't know how you have peace with your worldview.
@@LandonMetochoi on the "laughable" theodicy of plantinga part , dont you think if God exists and he brought human beings into existence , he will also create other beings as well . do you think that he would create only limited creatures like human beings with very and i mean VERY limited capacities . wouldnt he create beings on each and every point of continuous spectrum of capabilities. it is almost certain that that would be the case . lastly , i would like to say christian theism is just one of the many philosophical views that philosophers argue about . some think we are in a matrix , some think they are a brain in a vat , some think they are actually asleep and are beings decieved by an evil demon . there are all kinds of weird views that philosophers talk about . christianity i think happens to be much more explanatory than these other views .
4:45 Hold up, the burden of proof lies with the one making the positive claim. Nobody can prove a negative claim. Your argument is similar to: The skeptic can't prove there isn't a teapot orbiting the asteroid belt until they check every spot in the asteroid belt. The skeptic doesn't need to prove there isn't a teapot, but only needs to doubt the claim.
You are so underrated, I can't believe more people don't know about you.
Thank you very much! :)
Really well done! I haven't seen this addressed much so I'm glad you've offered some possible answers!
Thanks! :)
Also, a quick note about the Bayesian argument from animal pain: yes, one can come up with auxiliary theses that, when conjoined with theism, make the data of animal pain less surprising. But this will only be a good response to the extent that these auxiliary hypotheses *themselves* are not unexpected on theism. So, while it may be true that P(animal pain facts | Theism & auxiliary hypothesis H, for some H in your list) is (perhaps much) greater than P(animal pain facts | Theism), this will only mitigate the evidential force of the Bayesian argument if P(auxiliary hypothesis | Theism) isn't low. And I've seen many people unfortunately neglect to roll up their sleeves and determine this latter probability. [And given the implausibility of many such auxiliary hypothesis, their probability is likely to be low whether or not theism is true.]
True! My goal was to outline a wide variety of auxiliary theses so that instead of evaluating P(auxiliary thesis | Theism) (which might be individually low), we’re evaluating P(auxiliary thesis 1 or auxiliary thesis 2 or auxiliary thesis 3 or ... | Theism). Since we have such a wide variety of theses in the disjunction, it doesn’t seem that the probability is low (to me at least).
Have a nice day! :)
I encourage theists to pick whatever theodicy helps them sleep at night just as long as it's not that animals don't feel pain.
why? you probably don't care if you step on a spider, but do if a dog you love dies. Why?
@@emiledin2183 Should be obvious, no? Dogs are more relatable, i.e. they have a more similar social understanding and methods of communication to us than spiders do, and thus we feel a lot more empathy for them.
Trent Dougherty, in his book on animal suffering, defends the idea that animals not only go to heaven, but can be transformed into Narnia-esque rational animals who can then look back on their past lives and find purpose there as part of the ecosystem of creation in its early stages and other stuff.
It's certainly an interesting proposal. I am surely convinced that animals go to heaven, at least.
Lmaoooo! Some articles quoting this book 'Thomism and the problem of animal suffering' says the suffering is actually good for them. As it is necessary for survival or something along the lines of some awkwardly stated hover hand type hugging of statements with modal fallacy. It's fun to read the mental gymnastics though
@Miso Who are you to ask God this first of all?
First of all why are you supposing that God must be ' good ' as you think goodness to be?
There are many things internet evil to us but not to God , like taking life , doing whatever He wishes etc!
Why do you think what is inherently evil to you is inherently evil to God as well!
And why do you forget that God is also the most wise?
Your style makes these videos so simple to understand. Still can't believe i can watch philosophy of religion with my mom.
Thanks for the numerous options to explore. One problem I had with the responses that deny animal pain is that this reply arguably removes or at least reduces our obligations to animals. Presumably it's not wrong to "harm" or kill robots. So if animals are like robots, then it seems hard to justify treating animals well while denying robots moral protection.
"I am the only conscious entity ... you are all robots without actual pain... time to torture you all" ... this is where this reasoning is heading.
So true, but expect this to be the attitude of all human centrists. Christians think they are the centre of the universe.
@@Godlimate we haven't found the edge of the universe, so the possibility that it is edge less could be true, which implies that everyone is at the center of universe
@@imranbug81 hahah nice one
A few years late but this is a really good response to one of the questions I struggle with the most. Currently I lean towards an angelic fall theodicy for animals for, the fact that God because he allowed the consequences of Christ death on the cross to last before Christ could allow the consequences of Adam's fall do the same and last before Adam, thus animal pain is linked to human free choices.im a Calvinist so I use different theodicys to explain human suffering, but those are my thoughts and my go to theories.
I agree with you (and pruss), the amount of possibilities an omniscient and omnibenevolent God would have at his disposal in these cases is so substantial that it is to the point of making any of them very reasonable to believe. I think animal suffering although on its face seemingly noble is an entirely insufficient reason to reject theism. And I'm an animal lover; 2 dogs and 2 cats! Whatever the answer is, I know God deals with animals in a just and loving manner.
You think it's just that God allows us to torture and kill pigs, goats, chickens, fish, etc for food?
Would the "pain isn't outweighed by existence" be the same line of argumentation that Pruss argued against the HT? If not, how would one argue for it?
That is indeed what I’m referencing. :)
Also animals have really great lives. They are actually pretty happy according to many studies. They may have to feel pain for a short amount of time like when a zebra gets bitten in the neck by a lion. However animals typically have good lives and mostly have pleasurable lives. The problem is over-exaggerated. If anything, human pain and suffering is beyond animal suffering
You could also say that animal suffering can lead to better goods later on, similar to how one might argue this from human suffering, for example there could be a situation where you hit a turtle while driving and this startles you so much that you run off the road, but had you kept driving you would have been killed by a drunk driver who was speeding, in this case the lesser evil of the turtle’s death led to the greater good of the preservation of a human life.
Of course this seems like it wouldn’t work for all instances of animal suffering (especially ones before humans existed or in places with no humans), but perhaps one could say that animal suffering and death leads to environmental goods, for example if an invasive species fails to survive in the habitat it is invading it will help all of the creatures in that habitat.
But if God is omnipotent he could accomplish the exact same thing (preserving your life) without the poor turtle dying :(
Nice video. One quick note: it's not quite true that one's view of animal pain must be based on one's belief about God's existence, since--as Dougherty has pointed out in his rather forceful criticism of philosopher Michael Murray's speculations about animal pain (not unlike to some of the ones proffered in this video)--there are common sense and phenomenal conservative approaches to justifying the relevant claims about animal pain. The empirical equivalency of the hypotheses doesn't detract from the common sense epistemological evidence for animals' consciously feeling pain. :)
True-the theist is going to need to posit enough evidence for theism to counteract the seeming that animals do feel theologically problematic pain. But I think we’re up to the task. :)
(Or (maybe?) the theist could push a ‘compensation thesis,’ like an animal afterlife; those don’t require anyone to deny any of the common sense facts about animal pain. But it does require a very specific view of what would justify God’s creating animals.)
Have a nice day! :)
@@ApologeticsSquared Much love
Man, you’ve made all the videos I wanted to make! Great stuff. I personally go with your first two theories. I don’t actually see how they’re different from each other. As I see it there is no evidence that animals are not P Zombies. They don’t seem to have the faculties for symbolism (languages of any kind) or of grasping abstract concepts. Or at least not nearly to the degree that we do. So it’s not at all weird for me to think of them as highly evolved biological machines, with no “ghost” inside.
So the theist response to "Animal Pain" is to make up whatever makes them personally feel OK with it?
Pain in any vertebrate brain creates the exact same neurological response as it does in a human brain. To suppose that animals don't feel pain, and just show all the physical signs of pain, and responses to pain that we do, because your belief in God requires it, is a level of denial that seems to border on psychopathic indifference.
Are you planning on making videos defending the truth of Christianity in particular? I find those much more rare and would love to see your take on it
Yep! I’m just one of those guys whose approach is:
Step 1: Argue for a God.
Step 2: Argue for the Christian God.
Have a nice day! :)
How do I know that you dont feel Shmain instead of pain? its impossible to compare our personal experiences, so we should not assume that some people just dont feel pain. for all i know, everyone else could be not conscious at all but just behaving the same as a conscious person
Hmmm. I have been thinking about this all week
This is a good argument against someone who says the problem of animal suffering makes God impossible.
If it’s a question of probabilities there is a lot of work to be done to flesh it out.
Would you accept a similar kind of argument from atheists about the resurrection? Multiple auxiliary hypotheses etc. even if each has a low probability
only one of them must be true for the resurrection not to have occurred.
That would similarly be a good argument against someone who says it’s impossible that the resurrection didn’t happen.
It seems that the idea of Judeo Christian spiritual heirarchy explains this. Maybe I'm missing something but animals may have both spirits and consciousness without them being the unique human version of either of those pbenomena. As a part of creation they experience suffering in a metaphysical sense because of human sin, in the same way a servant is subject to his masters mistakes. I think this because of the preoccupation in Judeo Christian tradition (relative to pagan tradition)with the wellbeing of animals and the apparent connection with mankind's fate and all creation.
If we accept the idea that maybe the animals don't *experience* pain and contains simply a mechanical reaction, then wouldn't the moral action of torturing animals be considered indifferent? On the view of *non-experience* (I don't know what to call it), animals are merely reduced to robots, and if we decide to kick a robot (let's suppose that there's no civil law jargon like destroying another person's property), then on this account, kicking it is not immoral.
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, correct me!
That does appear to be a quirk of the “non-experience” view. The two avenues I see:
-God commands us to care for His creation. Harming animals would be violating that command, and therefore animal torture is nonetheless immoral. (Not my preferred route.)
-Since we can never be *certain* of the non-experience view, there is some probability (let’s call it P) that animals do in fact experience torture. So, torturing an animals would be morally equivalent to pushing a button that has a probability of P of activating a device which would torture an obviously sentient creature. Obviously, unless P is very very low, such an act would be immoral. Thus, animal torture is immoral.
(Now, if the only way to dodge the problem of animal pain was to maintain the non-experience view, we would want to say that P *is* very very low. But, with the plentitude of options available to us, we don’t need to.)
Have a nice day! :)
I think it’s worth saying as well: inflicting “torture” on a robot, or perhaps a video game character, or even just passively watching videos of torture, would cause no genuine harm in themselves..
But doing so could well have the effect of desensitising us, and hinder our ability to empathise with and love people.
Really, our aim in life is to love and appreciate and serve God and love others. This is hard to do! I think “fake torture” is one of many kinds of things that, while not strictly immoral, would generally just make it even harder.
The immorality is not judged by where the action is directed, but where the action originates. That’s why a thief is not less guilty of theft if he steals from a huge supermarket than if he stole from a small store; he’s still a thief.
Empathy is a virtue, & virtues are fragile. The appearance of pain should trigger our empathy. So even though I don’t believe animals experience, I still don’t torture puppies, not because of any cognitive dissonance, but out of empathy, which is a virtue I don’t care to kill in myself.
I’m disgusted by the character of people who are ok with cruelty to animals just as much as I’m disgusted by the character of people who enjoy playing being cruel in computer games.
The immortality is not measured by where the cruelty is being directed, but by where the cruelty is coming from.
@@geomicpri Hello, thank you for your response. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you're accepting the claim that possibly, animals could just be robots. Consider these two scenarios: (1) Suppose you're at a cliff and your friend tells you to throw down a mechanical robot since he does not want to walk up there. You throw it, it falls and it breaks. (2) Suppose you're at a cliff and your friend tells you to throw down a dog since he does not walk up there. You throw it, hits the ground and breaks (dies).
Let's also add that both person who throw it down are virtuous people. It seems to me there is something wrong with scenario (2) more than scenario (1). In fact, it seems to me that (2) is an immoral thing to do. But in this scenario, the origin of the action comes from a virtuous person (by assumption), and so, it seems on your view, this would not be immoral.
In this scenario, how would empathy play a part if the person's mental states directed towards the robot is the same as towards the dog (i.e., that the dog and robot both experience no pain)?
@@Geosten Well, does the robot have “cute” eyebrows that pout up when its sad like we do? Is the robot programmed to make bonding connections with you as its master? Does it get all “excited” when it sees you & miss you when you’re gone, like we do with our loved ones? Etc.? If not, then you should empathise way more with the animal, or any creature who does.
Like, take your same example & add a few more, like 1) a smartphone with Siri or Alexia, 2) an “affectionate” robot (that demonstrate some of the things I mentioned above), 2) a reptile, & 4) a dog. I’d probably drop the reptile before the “affectionate” robot, because I’d value more what inspires most empathy.
I'm theist, but I don't agree with these, for I think they can be dangerous. Saying animals aren't conscious or lack feelings and such can lead to more neglect or abuse. Some animals have highly adapted nervous systems, so they can feel pain "cats, snakes, birds, etc." Some animals can't really feel pain or we are unsure "starfish, clams, urchins, etc."
Even so, pain or no pain an animal is an animal nonetheless and still needs to be respected.
I think the theories regarding animals lacking consciousness or full consciousness seem to resonate well with how they're represented in the Bible. If we're supposed to establish absolute dominion over them (and some scholars, IIRC, say that the word used for this in Genesis indicates violence) then these creatures probably don't have a conscious experience of pain. In other words, it seems inconsistent for God to create animals with consciousness if their purpose is to be violently ruled over; should they be given consciousness just to experience pain and suffering? Furthermore, if they did possess consciousness, we would expect them to have greater value and for their position in the world to not be as low as it is-their design and purpose wouldn't be solely relegated to living physically and primally. I could elaborate on this point some more, but I think it's clear enough as is.
From evidence alone, from what's concrete and directly available, it's not provable, but it is more plausible that animals do in fact feel pain.
A misinterpretation is less plausible, given that we share evolutionary history with them. Either way, there are tests that show pretty conclusively that at least some animals are self-aware. So even if they didn't feel physical pain, they'd have to feel the psychological terror of being torn apart, or having their children torn apart by a predator (and how would one square the idea of an animal being self-aware, with that self-awareness having something to do with the animal's choices, actions, yet it not feeling any pain, yet still expressing it? That's a very contrived scenario - one could even ask, is God a liar?).
As for the "pain with possible compensation" argument - that leads to a discussion of the set up of reality by God in the first place. At that point, I'd simply say, compensation of an evil being done, doesn't remove the fact that some evil was being done. There, one has to question the apparent design of God that would lead to such a situation. Within the scope of logical possibilities that one can derive from the intuitions of what it would mean to be all-good, perfect, just, etc., all animal pain (and human pain for that matter) is completely avoidable.
Ah, a thought-out response as always! My thoughts:
// A misinterpretation is less plausible, given that we share evolutionary history with them. //
If God exists, why does a shared evolutionary history matter?
// Either way, there are tests that show pretty conclusively that at least some animals are self-aware. //
Well, tests cannot actually prove that animals (or even humans!) are self-aware. All we can show with any empirical test is that, "in circumstances C, X will do Y." We need to interpret whether X's doing Y is actually a marker of self-awareness. It isn't necessarily; in theory, you could have a robot with a program complex enough to always do X in Y.
// and how would one square the idea of an animal being self-aware, with that self-awareness having something to do with the animal's choices, actions, yet it not feeling any pain... //
What I had in mind with the first proposal (the non-conscious proposal) was that animals aren't self-aware. Their brains are just really, really complex.
// one could even ask, is God a liar? //
Great question! Only if God stated that animals were conscious. I am unaware of any such proclamation.
// At that point, I'd simply say, compensation of an evil being done, doesn't remove the fact that some evil was being done. //
True, but I now need to know what moral theory you're using to raise the problem of animal pain. The one I was addressing was a vanilla, Utilitarian-style objection where the suffering shouldn't outweigh the pleasure.
// Within the scope of logical possibilities that one can derive from the intuitions of what it would mean to be all-good, perfect, just, etc., all animal pain (and human pain for that matter) is completely avoidable. //
I'd respond with a pretty vanilla freewill theodicy: pain is avoidable, but if that goes out the window, then we are far more likely to use our freedom incorrectly, and we need freedom for true love, and true love outweighs all pain, so God allows the pain not because He needs it, but because we need it.
Have a nice day! :)
@@ApologeticsSquared
I don't know about always, depends on time and experience ;)
"If God exists, why does a shared evolutionary history matter?"
You can point to a common, specific brain wirings and analogous brain activity that's a correlate to awareness of pain that we feel. You can also point to pain receptors in the first place, based on the same 'design'. You can make an evolutionary argument, that nature selected for the feeling of pain, because it's 1. available, 2. essential in survival in complex mobile animals, so that they can escape (unlike plants for instance, where experience of pain would be of no benefit, because they can't run away anyway).
Book of Scripture and Book of Nature should be both taken seriously, I hear. Typically from believing scientists who say that if science strongly shows something in contrary to scripture, then scripture might have to be re-interpreted (so of course any purely "revealed truth" about the spiritual realm or ultimate questions are not really under any threat of reinterpretation).
Nature strongly says: animals are aware and feel pain. You have to fill in the gaps as to what, if anything, the Scripture says. If it says nothing, we should definitely go by the Book of Nature. If you still try to avoid the necessity to take pain of animals into account, based on contrived scenarios, then you're not reading the Book of Nature, you're seeking excuses. ;)
"Well, tests cannot actually prove that animals (or even humans!) are self-aware. "
As we discussed in the past, epiphenomenalism is false. So it's definitely provable in some humans that they are aware. Besides, to assume that they aren't - to escape the problem of suffering - would be unreasonably hyperskeptical and solipsistic. Less so, in the case of animals, but very close. They can't communicate that they are aware, but have all the correlates that say so. Additionally, tests like "seeing a dot on the body in the mirror that otherwise wouldn't have been seen" that show their reaction to it, show that they are apparently aware of their bodies and how those bodies should look like. To try to avoid the conclusion would be hyperskeptical (again, I don't care about proof much, just what's most reasonable to conclude).
"Great question! Only if God stated that animals were conscious. I am unaware of any such proclamation."
The point is, again, that the Book of Nature is pretty clear on the matter, at least to the degree that we should give most of the animals benefit of the doubt, until it's shown otherwise. The Book of Nature is a part of God's proclamation.
If God makes things otherwise that they pretty clearly seem, then he deceives us. That's especially a problem in situations of moral considerations.
As for the moral theory, I'm only stating that if God is perfect and all-good, it's inconsistent with him causing any evil things (especially causing them directly). Yet it's inescapable to conclude otherwise than that he does.
"pain is avoidable, but if that goes out the window, then we are far more likely to use our freedom incorrectly, and we need freedom for true love, and true love outweighs all pain, so God allows the pain not because He needs it, but because we need it."
Animals don't need it. Especially that in most cases, their reasoning skills/understanding seems very limited. That's simply a torture of aware beings some of which are apparently child-like in their understanding of what's happening to them.
I don't think we need some forms of pain either, but we're specifically talking about animals here.
On a side note, does God have freedom in whether he truly loves or not? I seem to recall people saying he doesn't...
If God is not free to love and is perfect, then it's perfect not to have the freedom in the matter. Then creation would be perfect if we didn't.
So if animals don't feel pain then it should be ok for me to beat up your pet? If it doesn't feel pain then what would be wrong with that? Also I'm assuming that we don't need to admister pain medicine when operating on them afterwards to fix the wounds and deny them living in paradise without pain?
I don't see why most animals would have more pain than pleasure (not merely existence) during their life. To me, pain seems a necessary mechanism in our fallen world. If I had a "painless internal red light" instead of pain, I'd have hardly half of my teeth left, I fear. (I lost one tooth for ignoring/numbing the real pain for weeks.)
Just a quick correction, the skeptic raising the problem of evil wouldn't necessarily need to prove one of these theodicies are false if their version if the problem of evil is an evidential one rather than a logical one. In the evidential problem of evil their conclusion is that God probably doesn't have a good reason to allow evil unlike the logical problem which confuses God can't have a good reason. So in this case their argument is inductive so they would only have to show your theodicies are unlikely.
Also how is pain not bad
couldn't you use the same idea that we assume that animals have the same conscious experience for humans with solipsism? That you have never consciously experienced how it is outside of your own human body and thus it's an assumption that other humans experience the same pain you do. humans give the outward appearance of pain, same thing with other animals, but its an assumption to assume other humans experience pain. Yes unexpected under theism but it is still the same assumption except it is not applied equally due to assuming theism is true.
This is a terrible non-answer. If animals didn't feel pain, they would not need to act in such a way. What would be the purpose of such a reaction. Also, if you say that they feel pain but are not conscious of it, then it is like saying that they are not feeling pain. Feeling means sentience. No sentience - no pain. No theory was given in this video that gives any answer. The pain of animals remains always unanswerable
This rabbit hole is one I like is a theodicy only something that is against the problem of evil or is it or can it be other things as well
Interesting thing about animal pain, animals don't have pain in the birthing process. A dog will push out 13 puppies and not even whimper. Humans take drugs injected into thier spines to avoid the agony that accompanies child birth.
After all, God said He would greatly increase woman's pain in child birth.
Just something to consider
You must be joking when you're saying you think animals don't feel pain while giving birth.
@@Eddieshred have you watched an animal give birth? Have you watched a woman give birth? Perhaps, 'no' pain was an over-satetment. But, there is nowhere near the same level of pain.
@@Joseph221b Agreed but then we’re back at the premise that animals feel less pain all together which is kind of reasonable. Make no mistake, labour is still very painful for animals.
04:42 You can use this paragraph in every video.
If one wants to actually raise an objection to theism based on [atheist argument] they would be forced to claim that all these theories about [atheist argument] are false (because if one of the theories weren't false, then [atheist argument] would be unproblematic). But, since the objector can't provide evidence that these theories are false, then they can't actually raise the objection! It's an objection built on unprovable assumptions. So, your view of [atheist argument] needs to be based on your belief about God's existence, rather than the other way around. This drastically minimizes the problem of [atheist argument].
I think perhaps the best response to animal pain is also an adequate response to human pain- being some degree of sceptical theism. God may allow the pain to obtain higher order goods, and one is not committed to claim its any specific good. One only has to hold that we are not in a good enough epistemic position to make rigid probability judgements either way, which is a very reasonable position.
True, but I think that the theist’s position gets better and better with each new thing we can point to as a *possible* higher order good. I’m not really sure what possible higher order goods to posit for animals, so I went the route of positing possible reasons why the evil wouldn’t be as bad as it seems at first glance.
Have a nice day! :)
I've not even gotten past how free will (which doesn't work with an all knowing god and which that god frequently disregards in the bible) explains pain, sure it explains man made pain, kind of (it wouldn't prevent free will for god to stop some of those either, just like if I stopped a mugging it doesn't mean that I've denied the muggers free will), but it doesn't really explain every other form of pain.
No amount of studying can prove or disprove this hypothesis? If that's the case then morally you'd have to assume that the animal isn't a robot otherwise there is the potential that you'd be causing pain to an animal. But secondly there are test that have established evidence for consciousness in animals and even self awareness, we know that animals aren't squishy robots. So this argument doesn't work, not to mention that it's based on very outdated religious views that just aren't supported by modern day knowledge, like that humans aren't animals and are somehow separate from animals.
Shmain, so just pretend that animals don't actually feel pain. Sure if just make something up that solves everything, this is why I don't take religion seriously.
So pain and suffering is ok because they get a nice lovely afterlife? That's kind of messed up. So would it be ok to beat a child until they're an adult so long as I make their adult life wonderful? No of course it isn't but that's literally the same argument that was just made.
Yeah no, we can prove some of those arguments false, like animals aren't conscious/are robots. One side does have evidence that animals do feel pain. It's also more of an assumption that they react to pain but don't feel it, as that would mean assuming that other living things that we are closely related to don't feel and process pain in the same way, this claim would require evidence, which you admit doesn't exist.
All these arguments might convince a theist who doesn't know anything about biology but outside of that these are terrible and would strongly advise never to use them in an actual discussion or debate about the topic because anyone who understands biology or even basic debate skills would destroy these points.
Once again making the comment about the basis of beliefs requiring evidence and that the belief holder has to defend against scrutiny.
Your analysis of how we attribute emotions to animals I notice a lot in people who have pets. It irritates me because I don't perceive animals like this since it's quite obvious they're not high-level creatures. However, people will say, "Oh, Sammy is such a jokester, he does this and that". Though Sammy can't be a jokester, he doesn't know what jokes are, he can't perceive something to be "funny". If he did, we have no way of knowing that because it can't communicate at our level. The owners perception of personality is just thrust upon the animal. Personally, I don't see this as an issue and find it pointless to discuss just because I'm not really a fan of pets and I know this objection arises out of the strange (to me) affection people have for animals. However, for those who struggle with it, I'm glad there's folks like you. I like your theories. 👍
Humans are animals and all of this applies to humans.
If you disagree, mr. philosophical zombie, then, please, demonstrate your pain experience and your free will.
Also can you demonstrate this for a baby, fetus, Homo or Hominidae?
See, my worldview leads me to certain commitments about the experiences of humans. However, my worldview does *not* lead to the same commitments about non-humans. For example, if everyone besides me was a philosophical zombie, then the Gospel seems to be false. But, if cats don’t experience reality, that doesn’t affect the Gospel’s truth.
Have a nice day! :)
Can you make a video defending the resurrection of Jesus?
I want to eventually, but it’s not my forte.
Have a nice day! :)
@MAHER-SHALAL-HASH-BAZ ONG DIEL yeah!
Apologetics Squared
Hey man if Your going to do that watch out for an athiest troll called "Ressuraction expert* he básically storms christian channels channels when they talk about the ressuraction so watch out
Maybe God only made animals appear to suffer so that human psychopaths could get their heinous yayas out on non humans, thereby mitigating the amount of suffering we humans inflict on each other. Maybe if torturing puppies wasn’t satisfying enough for them, they’d torture other humans instead & there would be unmanageable amounts of suffering.
Christianity justifies the instrumentation of all life on earth.
You must first prove that consciousness, or rather a soul, exists. You cannot just appeal to an entity that lacks meaning. Also, if you say that animals are really suffering, then I don't really see where your counterargument is going, it is simply a suffering that spans all "theodocy", to say that in a certain way animals are inferior to humans doesnt fix the problem. The analogy that you make between an animal and a robot is not precise, because a robot does not feel, here also you try to say that there is a certain type of pain that is not pain? I think you are appealing to non-existent concepts or lack of meaning to test your idea, this is why the first part of your video does not convince me at all, since I do not see that it solves the problem, if the animal feels that amount of pain, then you have to prove that the pain is justificable. Later on you say that god may create a type of "animal" paradise, in order to compensate that pain, but, again this doesnt answer the question in first place, why would god allow such unecessary evil and pain, you give no answer to that, even if an afterlife exists for animals, this does not justifies the pain they are feeling on earth.
Honestly, i saw no strong contraargument to Alex position
Hello! I'll try to be brief. :)
// You must first prove that consciousness, or rather a soul, exists. //
I don't think that my arguments rest on a soul. Just that mental things like pain are not identical to neurons firing, so that God could stop one even if He doesn't stop the other.
// The analogy that you make between an animal and a robot is not precise, because a robot does not feel, //
The thesis that I was offering was that animals do not feel! Sure, when they get certain inputs, certain neurons fire in their brains. However, when robots get certain inputs, certain transistors are flipped. Why couldn't these be comparable?
// even if an afterlife exists for animals, this does not justifies the pain they are feeling on earth. //
There are two ways we can think of "justifying" animal pain.
1) We give reasons that God would have for allowing animal pain.
It's true, I didn't give justifications of this sort. But not having justification of this sort doesn't seem to be as problematic as:
2) God gives compensation for animal pain.
This is what I was offering.
Have a nice day! :)
@@ApologeticsSquared Thank you for answering.
"*Just that mental things like pain are not identical to neurons firing*"
i think that is what physical pain is, those neurons firing is what makes physical paing possible, in both, animals and humans.
Now, what most animals are NOT able to "feel" are the potential consequences of, for example, not having legs, in other words, they can´t be depressed (in most of the casses, since depression on animals is very common, in torture, for example, or starving)
I think that´s the most accurate in "mental " pain , and "physical" pain, but the thing is that most animals do feel that human "mental " pain(depression, anxiety and so on), even though is not that complex, since humans have a more developed brain, so our feelings are also, more developed. having this idea into account, humans, instead of animals, are able to think about the consequences of NOT having a leg, but this is not a feeling.
*"The thesis that I was offering was that animals do not feel! Sure, when they get certain inputs, certain neurons fire in their brains. However, when robots get certain inputs, certain transistors are flipped. Why couldn't these be comparable?"*
Because a robot can´t feel either physical pain or mental pain.
Now the second point.
I believe that you cannot speak about compensation when there is no free will involved. If a paradise for animals exists, this means that every pain that they suffered on earth, really doesnt matter and will never matter, it doesnt matter if you are a lion and all you did was sit on the ground while eating meat and then naturally die, or either being a pig and being locked up all your life in a limited space, injecting you with antibiotics and giving you bad food, then killing you or even torturing you. That means that "life" has no value at all, but also does not even have sense.
Wow, this guy is terrifying. He not only doesn't understand how the burden of proof works, but more insidiously, somehow thinks it's intellectually honest to claim that it's possible that animals don't REALLY feel pain to justify his presupposed Christian worldview. You are sick, dude. For real. Doesn't matter how folksy your try to make your tone of voice...this stuff is messed up. Maybe I should just go out and kick puppies. Why not, right? You can't show that it is false that puppies are truly feeling pain any different than a robot, right? I mean, their cries and screams could just be fake pain, or schmain, right? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU, DUDE?
Hello! If I understand your comment, you are saying:
1) If animals don’t feel pain or feel schmain, being a sadistic animal torturer would be okay.
2) Animals don’t feel pain or feel schmain [according to Squared].
3) Therefore, being a sadistic animal torturer is okay [according to Squared].
Now, I think being a sadistic animal torturer merits one of the worst punishments our justice system would allow, so I understand your indignation with (3) and me. However, I don’t actually believe (2) is true. I think it’s possible, and should be discussed rather than being hand-waved away. But I am far from actually believing it. Furthermore, I don’t agree with (1). I think that even if animals don’t feel pain, torturing them is still a moral abomination. Why? Well, precisely *because* we can never prove whether or not they feel pain. Say I come to believe that there is a 90% chance animals feel pain and a 10% chance they do not. That means that the Problem of Animal Pain would be 10% weaker. Okay. Now, say I was walking in the woods and I saw a guy torturing a bunny. Well, there’s a 90% chance severe torture is occurring! That’s enough for me to do everything in my power to stop him. Torturing an animal would become equivalent to pushing a button that has a 90% chance of activating a machine which will go torture some individual.
That is obviously evil.
Have a nice day! :)
@@ApologeticsSquared Well, first let me say that you do a good job of being polite and courteous in your response, something that I was not. Not that I was rude, but I could have phrased my comment less aggressively. You do a good job of exemplifying Proverbs 15:1: "A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger." I loved that verse when I was a Christian. :-) The Bible has SOME wisdom, but soooo many bad things...
Anyway, to our discussion: your biggest problem is that your logic doesn't work when I extend it to other situations. Your smaller problems come with the implications of your logic, even if you were right.
Biggest Issue: You contend that consciousness is a differentiating factor between real pain and just pain response (non-important pain). This is wrong on two levels: 1) It ignores non-conscious human pain. You would not feel ok to hurt a baby, but a baby does not have consciousness in the same way that human adults do. Indeed, intuitively, among pro-choice advocates, the argument gets more difficult the older the fetus becomes. Most people you talk to would start to balk at pro-choice arguments the more human-like the fetus' pain response is. This gets even more obvious once the baby is born. Who, in their right mind, would argue the moral neutrality of hurting babies, apart from sociopaths? Virtually no one. This is because we intuitively recognize real, true pain whether or not the subject is fully-conscious.
2) Your conclusion is just wrong. The ability to suffer is what makes causing suffering morally wrong. Your example was incorrect. It WOULD be wrong to hurt WALL-E, because WALL-E was able to feel pain! If a being is conscious enough to feel and respond to pain, then it is wrong to inflict pain on that being. How are you able to distinguish meaningful pain and non-meaningful pain? It seems from your video that you're just claiming by fiat that humans have more meaningful pain because God made humans special given theism. How is that not arguing in a circle? We're trying to test whether or not a moral God is a rational concept. If you're granting God's decisions being moral from the outset, then you're question-begging.
The other issue is this "our intuitions of what pain is may be wrong" thing you're doing is borderline dishonest, and you admit as much in your response to me. If you don't believe it, then why even bring it up as an argument? How do you quantify your level of confidence in something you don't actually believe? This 90% number seems very fishy. You mean, you're only 90% sure that hurting puppies is wrong? Really? Your 10% skepticism seems completely manufactured as a post-hoc loophole for not being able to "prove" animal pain. I mean, if you can't prove animal pain, then you can't prove baby pain. What's the difference? Neither babies or animals can TELL us they're in pain, but we all universally acknowledge their pain because of everything our intuition tells us. Are you 90% sure that it's wrong to hurt babies, too?
Have you seen Plantinga's justification for natural evil? He takes the free will defense and extends it to supernatural entities, like angels and demons. He postulates that angels and demons MIGHT cause all the natural evil in the world, like tornados and cancer, so if that's possible, then the free will defense can extend to natural evil as well, since angels and demons need free will! Problem solved!
That laughable theodicy is the kind of thing you're doing, man. Is this something you want to hang your hat on, something you're honestly going to believe about the world? When cancer kills your loved ones, are you going to say, "well, I'm glad I have a just God that allows angels and demons to have free will," or are you going to acknowledge that finding BS loopholes so you can say to atheists, "you can't prove it's logically impossible" is lying to yourself to help you feel good about God? You want a loophole for animal pain. Fine. If you want to fake-believe that puppies have a 10% chance of feeling schmain instead of pain, go ahead. I just don't know how you have peace with your worldview.
@@ApologeticsSquared ok maybe I was a little rude 😬
@@LandonMetochoi on the "laughable" theodicy of plantinga part , dont you think if God exists and he brought human beings into existence , he will also create other beings as well . do you think that he would create only limited creatures like human beings with very and i mean VERY limited capacities . wouldnt he create beings on each and every point of continuous spectrum of capabilities. it is almost certain that that would be the case . lastly , i would like to say christian theism is just one of the many philosophical views that philosophers argue about . some think we are in a matrix , some think they are a brain in a vat , some think they are actually asleep and are beings decieved by an evil demon . there are all kinds of weird views that philosophers talk about . christianity i think happens to be much more explanatory than these other views .
4:45 Hold up, the burden of proof lies with the one making the positive claim. Nobody can prove a negative claim.
Your argument is similar to:
The skeptic can't prove there isn't a teapot orbiting the asteroid belt until they check every spot in the asteroid belt.
The skeptic doesn't need to prove there isn't a teapot, but only needs to doubt the claim.