Chapter 1: The Problem of Evil

The question of evil has perplexed philosophers for ages, with some of my previous writings addressing the issue predominantly through the lens of human suffering. However, it's crucial to also consider the immense suffering experienced by animals in their struggle for survival.

This article aims to shed light on the harsh realities that animals face daily. This widespread suffering raises profound questions about the belief in an all-powerful and benevolent God, particularly as espoused by many Christians. The central inquiry is: How can such a deity permit the existence of such extensive and brutal suffering?

To underscore this point, let us reflect on the insights of biologist Richard Dawkins, who vividly illustrates the suffering present in the natural world:

> "The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored." — Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden

The visible suffering of animals stands in stark contrast to the claims of some creationist Christians who argue against evolutionary theory, asserting it is not observable in real-time. However, the cruelty and suffering observed in nature is undeniable and deeply intricate.

Consider the behavior of young cuckoo birds, which engage in "infanticide." Their method of tricking other species into raising their young is an intriguing example of nature's harsh realities.

Next, let us examine a more disturbing case: the parasite O. volvulus, which causes river blindness. This disease is the second leading cause of blindness due to infection globally. The lifecycle of O. volvulus is a complex interaction involving blackflies and humans. When blackflies bite humans, they transfer larval parasites into the bloodstream, where they mature and reproduce. This cycle raises a troubling question: Why would a benevolent God create a parasite that must blind humans to survive and reproduce?

Description: This video explores the overwhelming evidence of animal suffering and its implications for the belief in a benevolent God.

Animal suffering is not merely an incidental occurrence; it is woven into the fabric of nature. It is not simply about an animal accidentally drowning; it involves predators acting on instinct, encoded in their DNA, driving them to hunt and kill. They do not choose cruelty; their actions stem from instinctual behavior.

Even believers must recognize that these creatures lack free will. Their actions are determined by their genetic makeup rather than conscious choice.

Creation Could Have Been Different

The notion of an all-knowing, all-powerful, and wholly good God implies that He could have designed the biological world in myriad ways. For example, He could have created a world devoid of parasites that cause diseases like malaria, which results in around 600,000 deaths each year, or river blindness. Why didn't He?

Expanding on this idea, God could have fashioned all life to thrive without inflicting harm, similar to how plants function. Most plants flourish by absorbing sunlight, not by preying on other sentient beings.

Yet, according to Christian doctrine, God created not only plants but also animals that prey on each other in often violent and painful ways. What could possibly justify such a design? If Christians maintain that God is omnipotent, it follows that the brutality of this world must align with His intentions, a conclusion that's hard to overlook.

Animal Suffering Lacks Higher Purpose

Some Christian defenders propose that suffering fosters character development and spiritual growth. However, does this notion apply to animals? Many animals are sentient and experience pain, exhibiting behaviors akin to human grief, yet they do not have the capacity for moral reasoning or spiritual growth. So, why does God allow them to suffer?

The argument that animal suffering serves as punishment for wrongdoing is equally flawed, as animals act instinctively and are believed to be incapable of sin according to Christian beliefs.

In essence, the justifications often offered for human suffering do not extend to animals.

Despite this, many Christians continue to portray their God as all-loving. To uphold this belief, they often conjure elaborate explanations for animal suffering, some of which are exceedingly far-fetched. One popular explanation suggests that the actions of Adam and Eve brought death and suffering into the world.

Description: This debate examines whether animal suffering undermines the existence of God, focusing on perspectives from both Christian and atheist viewpoints.

Adam and Eve's Blame

Some Christians tackle the problem of evil by asserting that death and suffering entered creation through Adam and Eve's transgressions. They argue that prior to their Fall, animals did not die, nor did natural disasters or diseases occur.

While this perspective may seem implausible to many, it remains a common belief among Evangelical Christians. Prominent pastor Tim Keller articulated this viewpoint, stating that death and suffering are not directly created by God but are instead the consequences of humanity's rebellion.

However, this assertion is easily refuted by scientific evidence and does not align with biblical scripture. The Bible states that the result of Adam and Eve's sin was death for humans, not for all creatures. The Apostle Paul emphasizes this in Romans 5:12, noting that "death came to all people," not to all living beings.

Even if one accepts the notion that Adam and Eve's actions introduced death to all life forms, it remains unclear why so many must endure profound suffering before they die.

The Bible does not explicitly connect animal suffering or natural disasters to the Fall. God could have allowed animals to die peacefully, yet as previously mentioned, suffering is deeply rooted in the natural order.

If Christians claim that animal suffering is merely a natural consequence of human sin and thus not God's fault, it raises the question: Why would God create a world where animal suffering is a "natural" outcome of human wrongdoing? Surely, He could have designed a world without this predicament.

Regardless of how Christians attempt to rationalize it, the existence of animal suffering remains a formidable challenge to the belief in an all-powerful, all-good Creator.

A Reflection for Christians

I pose another question to Christians: If you believe that God initially created a world without animal suffering and death, does this imply that such suffering contradicts God's goodness?

If you concur, anyone acknowledging the scientific fact that death existed prior to humans could reasonably conclude that if your God exists, He is not benevolent. In this case, you would have little ground to counter their conclusion.

Alternatively, if you do not believe that animal suffering and death conflict with God's benevolence, why then insist that it was not part of His original design?

Clarification

I am not suggesting that animal suffering disproves the existence of a Creator; rather, I aim to challenge the notion of an all-powerful and all-loving God. It is conceivable that a different type of deity exists—one who is indifferent or amoral—but that is not the God most theists uphold.

Many Christians point to the universe's fine-tuning as evidence of an intelligent designer. If they were consistent in their reasoning, they would also have to consider that the cruelty inherent in nature suggests that this designer may be malevolent or morally indifferent, rather than merely intelligent.

Claiming that "God works in mysterious ways" and that we cannot grasp His intentions by observing nature seems hypocritical, especially when nature is employed to validate the belief in a benevolent creator.

Conclusion

While nature possesses undeniable beauty, it is also rife with harsh realities that unfold continuously. This juxtaposition of beauty and brutality aligns with what one might expect in a universe devoid of a god, requiring no further explanation. However, for those who believe in an all-powerful and all-loving God, reconciling this belief with the world's realities poses a significant challenge.

If you found this article insightful, please consider supporting my writing with a tip.