Nature Red in Tooth and Claw (book)

Last updated

Nature Red in Tooth and Claw
Nature Red in Tooth and Claw (book) cover.jpg
AuthorMichael J. Murray
LanguageEnglish
Subject Animal ethics, theism, wild animal suffering
Genre Theology
Published2008
Publisher Oxford University Press
Pagesx + 209
ISBN 978-0-19-923727-2
OCLC 5105006233

Nature Red in Tooth and Claw: Theism and the Problem of Animal Suffering is a 2008 book by Michael J. Murray, which explores animal suffering throughout evolutionary history as a natural evil, within the context of the problem of evil. The title of the book references a famous and oft-quoted phrase from the poem "In Memoriam A.H.H." by Alfred, Lord Tennyson.

Contents

Reception

The philosopher Mylan Engel Jr. describes the book as a useful text for philosophy of religion courses, particularly those on the topic of the problem of evil. He argues that the book is useful because it "illustrates just how bleak the theist's prospects are for handling this enduring challenge to the rationality of theistic belief", but raises a concern that Murray "downplays the significance of animal suffering", which could lead some readers to not take steps to reduce animal suffering that they personally contribute to. [1] Joseph J. Lynch also argues that the "Causa Dei" defence of God's existence advocated for in the book "may unjustifiably minimize the significance of animal suffering or simply explain it away", but calls the book comprehensive overall and feels that it will provoke discussion on the topic, even if it doesn't "solve the problem of God and animal pain". [2]

T. J. Mawson argues that the book rather than providing a theodicy, is more of a defence for theism in the light of the available evidence and suggests that overall, the book supports a verdict of "case not proven", when it comes to the problem of animal suffering. [3]

C. R. Dodsworth praises the book, calling it "carefully argued, historically grounded and insightful". [4] Gary Chartier's review is also positive, calling the book the "only book-length study in English of theodicy and animal suffering in the philosophy of religion", asserting that it sheds light on and analyses one of the most problematic facets of the problem of evil for theists, which has been frequently considered to be intractable and that "Murray has set the standard for the discussion of animal pain as a problem in theodicy". [5]

C. Robert Mesle is critical of the book, arguing that its focus on "single traditional definition of God" was too narrow and that it didn't engage with theologians who have differing conceptions of God, also arguing that the book express "low standards of rationality", which "moves us away from the larger quest of great philosophers and theologians". [6]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Process theology</span> Type of theology

Process theology is a type of theology developed from Alfred North Whitehead's (1861–1947) process philosophy, most notably by Charles Hartshorne (1897–2000), John B. Cobb, and Eugene H. Peters (1929-1983). Process theology and process philosophy are collectively referred to as "process thought".

The problem of evil is the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil and suffering with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God. There are currently differing definitions of these concepts. The best known presentation of the problem is attributed to the Greek philosopher Epicurus. It was popularized by David Hume.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Theodicy</span> Theological attempt to resolve the problem of evil

Theodicy means vindication of God. It is to answer the question of why a good God permits the manifestation of evil, thus resolving the issue of the problem of evil. Some theodicies also address the problem of evil "to make the existence of an all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good or omnibenevolent God consistent with the existence of evil or suffering in the world". Unlike a defense, which tries to demonstrate that God's existence is logically possible in the light of evil, a theodicy provides a framework wherein God's existence is also plausible. The German philosopher and mathematician Gottfried Leibniz coined the term "theodicy" in 1710 in his work Théodicée, though various responses to the problem of evil had been previously proposed. The British philosopher John Hick traced the history of moral theodicy in his 1966 work, Evil and the God of Love, identifying three major traditions:

  1. the Plotinian theodicy, named after Plotinus
  2. the Augustinian theodicy, which Hick based on the writings of Augustine of Hippo
  3. the Irenaean theodicy, which Hick developed, based on the thinking of St. Irenaeus

An argument from nonbelief is a philosophical argument that asserts an inconsistency between the existence of God and a world in which people fail to recognize him. It is similar to the classic argument from evil in affirming an inconsistency between the world that exists and the world that would exist if God had certain desires combined with the power to see them through.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">J. L. Mackie</span> Australian philosopher (1917–1981)

John Leslie Mackie was an Australian philosopher. He made significant contributions to the philosophy of religion, metaphysics, and the philosophy of language.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Open theism</span> Christian theological movement

Open theism, also known as openness theology and free will theism, is a theological movement that has developed within Christianity as a rejection of the synthesis of Greek philosophy and Christian theology. Open theism arises out of the free will theistic tradition of the church, which goes back to the early church fathers. Open theism is typically advanced as a biblically motivated and logically consistent theology of human and divine freedom, with an emphasis on what this means for the content of God's foreknowledge and exercise of God's power.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Richard Swinburne</span> English philosopher and Christian apologist

Richard Granville Swinburne is an English philosopher. He is an Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Oxford. Over the last 50 years Swinburne has been a proponent of philosophical arguments for the existence of God. His philosophical contributions are primarily in the philosophy of religion and philosophy of science. He aroused much discussion with his early work in the philosophy of religion, a trilogy of books consisting of The Coherence of Theism, The Existence of God, and Faith and Reason.

Natural evil is evil for which "no non-divine agent can be held morally responsible for its occurrence" and is chiefly derived from the operation of the laws of nature. Others such as Christian theologians reject this definition and argue that natural evil is the indirect result of original sin just as moral evils are, although moral evil is "caused by human activity" directly. Some theologians even argue that natural evil is directly perpetrated by demonic agents. Atheists argue that the existence of natural evil challenges belief in the existence, omnibenevolence, or omnipotence of God or any deity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Irenaean theodicy</span> Christian theodicy

The Irenaean theodicy is a Christian theodicy. It defends the probability of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God in the face of evidence of evil in the world. Numerous variations of theodicy have been proposed which all maintain that, while evil exists, God is either not responsible for creating evil, or he is not guilty for creating evil. Typically, the Irenaean theodicy asserts that the world is the best of all possible worlds because it allows humans to fully develop. Most versions of the Irenaean theodicy propose that creation is incomplete, as humans are not yet fully developed, and experiencing evil and suffering is necessary for such development.

Nick Trakakis is an Australian philosopher who is Assistant Director of the Centre for Philosophy and Phenomenology of Religion of the Australian Catholic University. He has previously taught at Monash University and Deakin University, and during 2006–2007 he was a postdoctoral research fellow at the Centre for Philosophy of Religion at the University of Notre Dame. He works mainly at the intersections of philosophy, religion, and theology.

R. William Hasker is an American philosopher and Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at Huntington University. For many years he was editor of the prestigious journal Faith and Philosophy. He has published many journal articles and books dealing with issues such as the mind–body problem, theodicy, and divine omniscience. He has argued for "open theism" and a view known as "emergentism" regarding the nature of the human person. Hasker regards the soul as an "emergent" substance, dependent upon the body for its existence.

Paul Robert Draper is an American philosopher, most known for his work in the philosophy of religion. His work on the evidential argument from evil has been widely influential. He is currently a professor at Purdue University. He is co-editor of topics in the philosophy of religion for the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alvin Plantinga's free-will defense</span> Logical argument against the problem of evil

Alvin Plantinga's free-will defense is a logical argument developed by the American analytic philosopher Alvin Plantinga and published in its final version in his 1977 book God, Freedom, and Evil. Plantinga's argument is a defense against the logical problem of evil as formulated by the philosopher J. L. Mackie beginning in 1955. Mackie's formulation of the logical problem of evil argued that three attributes of God, omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence, in orthodox Christian theism are logically incompatible with the existence of evil. In answer to the question, “Why didn’t God create a sinless world, since such a world is logically possible?”, Plantinga proposes that it is possible that in any possible world feasible for God to bring about, human beings would eventually have freely chosen to sin. So while sinless worlds are logically possible, they are not feasible for God to bring about. Plantinga terms this situation “transworld depravity.”

Skeptical theism is the view that people should remain skeptical of their ability to discern whether their perceptions about evil can be considered good evidence against the existence of the orthodox Christian God. The central thesis of skeptical theism is that it would not be surprising for an infinitely intelligent and knowledgeable being's reasons for permitting evils to be beyond human comprehension. That is, what may seem like pointless evils may be necessary for a greater good or to prevent equal or even greater evils. This central thesis may be argued from a theistic perspective, but is also argued to defend positions of agnosticism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Augustinian theodicy</span> Type of Christian theodicy designed in response to the evidential problem of evil

The Augustinian theodicy, named for the 4th- and 5th-century theologian and philosopher Augustine of Hippo, is a type of Christian theodicy that developed in response to the evidential problem of evil. As such, it attempts to explain the probability of an omnipotent (all-powerful) and omnibenevolent (all-loving) God amid evidence of evil in the world. A number of variations of this kind of theodicy have been proposed throughout history; their similarities were first described by the 20th-century philosopher John Hick, who classified them as "Augustinian". They typically assert that God is perfectly (ideally) good, that he created the world out of nothing, and that evil is the result of humanity's original sin. The entry of evil into the world is generally explained as consequence of original sin and its continued presence due to humans' misuse of free will and concupiscence. God's goodness and benevolence, according to the Augustinian theodicy, remain perfect and without responsibility for evil or suffering.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wild animal suffering</span> Suffering experienced by animals in nature

Wild animal suffering is the suffering experienced by nonhuman animals living outside of direct human control, due to harms such as disease, injury, parasitism, starvation and malnutrition, dehydration, weather conditions, natural disasters, and killings by other animals, as well as psychological stress. Some estimates indicate that these individual animals make up the vast majority of animals in existence. An extensive amount of natural suffering has been described as an unavoidable consequence of Darwinian evolution and the pervasiveness of reproductive strategies which favor producing large numbers of offspring, with a low amount of parental care and of which only a small number survive to adulthood, the rest dying in painful ways, has led some to argue that suffering dominates happiness in nature.

Jordan Howard Sobel was a Canadian-American philosopher specializing in ethics, logic, and decision theory. He was a professor of philosophy at the University of Toronto, Canada. In addition to his areas of specialization, Sobel made notable contributions in the fields of philosophy of religion, and value theory. Before his death, Sobel was considered the leading philosophical defender of Atheism prior to Graham Oppy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Predation problem</span> Consideration of the harms experienced by animals due to predation as a moral problem

The predation problem or predation argument refers to the consideration of the harms experienced by animals due to predation as a moral problem, that humans may or may not have an obligation to work towards preventing. Discourse on this topic has, by and large, been held within the disciplines of animal and environmental ethics. The issue has particularly been discussed in relation to animal rights and wild animal suffering. Some critics have considered an obligation to prevent predation as untenable or absurd and have used the position as a reductio ad absurdum to reject the concept of animal rights altogether. Others have criticized any obligation implied by the animal rights position as environmentally harmful.

Religious responses to the problem of evil are concerned with reconciling the existence of evil and suffering with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God. The problem of evil is acute for monotheistic religions such as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism whose religion is based on such a God. But the question of "why does evil exist?" has also been studied in religions that are non-theistic or polytheistic, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism.

Evolutionary theodicies are responses to the question of animal suffering as an aspect of the problem of evil. These theodicies assert that a universe which contains the beauty and complexity this one does could only come about by the natural processes of evolution. If evolution is the only way this world could have been created, then the goodness of creation is intrinsically linked to the pain and evil of the evolutionary processes. As John Polkinghorne argues, the randomness that is a necessary aspect of developing new forms of life is the characteristic which also creates the unintended suffering of those same life forms. Natural suffering is defined as an unavoidable and unintentional side effect of developing life.

References

  1. Engel Jr., Mylan (28 February 2009). "Review of Nature Red in Tooth and Claw: Theism and the Problem of Animal Suffering". Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. ISSN   1538-1617.
  2. Lynch, Joseph J. (1 November 2012). "Nature Red in Tooth and Claw: Theism and the Problem of Animal Suffering, by Michael Murray". Faith and Philosophy. 29 (4): 482–487. doi: 10.5840/faithphil201229450 . Retrieved 1 August 2020.
  3. Mawson, T. J. (2009). "Review of Nature Red in Tooth and Claw: Theism and the Problem of Animal Suffering". Mind. 118 (471): 855–858. doi:10.1093/mind/fzp081. ISSN   0026-4423. JSTOR   40542021.
  4. Dodsworth, C. R. (1 November 2010). "Nature Red in Tooth and Claw: Theism and the Problem of Animal Suffering". American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly. 84 (4): 823–825. doi:10.5840/acpq201084459 . Retrieved 1 August 2020.
  5. Chartier, Gary (September 2009). "Michael J. Murray Nature Red in Tooth and Claw: Theism and the Problem of Animal Suffering. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008). Pp. x+209. ISBN 978 0 19 923727 2". Religious Studies. 45 (3): 370–372. doi:10.1017/S0034412509990138. ISSN   1469-901X. S2CID   170606258.
  6. Mesle, C. Robert (6 August 2009). "Michael J. Murray, Nature red in tooth and claw: theism and the problem of animal suffering". International Journal for Philosophy of Religion. 66 (3): 173–177. doi:10.1007/s11153-009-9218-9. ISSN   1572-8684. S2CID   170657002.