Part Four:  “Do Animals Have Souls and Do Animal Rights Advocates Have a Just Cause?”

Before the 19^th century, animals were regarded as little more than biological machines. Rene Descartes and other 17^th century philosophers and scientists even believed animals did not feel pain, which, among other things, resulted in the cruel practice of vivisection, where experiments and surgery were performed on live animals without anesthesia. Descartes may have justified this practice because he believed animals had neither the ability to think nor immortal souls.

Let me start by saying the Bible reveals that animals do have souls. As well-known theologians, Gary Habermas and J.P Moreland point out in Immortality: The Other Side of Death: “Throughout the history of the church, the classic understanding of living things has included the doctrine that animals, as well as humans, have souls. Christians have maintained this because the Bible teaches that animals have souls.”  (In my book, Will Dogs Chase Cats in Heaven? People, Pets, and Wild Animals in the Afterlife, I give biblical and scientific evidence that we have every reason to believe God did give animals immortal  souls.)

Today, it’s hard to imagine anyone ever believing that animals have no thoughts, let alone not feel pain. During the last century, an enormous amount of data has accumulated on animal behavior through the relatively new science of ethology (a branch of biology that studies animal behavior). It’s known today that animals not only feel pain and retain memories of it, but they also experience real emotions. Senior writer for Time Magazine, Jeffrey Kluger, in his book The Animal Mind,  wrote:

“The more deeply scientists look into the animal mind, the more they’re discovering it to be a place of richness, joy, thought and even nuance. . . . Animals, the research is proving, are creatures capable of reflection, bliss, worry and more. Not all of them in the same ways or to the same degrees, surely, but all of them in far deeper measures than we’ve ever believed. The animal mind is nothing like the wasteland it’s been made out to be.”

Animal rights advocates legitimately justify their cause because sentient animals (animals with awareness and perception, such as mammals and birds) have emotional and cognitive characteristics similar to humans—although much less development. Not only do they feel pain, but they also experience stress, fear, anxiety, grief, loneliness, despair, and other human-like characteristics. Numerous studies in animal behavior have documented this. (I give many examples in Will Dogs Chase Cats in Heaven.) It’s unarguable that animals are more than mindless biological machines without feeling and emotions. This is reason enough for us to carefully consider how we treat and care for non-human life.

Although all people must reject any ideology that elevates animals to human status, the question of what constitutes legitimate animal rights is a moral issue which Christians must seriously grapple with from a biblical perspective. And because Christians are obligated to treat animals according to divine precepts (e.g., Prov. 12:10), it is also a theological issue. So the starting point for developing a biblical concept of animal rights is to explore God’s perspective on wild and domesticated animals. This will be the topic of next week’s blog post. ©

Part Three:  Should Animals Be Unprotected Personal Property When It Comes to Experimentation, Farm Stock, or Pets?  What the Law Says. 

According to ethologist Marc Bekoff, in his book The Emotional Lives of Animals; A Leading Scientist Explores Animal Joy, Sorrow, and Empathy—and Why They Matter, laboratory experiments on animals as far back as 2001 included “690,800 guinea pigs, rabbits, and hamsters, in addition to 161,700 farm animals, 70,000 dogs, 49,400 primates, 22,800 cats, and 80 million mice and rats.” In most cases, animals used in laboratory experiments suffer horrendous pain and are killed. Yet, scientists agree that such research is vital to develop effective treatments for diseases and other maladies – which when necessary should be allowed.

On the other hand, should live animals be used to develop cosmetics or in psychological experiments—which also inflicts pain and often results in death? People need nutritious food, but should veal calves be confined to tiny crates their entire short lives (fortunately, conditions have improved somewhat in recent years). Is it morally justified for chickens and animals raised for furs, such as minks, rabbits, chinchillas, and foxes, to be crammed into battery cages just to provide expensive fur coats for wealthy people?

These are not small issues— nor can they be ignored in any consideration of biblical ethics.  The History of animal rights laws has not been very helpful either—which may help to explain the rise of today’s radical animal rights activists. Generally, the law holds that people are more important than animals (which, of course, we are). But, it also allows animals to be used for non-medical research purposes, were extreme pain and death are usually the results. In other words, such practices are exempt from anti-cruelty laws.

What the Law Says

Generally speaking, animals have few legal rights. In fact,  some wild animals have more legal protection than domestic animals. Although there are anti-cruelty statutes which protect “companion animals [e.g., family pets]. . . .  from injury, pain, or suffering,” they are still considered the property of their owners and any legal standing they have revolves around their owners. For example, to sue a person who injures or kills a person’s dog, it must be proven that the plaintiff has been injured in some way as a result.

Despite a growing concern of the humane treatment of animals, ”the prevailing thought continues to be that animals only warrant the protection of the law to the extent that protection will not interfere with some more important [and I would add sometimes arbitrary] human interests.”

This raises the question posed in last week’s blog. Are animal protection laws in harmony biblical revelation? More to the point, as we’ll explore in next week’s blog post, do modern animal rights advocates have a just cause? ©

Note: My comments and quotes on animal law are from an article by Shanna Lisberg, “Animal Law; Five Things Every Lawyer Should Know,” in NW Lawyer, 2016.

Part Two:  “What Was the Christian Role in the Animal Rights Movement?  When Did the Radical Faction Emerge? What Do They Believe?” 

Last week’s blog raised the question of whether or not the typical, historic Christian view of animal rights is God-honoring or if today’s radical faction of the movement is more on track with biblical revelation. Today, we’ll look briefly at the history of animal rights and when the radical wing evolved—which has resulted in a profound social and moral movement among many animal rights advocates.

The animal rights movement began in the 19^th century and parallelled the emergence of the “humanitarian movement” of the same era, which sought, among other things, to end slavery and the oppression of Children. It has since become one of the largest social movements in Western culture.

It may surprise readers that the founding fathers of the movement were often Christians. William Wilberforce, usually associated with his long struggle to abolish slavery in the British Empire, along with Anglican priest Arthur Broome, founded the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in 1824. The RSPCA is the oldest and largest animal welfare organization in the world. The founders considered the Society a Christian endeavor grounded on Christian principles.   Following RSPCA’s lead, numerous other groups quickly emerge, including the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, established in 1866.

The Rise of the Radical Animal Rights Movement

During the 1970s, segments of the animal rights movement began to embrace a more radical moral philosophy than their predecessors, one which went far beyond preventing cruelty to animals. It eventually spawned People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and other aggressive animal rights organizations. The writings of bioethics professor Peter Singer and American philosopher Tom Regan, along with other like-minded activists, elevated the value of animals to the moral equivalency of humans. They insisted that animals have an intrinsic right to live independent and free from human intervention. They should not be considered property; they should receive the same protection under the law as people; and rarely, if ever, should they suffer pain on behalf of human welfare. Those on the extremist fringe even argue that animals should be awarded the status of personhood, and, in some cases, are of greater value than humans.   Peter Singer, for example, taught that the life of a disabled newborn “is of less value than life of a pig, dog, or a chimpanzee.” People who disagree with this are accused of “speciesism”—prejudice and discrimination against animals on par with racism and sexism.

In light of the growing acceptance of this radical form of animal rights, Christians must ask themselves three questions and seek biblical guidance as we respond to them, if we are to bring back Christian principles and values into the movement. (These teachings do not compromise the humane treatment of animals; in fact, they can help both Christians and non-Christians understand the value God puts on all animal life.) First, do animal rights advocates have a just cause? Second, do animals have value to God beyond their usefulness to people? And third, do humans have a moral responsibility to non-human life? These questions will be answered beginning in next week’s blog post. ©

Part One:  Introduction

During past decades, radical animal rights activists have elevated the value of animals to the moral equivalency of humans. They uncompromisingly insist that medical research on live animals, factory farming, and other practices that cause animals intense suffering and death should be legally forbidden. Christians, on the other hand, have historically agreed that God created animals primarily for human consumption, commercial benefits, and entertainment. As such, they believe the human race is free to use animals in practically any manner they choose with little or no concern for their welfare.

Is this common Christian position God-honoring, or is the modern, non-Christian animal rights movement more on track with what God reveals in Scripture? Is promoting animal rights a legitimate and just cause? The Bible answers these questions, and this will be the topic of my new blog series. Today, I’ll begin by setting the stage for what follows in future posts.

Professor Andrew Linzey, in his book Creatures of the Same God; Explorations in Animal Theology, asks the question, “How likely is it that a God who creates millions, if not billions, of species only cares for one of them.”  Good question, and it too will be answered in this blog series. But for now, it reminds me of a comment I heard on a nationally broadcast radio talk show. The popular host, a person with special knowledge of the Old Testament, asserted that there would be no reason for animals to exist unless God created people.

At one level, I suppose he’s correct. The Bible does say that God had the human race in mind when he created Earth (Ps.115:16). But does it follow that the only reason God created animal life is to serve humanity? If so, why did He create so many millions of animals that contribute nothing to human welfare? And why did God create so many animals that He knew would become a nuisance and even dangerous to the human race?

The fact is that nowhere in the Bible does it say that God created animals exclusively for human consumption and commercial benefits, or that we can do what we wish with animals without any consideration for their well-being.  In this blog series, I’m going to provide what I believe is a reasonable and coherent biblical argument that God had more in mind than benefiting humanity when He designed and created the myriad diverse, beautiful, and often mysterious animals that share our amazing planet. My goal is to provide insight into what constitutes a biblical perspective of “animal rights,” and the ethical responsibilities we humans have in our relationship with both wild and domesticated animals. ©

Next week’s blog will explore how the animal rights movement began in the 19^th century and who started it. It will surprise many readers—both Christians and non-Christians.

Guest Blogger, Pasquale Mingarelli

Let’s face it. These days life comes at us fast and from many different directions. We find it hard to find peace. All the busyness in life makes connecting with God difficult. We encounter Him best in silence and stillness, but sadly our modern media-filled world lacks silence.  How do we get away from all the noise and distractions?

As an outdoor lover, the best place I find to escape the craziness of life is outside in nature. In the goodness of God’s creation, I find many places for my soul to rest and dwell on the wonders of God. In nature, our hearts find it easier to hear his voice.

Jesus sets the example for us. Luke 5:14 says, “But Jesus Himself would often slip away to the wilderness and pray.”

A keyword used by Luke here is “often.” Why did Jesus go to the wilderness often? Perhaps He knew the importance of getting alone with our Heavenly Father in the quiet of creation? Matthew 14:23, Mark 1:35, Luke 6:12 and other passages also tell of Jesus retreating to the wilderness.

I know from experience that meeting God on the shore of a mountain lake or in the quiet of hidden woods is an awesome experience. And I prefer to meet God in such places. Unfortunately, most of us, including myself, don’t often have access to such an experience. But meeting God in nature can happen much closer to home.

Even if we don’t have a lot of time, we will benefit from a few minutes to a few hours outside. One thing I like to do is walk my dog in a local park or the small woods beside the park. I find it easy to pray as I walk, look and wonder. You can read about one such walk here.

But we don’t need a dog. Just going for a walk in a quiet place helps us connect with God.

If you feel more adventurous, a hike on the trail in a local nature area serves as a great way to meet with God. Near my home in Bellevue, Nebraska resides Fontenelle Forest, a nature preserve along the Missouri River. I love to walk with the Lord as I hike up and down the hilly slopes. I find bringing along a Bible greatly enhances my time in the woods.

Church retreats and Christian camps also work as great places to meet with God. Just make sure you don’t get too caught up in the scheduled events and activities.

Some other ideas to try:

• Journaling while watching birds at a birdfeeder
• A morning garden walk
• A walk during a snowfall (one of my favorites)
• Going for a bike ride
• Creating a quiet space in your backyard under a shade tree
• A weekend camping trip
• And maybe even try a road trip to one or more of the national parks this summer

After just a short time with God in nature, you’ll feel refreshed. Time with God outside also helps us better know His power, wisdom and majesty. It helps clear our mind, lowers our blood pressure, relieves depression, and helps us better connect with God and others.

So, enjoy the outside. Even if it’s winter where you live, getting in nature still offers these benefits.

“Pat is an expert on how to see God in nature. To learn more about connecting with God through nature, subscribe to his VBV of the D.”

Pasquale “Pat” Mingarelli is a longtime professional photographer and photography instructor. He speaks on creation and is an expert on how to see God in nature. Pat host The Visual Bible Verse of the Day website where you can download his free PDF 15 Ways to experience God in the Outdoors.

Part Ten:   What or Who Created God?  An Atheist’s Response to the Cosmological Argument.

 The previous nine blog posts in this series have demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists. He is the best explanation for the existence of life and the cosmos.  However, atheists often raise the above common objection

This objection is rather simple but almost always asked: “If everything is contingent on something else for its existence, then what created God—who made God?” This question contains what in logic is called a categorical fallacy. As Geisler and Brooks put it in their book, Come, Let Us Reason Together: An Introduction to Logical Thinking,  “The category ‘before’ does not apply to the category ‘first’. It is logically impossible.”

If God is the “First Cause,” nothing can exist before Him. Nothing comes before “first.” The Bible says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). Nothing can exist before creation except God. And since God has always existed, He is the uncaused First Cause. Therefore, to ask, “Who made God?” is meaningless and nonsensical. To make this point, you might ask the question, “What comes before first?”  Obviously, nothing can come before first!

Another way to respond to the question, “Who made God?” is to point out that, logically, whether or not another God made God is not an issue in terms of proving a God exists. If we have proven that the universe is not self-caused or eternal (as done parts 7 & 8), by default it had to have been created by something. This rules out atheism and establishes that a First Cause must ultimately exist. So we have won our argument and need only identify who this First Cause is, which we can legitimately call God. As we saw in last week’s blog, only God described in the Bible has the necessary attributes to be the Creator of the heavens (the cosmos) and Earth.

This blog post ends my ten-part series on demonstrating to atheists that we can prove God exists. If this data is rejected, I believe it’s not for philosophical or scientific reasons. It’s a willful choice to “suppress” what  God reveals through nature, logic, and an innate sense of His existence He placed in every human heart (e.g. Eccl. 3:11; Rom. 1:18-20). ©

New week’s blog post will be written by a guest blogger, nature photographer and writer Pasquale Mingarelli. It is a fitting application for ending this series. He will share the wonderful benefits of enjoying God in nature.

The following week I’ll start a new series of blog posts titled, “Should Christians Be concerned about Animal Rights? Yes—and Here’s Why”  It’s an expanded version of an article I wrote for the Christian Research Journal several years ago.

Part Nine: Why Only God as Described in the Bible Has the Qualifications for Creator of Life and the Cosmos

In my previous two blog posts, I presented the cosmological argument as proof that the universe neither popped into existence out of nothing nor is eternal. At this point, however, I have only demonstrated the existence of a non-contingent, transcendent “First Cause.” It remains now to show that this First Cause of all creation is the God revealed in the Bible. This requires God to have certain necessary qualities. In other words, to have created everything that exists, this non-contingent First Cause must have the following attributes:

• To be a creator, the First Cause must be supernatural, eternal, exist apart from creation, and not bound to natural processes.
• For this First Cause to create, “it” would be a free agent with free will and, therefore, a personal being— a “He” rather than an “It.”
• Since an event can’t be greater than its cause, He must be more intelligent and powerful than what He created.
• Because He is the First Cause, He must be uncaused, self-existing, changeless, timeless, and infinite (always existed).
• To be Creator, He must be omniscient (have all knowledge), omnipresent (be present everywhere at once), and omnipotent (be all-powerful).
• He must be Spirit rather than material. He could not be a physical being if He is present everywhere at once.
• As the creator of moral beings (people), God must be perfect in goodness, holiness, and love. An evil creator would not create people with a moral conscience (Rom. 2:14-15).
• As a holy and just Being, God would have to condemn and punish sin. Therefore, He must be perfect in wisdom, righteousness, justice, and judgment.
• As a loving Being, God would provide the human race an opportunity to receive forgiveness.

These qualities describe the fundamental attributes of God revealed in the Bible. The cosmological argument carried to its logical philosophical and theological conclusion confirms the existence of the God of Scripture. ©

Part Eight:  How to Use the Cosmological Argument for God’s Existence in an Apologetic Conversation

In last week’s blog post, we looked briefly at the well-known cosmological argument for God’s existence. However, I presented it as a philosophical argument that was more explanatory than practical. In this week’s blog post, we’ll see how to use the cosmological argument effectively during an apologetic conversation. It is a simple and practical version of the cosmological argument that involves asking three related questions, which can lead the conversation to the inevitable fact of creation.

Question One:

As I see it, there are only three possible ways for the universe to come into existence. I would like you to tell me which one makes the most sense. First, is it possible that the universe created itself? In other words, could the universe be self-caused—popped into existence out of nothing?

Many atheists will say “no” because the answer is self-evident. If not, before going further, challenge him or her to explain how something can create itself. The universe can’t be self-caused because the laws of physics (and simple logic) prohibit something from coming from nothing.  For the universe to create itself, it would have to exist and not exist at the same time. In other words, it would have to already exist to create itself and at the same time not exist to be created itself. An impossibility that moves from real science to fantasy.

Question Two:

The second possible way to account for the existence of the universe is that it’s eternal. It always existed. Do you subscribe to this view?

There is a good chance the atheist will answer,  “yes.” Challenge him or her to explain why they think the universe always existed, especially since, as explained in last week’s blog, modern scientific evidence confirms the universe is finite—it had a beginning. Big Bang cosmology, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the Kalam cosmological argument all confirm that the universe is not eternal.

Since most atheists elevate science as the ultimate test for truth, they are obliged to accept the scientific evidence for a finite universe. To point this out, you might ask this: “Do you have any reason for rejecting the scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning?”

Question Three:

If the universe can’t be self-caused, and if the scientific evidence proves that it’s not eternal, how did the universe come into existence? It seems the only choice left is that the universe was created. Can you think of a fourth alternative? If so, please explain it to me?

The goal of these three questions is to guide the conversation to a point where the atheist concedes, based on evidence, that the universe is not self-caused nor eternal. That leaves only one other option for its origin: it was created. We can now demonstrate that the Creator of the universe must be God revealed in the Bible. This will be the topic of next week’s blog post. ©

Part Seven:  The Cosmological Argument Demonstrates God Exists and Is the God Revealed in Scripture

Probably the best philosophical argument for God’s existence is the Kalam cosmological argument. Although it has been around for centuries, the cosmological argument has taken on additional weight due to scientific discoveries in recent decades that have corroborated the argument.  Put as a syllogism, the argument goes like this:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

The universe began to exist.

Therefore, the universe has a cause.

I’ll present the cosmological argument in two ways. In this blog post, I’ll put it philosophically, corroborated by scientific evidence that supports it. In next week’s blog, I’ll explain how to use it in casual encounters; that is, not so much as a philosophical argument for God’s existence but as a practical application when speaking with atheists.

 Premise One: Whatever Begins to Exist Has a Cause

 When we observe nature, we see that everything is contingent upon something else for its existence. If it exists, it’s the effect of a cause. Moreover, the cause is always greater than the effect. For example, wind and water cause erosions; pressures under the earth’s crust cause a volcanic eruption; intense heat from the sun causes glaciers to melt, and so on.

Premise Two: The Universe Began to Exist

 It was once assumed the universe was infinite—it always existed. However, big bang cosmology and the 1^st & 2^nd laws of thermodynamics have demonstrated the universe had a beginning—it is not finite. Therefore, an initiating First Cause created the cosmos, or nothing subsequent could exist.

Conclusion: Therefore, the Universe Has a Cause

 Building on these two premises, we can conclude that the universe had a cause. Furthermore, that cause must exist outside and independent of the universe—apart from natural processes. Moreover, it must be self-existing or uncaused and not bound by time and space. Since an effect cannot be greater than its cause, this “First Cause” must be greater than the universe it created.

 But What is the “First Cause?”

At this point, we have only demonstrated the existence of a First Cause, which we can legitimately refer to as God. However, we still need to demonstrate that God is the God of Scripture. This will be the subject of blog nine, which I’ll post in two weeks. But first, in part eight next week. I will suggest a simpler and more practical way to apply the cosmological argument, especially in ordinary witnessing encounters. This will be the topic of next week’s blog post. ©

Part Six:  If God Does Not Exist, Evil Cannot Be Condemned

There is a second element to the moral argument (see last week’s blog post), which we’ll explore this week. If God does not exist, there is no moral obligation to avoid participating in evil.

Within an atheistic worldview, people are supreme beings. As such, no higher authority sets standards for determining what is good or evil. Hence, individuals or their societies are free to determine their own moral conduct. But this creates a grave, far-reaching moral dilemma. What if they disagree on what constitutes immoral behavior? Since people are supreme beings in an atheistic worldview, no higher authority exists to arbitrate between opposing views. It logically follows that each view must agree to the “moral truth” of the other. This gives birth to moral relativism and sounds the death knell for any obligation to moral fidelity.

Atheists claim moral values can exist even if God doesn’t. Human conscience—indeed, every facet of human beliefs and behavior—have an evolutionary origin.   However, there are numerous problems with this. To begin with, there is not a whit of evidence that moral values have an evolutionary origin. Moreover, such a preposterous theory is meaningless because the same evolutionary forces that condemn murder and stealing must also justify bestiality, rape, and other heinous behaviors. Evolutionists can’t have it both ways. They can’t justify the evolution of moral values on the one hand and the evolution of contradicting immoral values on the other. A self-contradicting theory is false.

A greater problem with the evolutionary explanation of ethics is that it fails to provide any reason why rape, murder, and stealing are morally wrong. If someone wants to do participate, why not? What if an entire culture decides that incest, infanticide,  rape, and killing millions of Jews is morally justified? In the absence of a moral Lawgiver who transcends human relativism, there is no objective criterion by which to judge and condemn such “values” nor any reason not to engage in them. Without God, at best, ethics are reduced to the fancy and desires of the most powerful persons or the political power in control. At worse, moral anarchy becomes the law of the land.

Only if God exists—the moral Lawgiver—can there be any criteria for identifying evil and holding people accountable when they engage in evil acts. There is a moral “line in the sand” beyond which no sane person or culture will tolerate certain behaviors. This confirms the existence of God. As philosopher and theologian, William Lane Craig put it, “If moral values cannot exist without God and moral values do exist, then it follows logically and inescapably that God exists.” (William Lane Craig, “Why I Believe God Exists,” in Why I Am A Christian, 75) ©