Another atheist question
by Newnameelizabeth
How does an atheist explain how horses and other animals and plants seem especially suited for use by people? Did people adapt to the lower species that came before? So we sit the way we do because horses are shaped the way they are? This logic sounds better regarding our dietary needs, but not for transportation.
On the other hand, I don’t like the totally utilitarian approach that says God made plants and animals just for the service of man. I think they should be able to enjoy their own telos’s apart from us.
Words 
I’ll take a stab at what I think would be one of the largest objections:
In “Guns, Germs, and Steel” (I believe), we find that there are very few large animals conducive to human domestication… and most reside in the west. So the fact that we can “modify” (with horseshoes, saddles, etc) one of a myriad of species for our usage says more about man’s ingenuity and the “luck” of a few than God’s benevolence.
~Luke
That is helpful, thank you.
I’m rethinking some of my preconceptions. I like that your answer removes some of the man-centeredness of some creation viewpoints by establishing that there are some animals that don’t directly serve us. Atheists and creationists agree that man is a “higher” being, however, and can have more success at taming and controlling those animals than vice-versa. I could speculate as well about why God made some plants and animals seem out of the human consumption loop. But my sola Scriptura background still points me to the Bible.
Job 38:
39 “Do you hunt the prey for the lioness
and satisfy the hunger of the lions
40 when they crouch in their dens
or lie in wait in a thicket?
41 Who provides food for the raven
when its young cry out to God
and wander about for lack of food?
This indicates that God feeds them for their own sake, not ours, which addresses my concern. And back to the horses, Job 39:
13 “The wings of the ostrich flap joyfully,
though they cannot compare
with the wings and feathers of the stork.
14 She lays her eggs on the ground
and lets them warm in the sand,
15 unmindful that a foot may crush them,
that some wild animal may trample them.
16 She treats her young harshly, as if they were not hers;
she cares not that her labor was in vain,
17 for God did not endow her with wisdom
or give her a share of good sense.
18 Yet when she spreads her feathers to run,
she laughs at horse and rider.
19 “Do you give the horse its strength
or clothe its neck with a flowing mane?
20 Do you make it leap like a locust,
striking terror with its proud snorting?
21 It paws fiercely, rejoicing in its strength,
and charges into the fray.
22 It laughs at fear, afraid of nothing;
it does not shy away from the sword.
23 The quiver rattles against its side,
along with the flashing spear and lance.
24 In frenzied excitement it eats up the ground;
it cannot stand still when the trumpet sounds.
25 At the blast of the trumpet it snorts, ‘Aha!’
It catches the scent of battle from afar,
the shout of commanders and the battle cry.
It doesn’t speak to the telos of horses in the wild, which would be my initial assumption for where an animal’s private telos occurs. But they act the same way when establishing their herds. Domestication alters an animal’s relationship to man, obviously, but why certain animals have the ability to be domesticated more than others seems more a matter of design than luck to me, of course.
C.S. Lewis’ book “The Problem of Pain” has a thoughtful chapter on the relation of animals to man. Worth a look.
At first I thought I’d read it before, but that was A Grief Observed. Thanks for the rec, Father.
Fr. Justin, I’m reading that chapter now.
I remember his viewpoint that animals only respond to sensation without associating or contextualizing the source, except in the vaguest possible way from “That Hideous Strength”. I thought it was an underestimation then as I do from reading this chapter. Of course one of my earliest memories is watching “Bambi” as a child, so I’ll admit to some anthropomorphism, but I think there have been enough true life accounts of almost human loyalty in dogs in particular that would elevate them above the level of having disassociated, though more complex, nervous systems.
His point about an animal’s natural state being tamed, and that only because of the skill of the human, is a little one-sided to me as well. I think non-domestic animals have a different telos, but I agree that this should be in peace and harmony with man. The Saint stories of bears and lions visiting St.. Seraphim and St. Mary of Egypt speak more to this relationship. They can be friends, not food, as the shark rehabilitator in Disney’s “Nemo” would say.
He then carries this to being an analogy of man’s relationship to God. I’m wondering if this has a western, Absolute Divine Simplicity, influence. Where the person loses their individuality in Christ. The beatific vision is observing the other, and union with God annihilates individuality in the western view. I’d say synergy is a better explanation. Psalms says that God created the Leviathan to sport in the sea. It’s obvious that birds and other animals play in their environments too. It seems enough that they enjoy God’s provision for them, not that they are “controlled” by humans. “Controlled” is a Calvinistic term to me, which he’s spent the rest of the book being against. I suppose he may consider that the animal has the choice to be controlled or not, to distinguish it from determinism, but that doesn’t seem the only choice to me. Freedom in Christ is freedom not to sin, but perhaps there’s more than one other choice.
As to whether animals go to heaven, his sense of lion-ness, if not individual lions, being eternal seems to put essence before person, which is another western phenomenon. I also don’t agree with his contextualizing everything in relation to man. Man may enjoy, appreciate, and participate with, sometimes to his betterment, other created things, but I think God’s selfless “pleasure” in them is a better reason for them than man’s good. Creation is united in Christ, and deification unites us to Christ, but to me deification unites us to creation, not just that creation exists to unite us to Christ, though in the Eucharist this is true. Creation then sacrifices itself for our deification, through the will of man and God, and maybe it’s own will in some way. Like the horse willingly going into battle. Just because it is created to have that ability, doesn’t mean it’s going headlong into danger isn’t a brave and noble thing on its part as an individual.
Still, I feel a great kindredness to Professor Lewis, and respect the thought and background he puts into these things that are of great interest to me.