Why Animals Have To Suffer If This World Is A Test For Humans And Jinns?
Please see : Discussion 50080 Discussion 70495
Thank you for sharing the videos and discussion links. I listened to both the videos and the discussions shared above. It was insightful. However, I believe that this is a partial answer and the question in its true sense is still valid. It makes perfect sense that it is a test for us, humans, and so it is up to us how we treat animals. But there is one important aspect missing here. My criticism/counter question on this matter is that it is not true to say that it is only humans who have interaction with animals and we should take care of them and that is it. We, as humans, on a daily basis only have access to very few species of animals. A majority of animal life lives in the wild and we do not have any interaction with them and it is animals interacting with animals there. They have their own social lives and they have their own hierarchical levels. And among them they have sufferings. e.g. it has been studied and found that highly social and territorial animals kill each other brutally and most primates fit this profile. Male lions slaughter all the cubs when they join a new pride; rival ant colonies of the same species fight bloody wars; chimpanzees have been shown to kill each other at similar per capita rates to humans. These are only a few examples to elaborate on my criticism. Moreover, animals do have birth defects and reproductive and developmental dysfunction. Now when humans are born with deficiencies we argue it is part of the test. Some people are being tested with luxuries and others with suffering. Makes sense. But now what about animals? They aren’t part of the test so why do they have to suffer from deficiencies? Looking forward to some more insights. Thank you and good day!
While the problem of animal suffering can be justified in many ways, the fact of the matter is that we have nothing in the sources of knowledge to conclusively know the answer. However, such a criticism is only raised by people who deny God and propose that this universe is chaotic and came into existence as a result of some random chance. This approach is ignorant though to say the least. Every single subatomic particle, to unexplainable coherence in the systems of nature, to mathematical precision of physical constants, to exacting laws of nature, to fascinating digital information in every genome, to mind boggling aesthetics in the entire creation – everything around us is empirical evidence of an intelligent designer. Just the fact that scientists have been discovering and explaining this universe for thousands of years is an empirical evidence within itself because anything that’s not designed can’t be reverse engineered and explained in an intellectual manner . Besides, the concept of a creator has a long verifiable tradition of prophethood, has been proven mathematically (Godel) as well as philosophically through logic (Kalam cosmological argument), and has never been disproven mathematically, philosophically, or scientifically through empirical evidence. In fact the kalam argument is so rich that it has been a topic of Ph.D. thesis for some. With so much evidence that establishes a creator and none to disprove it, denial of a creator on the basis of something that we have no way of knowing is perhaps the most ignorant, irrational, and self-contradictory position out there. If anything that requires dogmatic belief, it’s the chance hypothesis because its a conjecture without any evidence.
I think every creation living on planet earth has its own mechanism of life, and these creations are connected by God will of running this (world) ecosystem smoothly. Everyone has level playing filed, both humans and animals (any other creation) can harm others. But being a conscious creation humans has some more important things to do that is to follow instructions of God.