God and Animal Minds: A Response to LynchHumanities & Social Sciences papers
Date of this Version10-1-1996
Document TypeJournal Article
Abstract[Extract] In a recent Sophia article 'Harrison and Hick on God and Animal Pain', Joseph Lynch draws our attention to the difficulties generated for the theist by the suffering of animals, and argues that the responses of John Hick and myself to this problem are inadequate. Although he does not offer any alternative account of how the apparent suffering of creatures might be reconciled with the existence of an all-good and all-powerful Deity, Lynch nonetheless concludes that '[T]heists must find a way to confront the reality of animal pain, rather than fleeing from it' (p. 72). In this response I shall consider some alternatives to the solutions put forward by Hick and myself, before concluding that the best response theists can offer to the problem of the suffering of lower creatures remains either the denial of animal pain, or the denial that animal pain constitutes a major evil. First, however, I shall consider two arguments which Lynch directs specifically against my position.
Citation InformationPeter Harrison. "God and Animal Minds: A Response to Lynch" (1996)
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/peter_harrison/4/