I just finished watching CosmicSkeptic's video titled Christianity's Biggest Problem, in which Alex O'Connor, the owner of the channel, presents the problem of animal suffering as the biggest objection to the belief in a loving God. In particular, he refers to the kind of animal suffering which cannot be attributed to a human cause, and therefore, cannot be "explained away" as the consequences of humans freely choosing to do evil against animals. The following are examples of non-human caused animal suffering:

  • An animal agonizing for hours before dying because a tree unexpectedly fell and broke one of its legs.
  • An animal burning alive due to a natural wildfire.
  • Animals causing suffering to each other due to predator-prey dynamics.
  • Animals suffering due to natural disasters in general.

Are there Christian philosophers who have attempted to reconcile the belief in a loving God with the existence of non-human caused animal suffering? What would be some examples of these attempts of reconciliation?

  • 2
    One relevant book I know of is Animal Suffering and the Problem of Evil by Nicola Hoggard Creegan, which is available online at that link. Commented Mar 10, 2021 at 3:30
  • 2
    Does the presenter say how this differs from human suffering caused by similar things? Commented Mar 10, 2021 at 5:31
  • @AnthonyBurg - I don't remember him making that distinction, good point.
    – user50422
    Commented Mar 10, 2021 at 9:40
  • @Spirit Realm Investigator - Does the video discuss when יְהֹוָ֔ה suffers [Genesis 6:6] וַיִּתְעַצֵּ֖ב אֶל־לִבּֽוֹ ? - Suffering proves a spiritual life exists in an object, and is allowed to occur in nature "so that the works of God might be displayed in [them]" John 9:3
    – user50490
    Commented Mar 10, 2021 at 15:46
  • 1
    No animal suffers due to NON human causes. Adams fall ruined everything - for a time.
    – steveowen
    Commented Mar 11, 2021 at 22:51

4 Answers 4


Are there philosophical explanations for why God would allow animals to suffer due to non-human causes?

St. Thomas Aquinas has something to say about it!

The problem of animal suffering is the atheistic argument that an all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful God would not use millions of years of animal suffering, disease, and death just to create a world for humans to live. Atheists making this argument emphasize the great amount of evidence for animal disease, death, and suffering in the natural history of the earth (and still to this day), and they conclude that the God of classical theism does not exist. This is simply not so.

We know the sin entered the world through one man. Sin is felt throughout God’s Creation, and that includes the animal kingdom.

St. Paul tells us such in Romans 88 22-24.

22 For we know that every creature groaneth and travaileth in pain, even till now.

23 And not only it, but ourselves also, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption of the sons of God, the redemption of our body.

24 For we are saved by hope. But hope that is seen, is not hope. For what a man seeth, why doth he hope for?

Another biblical story comes to mind here: Gerasene demoniac:

Jesus Heals the Gerasene Demoniac

5 They came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gerasenes. 2 And when he had stepped out of the boat, immediately a man out of the tombs with an unclean spirit met him. 3 He lived among the tombs; and no one could restrain him any more, even with a chain; 4 for he had often been restrained with shackles and chains, but the chains he wrenched apart, and the shackles he broke in pieces; and no one had the strength to subdue him. 5 Night and day among the tombs and on the mountains he was always howling and bruising himself with stones. 6 When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and bowed down before him; 7 and he shouted at the top of his voice, “What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me.” 8 For he had said to him, “Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!” 9 Then Jesus asked him, “What is your name?” He replied, “My name is Legion; for we are many.” 10 He begged him earnestly not to send them out of the country. 11 Now there on the hillside a great herd of swine was feeding; 12 and the unclean spirits[c] begged him, “Send us into the swine; let us enter them.” 13 So he gave them permission. And the unclean spirits came out and entered the swine; and the herd, numbering about two thousand, rushed down the steep bank into the sea, and were drowned in the sea. - Mark 5:1-13

Why did Jesus allow the demons to enter the pigs? He could have sent them back to hell where they came from.

Animal rights

Classical theological commentary cited this story to argue that animals have no moral importance in Christianity. Saint Augustine of Hippo concluded from the story that Christians have no duties towards animals, writing:

Christ himself shows that to refrain from the killing of animals and the destroying of plants is the height of superstition, for judging that there are no common rights between us and the beasts and trees, he sent the devils into a herd of swine and with a curse withered the tree on which he found no fruit.

Similarly, Thomas Aquinas argued that Jesus allowed the demons to destroy the pigs in order to make the point that his purpose was primarily for the good of men's souls, not their bodies or property (including their animals). This interpretation has been shared by a long line of commentators up to the present day, including I. Howard Marshall and Mark Driscoll. - Exorcism of the Gerasene demoniac

Dr. B. Kyle Keltz in his book Thomism and the Problem of Animal Suffering is a genuine eye-opener in this subject matter.

The problem of animal suffering has been championed by atheists at least as far back as the time of Charles Darwin, and it is increasingly touted today. For example, Richard Dawkins claims,

The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive; others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear; others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites; thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. . . . The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

As Dawkin’s quote suggests, The problem of animal suffering is the atheistic argument that an all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful God would not use millions of years of animal suffering, disease, and death just to create a world for humans to live. Atheists making this argument emphasize the great amount of evidence for animal disease, death, and suffering in the natural history of the earth (and still to this day), and they conclude that the God of classical theism does not exist.

In my recently published book Thomism and the Problem of Animal Suffering, I discuss a solution to this problem in light of the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas. In this post, I am going to summarize my argument in the book. I will first discuss the nature of animal pain and suffering. Then I will consider non-human animal minds and the evidence that animals are not self-aware. Finally, I will emphasize Aquinas’ ideas on why God made a finite world governed by natural laws, making animal suffering possible. All of these related concepts will come together to form a comprehensive solution to the question of why an all-good God would allow animal suffering.

The Nature of Animal Pain

While pain and suffering seem to be terrible things, a closer examination shows that they are actually good for non-human animals. Aquinas, following Augustine, believed that evil is not a substantial thing; evil is a privation of the good. Evil is not a thing in animals and objects, but it is the absence of a good thing in animals and objects. Moreover, evil is not just the privation or absence of any good; it is the absence of a good that ought to be in an animal or object. So for example, it would be an evil for a dog to be blind, but it would not be an evil for a tree to be blind. The ability to see ought to be in a dog according to its canine nature, while the ability to see is not something that is naturally in trees.

When thinking about the nature of pain, the existence of pain in non-human animals cannot be something that is evil, according to the Thomistic view. This is because pain is an existing, physiological process in non-human animals. Pain is not the privation of a good, although it is caused by a privation of the good (e.g., a scrape or cut on the arm).

But doesn’t this implication cause problems for Aquinas’ evil-as-privation view? Most people, even most philosophers, seem to think that pain is intrinsically bad. It seems a good God wouldn’t allow His creatures to feel pain because it is so unpleasant. While this view of pain seems intuitive, it actually ignores the purpose and benefits of pain.

To no one’s surprise, the findings of contemporary science suggest that pain is crucial for the survival of humans and non-human animals. For example, clinical cases involving children born with a nervous system defect, making them feel virtually no pain, show that these children do not live very long. Their insensitivity to pain makes them suffer repeated injuries to the same areas due to fractures while moving around, joint injuries because of poor posture, and tongue injuries while eating. Even sitting for prolonged periods can cause injuries if someone does not shift in their chair.

Yet what is surprising and not immediately intuitive about pain is that its unpleasantness is necessary to protect animals. Philosophers such as David Hume have argued that the unpleasantness of pain doesn’t seem to be essential. But pain research involving Hansen’s disease (leprosy) patients has shown that the unpleasantness of pain is necessary to protect wounds. Doctors in these cases tried to help patients who couldn’t feel pain in their hands and feet by strapping a light or buzzer that would alarm the patients to stress or impacts that could cause injury. It was found that the patients almost always ignored the lights and sounds, leading to repeated and sustained injuries, and it wasn’t until the doctors integrated electrical shocks in the warning devices that improvements were made. But even with the electrical shocks, the patients usually would override the system, perform their desired task, and then reengage the system. One doctor concluded that without an internal signal of unpleasant pain, the patients were “task-oriented” instead of being “self-oriented.”

Of course, humans have free will and can decide to ignore warnings, but it isn’t hard to apply the same concept to non-human animals. Animals might not survive as long as they normally do in the wild as they might not be as repelled from harm without the unpleasant effects of pain. Even chronic pain has been found to improve the survivability of non-human animals.6

So, regarding the nature of pain, the philosophy and the scientific evidence seem to coincide. Pain is actually not intrinsically bad, as it is necessary to keep non-human animals healthy and alive. Without pain, and its unpleasant commands to avoid further injury, non-human animals would lot live long at all in this world governed by physical laws; pain is good in that it ought to be in non-human animals.

Non-Human Animal Minds

Since the existence of non-human animal pain is actually a good thing, it seems there should be no problem of animal suffering. However, it is still argued that non-human animal pain and suffering are bad because of their unpleasantness. If God is all-powerful, then why can’t God just make a world where animals don’t feel pain? The necessary aspect of pain doesn’t take away the fact that there are countless animals who are experiencing pain and suffering even today.

At this point, it is good to consider the nature of the animal mind. This topic constitutes the largest chapter in my book, and the details are many.7 But long story short, contemporary research in non-human animal cognition suggests that there are no non-human animals who are self-aware.

Regarding contemporary research, scientists have studied several possible indicators of self-awareness in non-human animals including metacognition, episodic memory, and the ability to perform abstract reasoning. Metacognition is the ability to think about one’s own thoughts; episodic memory is the ability to remember past events or imagine future events from a subjective, personal perspective; and abstract reasoning is distinct from instinctual, associative reasoning, which doesn’t involve the knowledge of abstract, universal, and immaterial concepts.

While some non-human animals show promise and possibly perform actions explained by metacognition (e.g., capuchin monkeys8), episodic memory (e.g., scrub jays9), and abstract reasoning (e.g., great apes10), ultimately, there is no evidence that suggests these actions are solely explainable through self-awareness. In each case, it is possible (and likely) that these non-human animal actions are explainable through lower-order processes. Actions suggesting metacognition are thought to be explainable through associate, non-rational learning in which non-human animals simply associate rewards and punishments based on memories instead of reflecting internally. Likewise, actions suggesting episodic memory in non-human animals are thought to be explainable through associate learning based on semantic (non-personal) memories instead of episodic (personal) memories. While studies into the possibility of self-awareness in non-human animals have shown that some animals come close (e.g., higher apes, elephants, dolphins), the majority of non-human animals are not even considered to possess self-awareness. Accordingly, while a few researchers have suggested it is possible some non-human animals are self-aware, the overwhelming consensus among researchers is that non-human animals are not self-aware.

All of this scientific evidence supports the classical Aristotelian-Thomistic view that humans are unique on the earth in that only humans are capable of abstract rationality because only humans have rational souls that are capable of abstracting immaterial forms from material objects. Aquinas believed that in the process of knowing (when the mind abstracts a form from matter), a human is able to judge that he or she exists as a knowing being. In other words, the action of knowing makes it possible for a being to know that he or she knows. And in knowing that one knows, a diachronic sense of self develops over time as the knower judges that he or she has existed throughout the entire process.

Moreover, the rational soul is thought to be the principle making it possible for humans to have free will. According to Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics, only something immaterial can take in the form of something else without substantially changing into the new form taken. Thus, there must be something immaterial about humans because in the process of knowing, they abstract and store the forms of the things they know. This means that the rational powers (intellects and wills) of humans are immaterial and are not affected by the physical laws of nature. So, while human choices are affected by biological, psychological, sociological, and other factors, ultimately human choices are not completely determined.

What all this means for the problem of animal suffering is that non-human animal suffering is not morally significant. It is not wrong for God to allow animal suffering because there is no person in the non-human animal kingdom who is experiencing suffering. This might sound strange, and to be clear, I am not denying that non-human animals suffer. I am only denying that non-human animals experience suffering as persons (i.e., self-aware beings with a will and intellect). In other words, there is no non-human animal who knows it is feeling pain (metacognition), remembers or thinks about itself as having personally experienced pain (episodic memory), or has concluded rationally that pain is bad and should be avoided (abstract reasoning). While non-human animals are conscious of pain and suffering, they are not aware of their pain and suffering, and it is not wrong for God to allow this suffering because as I noted earlier, there is no person in the non-human animal kingdom who is suffering and/or willing to not suffer.

Why God Created a Finite World with Animal Pain

A question might still remain: Why would God create a world in which pain is necessary in the first place? This is a question that is answered mainly through the thought of Aquinas. Following thinkers like Pseudo-Dionysius, Aquinas argued that the only reason God would want to create is to communicate or spread His goodness.

Basically, Aquinas argues that since God is completely perfect, there is nothing God could ever want or need. Yet since God is infinitely loving, and love is not something that people want to keep to themselves, it follows that God would be inclined to create a world so He could share His goodness and love. Thus, God’s purpose for creating is to communicate His goodness to rational beings who are able to know His goodness and share His love.

But there is a metaphysical reality that God must work around. The problem is that God is infinite, self-sustaining, and immaterial, but anything He can create will be finite and contingent. So, since God can’t make something infinitely perfect (because this would be to create Himself, which is impossible) to communicate His goodness, He is left with creating a finite, contingent world containing immaterial and physical beings and things.

Aquinas thought that God must create a hierarchy of beings that points metaphysically upwards to God, and God must order the universe with physical and moral laws. For example, in creating an abundance of elements in a vast universe, God is showing numerous beautiful ways in which things can exist and displaying His power to create such a universe. In creating a hierarchy of living beings, including vegetative (plants), sensitive (non-human animals), and rational (humans) beings, God is demonstrating that created beings can possess various levels of perfection, pointing metaphysically upwards to God’s infinite perfection. Any finite world God will create must be governed by a physical law because without physical laws, His hierarchy of beings would cease to exist. Physical laws order the universe to God’s purpose of communicating His goodness. Likewise, God must promulgate a moral law to humans because they cannot be ordered to His goodness solely through physical laws because of their rational souls, which include the ability to make freely willed decisions.

Basically, because of the metaphysical reality of God’s infinite, self-sustaining perfection and the contingent, limited nature of anything He will create, any world God will create will be finite and will have a limited amount of resources; any world He will create will be governed by physical laws and include a hierarchy of beings including vegetative, sensitive, and rational beings. This means that any world God could create will be a world that will include animals who will require the ability to feel pain in order to survive.


One of the most interesting things to me in performing this study on the problem of animal suffering was how much the medieval philosophy of Thomas Aquinas lines up with findings from contemporary science. There technically is no problem of animal suffering because animal pain and suffering is not intrinsically bad, but necessary for non-human animal flourishing. Moreover, non-human animal suffering is not something morally significant for God to allow because there are no persons in the non-human animal kingdom. Even if an animal were found to be rational, this would mean such an animal would technically be a human (i.e., a rational animal) and should not be considered a part of the problem of animal suffering, which solely considers non-human animals. While atheists often argue that the world we see looks like the product of natural, blind processes, only classical Christian theism predicts that any world that exists will be a world governed by both physical and moral laws and will include rational beings capable of knowing and loving.

While many aspects of the problem of animal suffering seem intuitive and sound at first, upon further investigation, the problem falls apart. Pain feels bad, but it is not intrinsically bad because it needs to be unpleasant for animals to survive. It is bad for humans to experience pain because this is against their will, but non-human animals cannot will to be free from pain nor are they able to be aware of their pain. The only thing that is infinitely perfect is God, so any world He will create to communicate His goodness will be finite and will entail the possibility of non-human animal pain and suffering. - Thomism and the Problem of Animal Suffering

Thomism and the Problem of Animal Suffering

Thomism and the Problem of Animal Suffering

How many times have I heard Pope John Paul II state that we should not live as though God does not exist! Christians find it sinful to kill animals simply for the sake of killing morally wrong. Believers and atheists still enjoy their steak dinners, but to kill without reason is immoral. The question of abortion is not brought into the equation here, but I wonder how atheists view this in their viewpoint of killing the innocent living person in the womb, Alex O'Connor does not mention in his YouTube video: Christianity's Biggest Problem!

  • 2
    Wonder why Alex O'Conner does not deal with the issue of aborting human life in the womb?
    – Lesley
    Commented Mar 10, 2021 at 18:03
  • 2
    I think you've got some of the quote stuff messed up. Also might go beyond fair use a bit.
    – Peter Turner
    Commented Mar 10, 2021 at 18:45
  • 1
    "they are not aware of their pain and suffering" Animals consistently exhibit leaned behaviour - often prompted by pain or food, they recall both -ve and +ve sensation forming/reinforcing ongoing behaviour. How is that being not aware?
    – steveowen
    Commented Mar 13, 2021 at 6:13

Ken Graham's answer contains a lot of important and interesting points. If you find Thomistic answers unsatisfying, this article mentions two contemporary scholars, Trent Dougherty and Christopher Steck, "who argue that God’s plan of redemption and eternal life may include non-human animals—which could place animal suffering in a new context."

If you grant there is morally relevant animal suffering, there is most likely overlap with non-human caused human suffering. There, the literature is vast.


"Dan, your comments are noted. However, answers providing evidence are sought on this site - without evidence they remain comments giving opinions"

You want evidence to prove the bible? Seems like an absurd request to require proof to substantiate an answer or opinion regarding a book of faith. That remark is tantamount to something an Atheist would demand. The bible is its own evidence.

My point was simply that the bible says God is good (Psalm 145:9). God also created animals and said they were good (Genesis 1:25). But then God causes animals to suffer and die.

God also created evil (Isaiah 45:7 kjv). We are encouraged to overcome evil with good (Romans 12:21), and yet God destroys good with evil, whereby God is evil. Its a logical argument that can't be refuted.

Its a topic that bothers many pet owners who watch their sinless pets suffer and die, never to be resurrected. There's no way to spin why a supposedly good God would permanently destroy that which is good?

  • This is your second "answer" to the original question but it seems to be additional information for your first "answer". If you would like to add/change anything in an existing answer, please use the edit feature below the answer to do so.
    – agarza
    Commented Jul 13 at 14:13

Genesis 1 says that God created animals and "God saw that it was good". Animals don't sin, they don't even know what sin is, but yet they suffer, die, and are never resurrected.

The bible says God is good, God is Just, God is righteous, and God is love. If God causes and allows animals/pets to suffer and permanently die, then how could God be good. Why does God kill what he created and called good? If God destroys that which is good, then God by default cannot be good.

Its not righteous, good, loving, or justifiable to cause animals to suffer and die. God himself killed the first animals to cloth Adam and Eve. God also demanded that innocent animals be sacrificed.

In my opinion, there's absolutely nothing righteous about an entity that's capable of causing innocent animals and pets to suffer and die. Only a blood thirsty tyrant would punish living creatures that are guilty of nothing.

No preacher in the world can biblically answer the question of why God tortures and kills innocent creatures. God is evil not good, God cannot justify butchering good pets, nothing righteous about it at all. A loyal dog demonstrates more love than the biblical God.

This is my biggest obstacle to Christianity. A God which destroys good cannot be good, and if my dog ain't good enough for heaven, then I have no desire to be there either.

  • 2
    Welcome to the site, Dan, and your comments are noted. However, answers providing evidence are sought on this site - without evidence they remain comments giving opinions. If you could counter the explanations given in the answer with the Green Tick, then your comments would become an answer that would stand apart from your opinion. Can you do that? Hopefully you can.
    – Anne
    Commented Sep 30, 2023 at 8:11
  • Welcome to Christianity.SE! and thank you for your contribution. When you get a chance, please take the tour to understand how the site works and how it is different than others. I would also recommend reading the Help Center's sections on asking and answering questions.
    – agarza
    Commented Sep 30, 2023 at 13:28
  • Your "answer" is an excellent explanation of the problems with compromise positions on Creation that posit such things existing before the Fall. But they didn't. What you miss is that God isn't responsible for animal suffering and death, humans are, including the first death as recorded in Genesis 3:21... which goes to show just how serious Sin really is. Unfortunately, many Christians believe in the god (note the lack of capitalization) you rightly reject.
    – Matthew
    Commented Sep 30, 2023 at 22:37

You must log in to answer this question.