Guess what? I gave a TEDx talk, which you can now watch via the link in the description. It's quite exciting, if you ask me! I've never done one before, and it'd be great if as many of you as possible could go over and watch the video

and give it as much engagement as possible. Speaking of engagement, I've also been trying recently to put more content on my Instagram page—that's exclusive Reels and IGTV videos. So it would mean a lot to me, too, if you could follow me on Instagram if

you're not doing so already. It's only a tiny proportion of the people who are subscribed to me on YouTube who are following me on Instagram, but I'm trying to boost that platform. So if you can go over there and give me a follow, that would be greatly appreciated, too.

But anyway, let's get on with today's video. Now, I know that it's quite a bold claim that I've made in the title—to have put my finger on the single biggest problem that Christianity, as a religion, faces—but let me explain. I want to put forward

in this video what I think is the hardest objection to respond to if you're a Christian. Now, as you'll probably already know, the most famous problem you have if you want to say that the Christian God—that is, an all-loving, all-powerful God—exists,

is the positively colossal amount of suffering infused into the human experience. Suffering is so omnipresent that most of our time spent existing is time spent trying to avoid it: eating to avoid starvation, working to avoid poverty, sleeping to avoid fatigue, watching YouTube videos to avoid...

whatever it is that you're supposed to be doing right now, and that's when things are going well in life. God also throws into the bargain of living existence—which nobody agrees to enter into, by the way—unpredictable diseases, miscarriages, natural disasters, and the existence of

tick-tock. Why would an all-powerful God who truly loves us permit such suffering to overwhelm our living existence? And this problem for religion is called, as you'll likely know, the problem of evil. But there's something missing from this picture. I'm not just here to restate the problem

of evil as if it's anything new. There's something else. There exists such an obvious and overwhelming version of the problem of evil that it bemuses me that so many philosophers leave it entirely out of the discussion, or at best relegate it to a passing

paragraph or a footnote or something. I'm talking, of course, about the problem of animal suffering. Now, before you think I'm just getting all vegan on you again, don't worry, that's not what this is. I know how sensitive some of you are to me pointing out that our own treatment

of animals is so poor that it almost reaches god-like proportions, but that's not what I'm here to talk about today. Right? Animal suffering in factory farms, for instance, can easily be explained away by the Christian as a result of human free will.

I'm talking about something else. I'm talking about the suffering of animals that isn't human-created; the suffering that exists in the wild as a result of natural processes. And, by the way, the reason this video is called "Christianity's Biggest Problem," specifically, rather than just

Religion's biggest problem is... I actually think that some other religions, like Islam, have bigger problems than animal suffering. But animal suffering is still a problem for other religions, like Islam. So, although in this video I'm going to respond to William Lane Craig,

a Christian, on the subject, do bear in mind that these arguments should apply to any god who claims to be morally perfect. So this is the basis of my claim: if the problem of suffering is historically one of Christianity's biggest problems, then the problem of

animal suffering is its biggest. So I should probably begin by unpacking why animal suffering is such a problem worth addressing in the first place. If human life is, as I've argued, infused with pain, then non-human animal life is defined by pain. Animals in the wild are subject

to endless torment from all angles of their existence. They suffer from predation by other animals: wild dogs disembowel their prey, venomous snakes cause slow internal bleeding and paralysis, crocodiles drown large animals in their jaws. Animals also suffer from rampant disease, dehydration, and

starvation. They have to contend with forest fires and floods and a whole manner of other terrifying natural disasters. David Attenborough, the celebrated nature documentary filmmaker, once said about his documentaries, "People who accuse us of putting in too much violence should see what we leave on the cutting room

floor." Nature just really isn't a pretty place. And not only do wild animals suffer in these extravagant ways that humans generally do not, like having to live with the very real possibility of being mauled to death at practically any moment, it's also true

That, compared to humans, an astronomically higher number of wild animals exist; so unfathomably high, in fact, that we can only estimate how big that number actually is. The number of wild vertebrates alone is thought to be somewhere between 10 to the power of 11

and 10 to the power of 14. That's 10 with at least 11 zeros after it—we're talking trillions of animals, each one of whom will, under the uncaring supervision of an all-powerful, all-loving god, likely experience more

fear, devastation, and suffering in their lifetimes than we human beings are even capable of imagining. So this is the problem that the Christian has to contend with: how can God permit such insidious levels of unthinkable suffering? Well, it's not

like Christians don't have a response to the problem of evil. There are many quite famous attempts to reconcile the existence of evil with a loving God. The problem is that a great many of these attempts, which are known as theodicies by the way, simply don't apply

to non-humans. For instance, one popular theodicy states that evil and suffering exists as a result of human free will. Right? If humans are genuinely free, they'll sometimes commit and permit evil. But this doesn't explain why a tree falls onto a deer's leg

causing it to starve to death in confused agony. It's also sometimes asserted that human suffering is justified because it will be compensated for in the afterlife. But unless you believe in some doggy heaven, or that Jesus died for the

for the sake of your pet hamsters' sins, too. This also doesn't really fly for animals. It's also sometimes said that suffering exists because from it, more good can emerge. But what good emerges from animal suffering, and how does it benefit the animals?

Most animals are non-rational creatures; they can't learn and intellectually grow in the same way that humans can. What greater good could possibly be served by allowing a koala bear to be burned alive in an Australian wildfire? Well, fear not, because in 2011, two very

eloquent philosophers, Stephen Law and William Lane Craig—both previous guests on this channel, by the way—debated God's existence. Dr. Law brings up the problem of animal suffering, and so we can now turn our attention to what Dr. Craig, often cited as Christianity's greatest

public defender, has to say about it. Now let me say one more thing about animal predation and suffering, since this featured largely in his argument. Number one: animals are part of a broader ecosystem in which the human drama is played out, and such an ecosystem must be balanced if it's to be viable.

It is no accident that every ecosystem involves predators of some sort. For example, I also recently saw a program on television about how the Canadian authorities are reintroducing wolves into the wild in Canada. Why? Because in the absence of these predators, the caribou herds

were overpopulating because there was no one to pick off the diseased and the aged, and as a result, they were overgrazing and therefore dying of starvation. The predators actually enhanced the survivability and the health of the caribou herds.

On which they prayed. Okay, so Craig's argument is this: if an ecosystem is unbalanced, leading to an overpopulation of prey, this prey will die from starvation since there won't be enough food to go around. By ensuring that predators exist to pick

off the diseased and the aged, the ecosystem is balanced, preventing that starvation. But there are just a multitude of problems with this, right? First, it's of course true that in practice, any functional ecosystem we know of requires predators and prey in order to be balanced. But why does this need to be true in

principle? The laws of ecosystems, as they stand, require predation. But are we expected to believe that God couldn't have made these laws differently? Is God constrained by these laws? That's the implication of saying that an ecosystem must be balanced in this way; that God

couldn't have created a balanced ecosystem using other less painful methods. In other words, the laws of ecosystems somehow constrain what God is able to do. Are we really to think that the laws of ecosystems are more fundamental than God is? No. God

is the creator of the laws of ecosystems and so can't be bound by them. And besides, granting that God does need to balance an ecosystem, predation is not the only way to do it. God could have, for example, limited the number of times an animal

can reproduce as a way of preventing overpopulation—a form of cosmic contraception. There's definitely a joke about a condom brand in there somewhere, but no. For Dr. Craig, God limiting an animal's sexual potency or any other kinds of painless methods are not possible options for combating

Overpopulation is not the only way that God can save these animals from overpopulation and starvation. To introduce savage predators who maul them to death in some of the most painful ways humanly imaginable is the only way to balance the ecosystem.

I mean, come on. When a lion kills a zebra, the zebra is usually too large to be killed instantly and so is often asphyxiated to death, writhing in pain over a slow, minutes-long death. Even if predation really is the

only way to stabilize an ecosystem, there's still absolutely no reason why it would need to be so painful and so gruesome. God could provide these animals an instant death, or at least one that's less painful, but he doesn't. He allows that zebra to suffer for

minutes while its windpipe is caught in the jaws of a lion. Just imagine for a moment what it must feel like to be that zebra. None of this is necessary for ecosystem stability. If you truly are the omnipotent creator of natural laws, and Dr. Craig is arguing that predation

is justified since it prevents prey from starving to death, but is the fate of being preyed upon and eaten alive really that much better than starvation? Would you, given the choice, rather die from a lack of food or from being painfully mauled to death

by a large wild animal? I'm not sure I have a particular favorite. It's hardly a merciful deal that's being offered here. God is so loving that he saves these animals from starving by ensuring that they're ripped open and eaten alive before they have the chance

To starve? Wow, what a glorious and loving thing that God does for these animals. And why should these animals even be suffering from so much starvation in the first place? That still needs to be explained. Also, bear in mind that predation doesn't even

get rid of starvation. Just some starvation. Even with predators, there are still animals starving to death in the wild. So if the reason that God created predators was to save prey from starving to death, why are some animals still allowed to go on starving to death anyway?

None of this makes any sense. And on top of even that, note that the same justification that Dr. Craig is using here could also apply to human beings. There are currently millions of human beings lacking food and at risk of famine in South Sudan, and starvation is one of the

most painful things that a person can go through. But don't worry, I have an idea. Let's go to South Sudan and introduce some wild predators—maybe some wolves or some large bears—to painfully maul these people to death. After all, if we didn't do this, they'd

all starve. By allowing them to be preyed upon by wild animals to pick off the diseased and the aged, we reduce their numbers and balance out the ecosystem, leaving more food to go around and minimizing starvation. How merciful of us! So, who's for it?

Yeah, I didn't think so. Now, okay, you may think that I'm being a bit unfair here, right? There are obviously many other methods we can use to reduce starvation in South Sudan that don't involve killing people with wild predators. But yeah, that's kind of the point.

Right. If we humans have the power to reduce human starvation without necessitating them being mauled to death by wolves, then you can bet that God has the power to reduce elk starvation without necessitating them being mauled to death by wolves. The idea that permitting this kind of

unthinkably painful death is the only way to prevent them from starving, if you are the omnipotent creator of the universe, verges on one of the most ridiculous things that I have ever heard. So that predators are an essential part of an ecosystem,

in a world without predators, the insects would soon take over, since there would be nothing to eat them, and all the animals would soon die because all the vegetation would be consumed by insects. Once again, Dr. Craig assumes that the only way to control population sizes is by killing individuals within that

population. No mention of any other methods that God might have available to him. But also, was it not within God's capabilities to make it so that insects and wild animals just eat different things?  We need predators, says Dr. Craig, because otherwise nobody eats the insects and the insects will eat all of the

predators' food and the predators will die. Yeah, as if it literally wasn't possible for God to provide different foods for wild animals and insects. The only reason this problem even exists in the first place is because of the way the ecosystem has been designed. You can't just say God needs predators

because he designed a world that needs predators; that doesn't explain anything. And to reiterate, even if the animals really do need to be preyed upon for whatever reason, the process could have been made a lot less painful, but it wasn't. Now pause, think about this.

What would we expect to find if we assume that there is no god, and animals in nature are just randomly mutating and evolving and competing for resources with no divine guidance? Well, we'd expect pretty much exactly what we observe in the real world: a messy bloodbath and a struggle for

survival. And what would we expect to see if we assumed the existence of an all-loving and all-powerful god? Maybe some level of suffering that we might not be able to fully explain, but nothing even remotely approaching the level of horror and pain

that actually exists in the natural world. It is incalculably easier to account for this suffering on an atheistic worldview. Now let me say one other thing, however, that is a result of recent scientific discoveries that shed remarkable light on the problem of

animal suffering. In his book *Nature Red in Tooth and Claw*, published by Oxford University Press, Michael Murray explains that there is really a three-fold hierarchy of pain awareness. On the most fundamental level, there is simply the reaction to stimuli, such as an amoeba exhibits when you poke

it with a needle. It doesn't really feel pain. There's a second level of pain awareness which sentient animals have, which is an experience of pain, and animals like horses, dogs, and cats would experience this second-level pain awareness, but they do not experience a third level

pain awareness, which is the awareness of second-order pain; that is, the awareness that one is itself, himself, in pain. For that sort of pain awareness requires self-awareness, and this is centered in the prefrontal cortex of the brain, a section of the brain that is missing

In all animals except for higher primates and human beings, even though animals are in pain, they aren't aware of it. They don't have this third-order pain awareness; they are not aware of pain and therefore do not suffer as human beings do. It is

difficult to express just how disturbing it is to see people still peddling this Cartesian fantasy that animals don't experience pain. What exactly is it to be in pain? Pain is an experience; it's not a thing you can touch or measure. It's something that exists in the minds of conscious

creatures. You cannot be in pain without being aware that you're in pain. If you're not aware of any pain, that just means you're not in pain. Pain is an experienced phenomenon; by definition, if you're not experiencing it, it's not there. If pain doesn't necessitate the

experience of pain in this way, then what is pain? Does it just mean damage or something's natural function being inhibited? Well, this would mean that a table is in pain if I take an axe to it. No. To suffer is to experience suffering. Saying that you can feel pain without

being aware of it is like saying that you can feel sad while thinking that you're really happy. No, if you feel happy, that's what it means to be happy. You can't be happy if you're not feeling happy, and you can't be in pain if you don't

feel that pain. To deny that animals can feel pain is a desperate excuse to justify animal suffering. It doesn't explain animal suffering; it simply denies its existence. But it gets even worse. Let's just say, for argument's sake, that Craig is correct: animals don't suffer; they're not aware

of any pain that they're ever in. This has some radical implications, right? If animals don't suffer, then there's no issue doing things to them that appear to cause suffering. So if I have a dog, there's no reason why I shouldn't throw that dog on a fire,

cut off its tail and poke its eyeballs out with a fork. I mean, why not? The dog isn't suffering, so what's the problem? The dog isn't aware of any pain. If you want to accept Craig's position here, you have to say that it's perfectly okay

for us to treat animals in literally any way we please, since they literally cannot be harmed. Craig says he is an animal lover. Now this is a tremendous comfort to those of us who are animal lovers like myself, or to pet owners, even though your dog or

your cat may be in pain, it really isn't aware of being in pain and therefore it doesn't suffer as you would when you are in pain. So I can't help but wonder, does Craig think that it's okay for me to torture dogs and cats?

I'd imagine he'd say no, but if animals genuinely can't suffer, then there seems to be no reason why I shouldn't be able to do this. If animals can't suffer, then there's as much harm involved in me torturing them as there is in me

chopping down a tree. So do you think that it's okay for me to throw a dog onto a fire? I didn't think so, and if you don't, it must be because you can see right through this sinister nonsense about animals being incapable of suffering. It's time

to relegate that ridiculous and untenable position to the history books, a stain on the course of moral progress. And if Christianity really can't come up with a better response to the problem of animal suffering, then I'm afraid to say that it should be

relegated to the history books as well. I've been Alex O'Connor, or Cosmic Skeptic. Make sure to follow me on social media for more content and exclusive posts. I also want to take a moment to thank my supporters on Patreon, especially my top-tier supporters,

for helping to keep this channel afloat. If you like what I do, please do consider becoming a supporter at patreon.com/cosmicskeptic. Thank you as always for watching. Don't forget to subscribe and I'll see you in the next one.

Christianity's Biggest Problem

Hi, I'm Alex O'Connor, host of the Within Reason Podcast. For the curious. New episodes every Sunday from the likes of Richard Dawkins, William Lane Craig, Bishop Robert Barron, Peter Singer, and Neil deGrasse Tyson.