William Lane Craig Wins the Argument, But…

Added: 2026-06-03

[00:00:00]In a sense, the existence of animal suffering as well as human suffering is actually evidence for theism. He's not saying, "Okay, I'll grant you your one objection, but I've still got my six arguments." He's saying, "You don't have your one objection without the truth of my six arguments. It's not 6-1 to the Christian. It's 7 nil." It's a phenomenal philosophical move, but Alex still has an issue and he still wants to raise this issue. And I think William Lane Craig needs to take Alex's issue more seriously. And I think Alex Okconor needs to take Alex Okconor's issue more seriously. William Lane Craig definitely won the argument, but I think missed an opportunity in his debate with Alex Okconor. They were talking about the existence of God and the experience of animal suffering. Is that a problem for the Christian? I don't think either of them took the problem sufficiently seriously. And that's what we're going to do in this video. My name is Glenn from Speak Life. We like to see all things through the lens of Jesus. Why don't you give the channel a subscribe if you like trying on some Jesus lenses, at least for a little bit. Here was the debate that William Lane Craig and Alex Okconor had. And William Lane Craig makes a masterful defense for classical theism. And he does it with these six arguments.

[00:01:19]>> For example, I've defended six of these in my work. First, that God is the best explanation of why anything at all exists rather than nothing. Second, that God is the best explanation for the absolute beginning of the universe.

[00:01:36]Thirdly, God is the best explanation for the uncanny applicability of mathematics to the physical phenomena. Fourth, God is the best explanation for the incomprehensible finetuning of the universe. Fifth, God is the best explanation for the objectivity of moral values and duties in the world. And finally, six, the very possibility of God's existence implies that God exists.

[00:02:09]Now, together, I think these six arguments constitute a powerful cumulative case that God exists. So, he piles them up one on the other. Why is there something rather than nothing? Why is there an absolute beginning to the universe? Why does maths work? Why is there order rather than chaos? Why are there objective moral values? And then sixly, there is a nod to the ontological argument. The very possibility of God's existence implies God. Now, William Lane Craig then goes on to discuss the Bible and Jesus and the resurrection from the dead. So, he's definitely wanting to have Christian arguments as well as these philosophical arguments. But for most of the rest of the debate, they discuss this fourth argument for fine-tuning the calam cosmological argument. And back and forwards, it goes over the course of the next hour until Alex brings his best argument against belief in God. And here's what Alex says. The main reason people have not believing in God is the existence of evil or suffering. I prefer to say suffering because evil is a sort of morally laden term, right? And to me this argument is sort of endless and never makes very much progress in the sense that people suffer and theologians have theodysies for why they suffer.

[00:03:22]It's because of free will. It's because it's because of >> But don't you think that genuine advance was made by Alvin Plantinga and his discussion of the free will?

[00:03:32]>> Not really. But that what I mean to say is that no, >> you don't think he put the death nail to the logical version of the problem of evil.

[00:03:42]>> I'm not convinced in that like I'm not sure that the logical problem of evil ever really held up. Um but I I kind of I don't >> Oh well that's all right.

[00:03:50]>> I kind of don't want to >> that's progress.

[00:03:52]>> The objection Alex wants to bring and has always wanted to bring has never been is suffering compatible with a good God? He believes that's possible. But the evidential problem of evil is is so much evil commenurate with a good god.

[00:04:07]And that's why Alex will want to bring lots and lots of evidence about the suffering of this world because it needs to tip the scale sufficiently such that we say I don't think it is compatible.

[00:04:18]Alex's point is that some level of suffering is to be expected on Christianity but not so much suffering.

[00:04:24]That will be important as we go on.

[00:04:26]There is a a class of individuals who are usually completely ignored in the discussion of suffering and of course non-human animals.

[00:04:36]>> Yes.

[00:04:36]>> Theododyies that are provided for the re for the for suffering the existence of suffering.

[00:04:42]>> The fact that there's human free will the fact that there was a fool. The fact that our souls will somehow be developed. The fact that higher order goods like bravery and courage can be achieved are plausible. But none of them apply to non-human animals.

[00:04:58]>> That's not true. Soul building could apply to animals. Compensation in the next life could apply to animals. But we'll continue.

[00:05:04]>> None of them apply to these animals who for hundreds of millions of years.

[00:05:10]>> Yeah, I've written quite a bit on the problem of animal suffering.

[00:05:14]>> I know. So, so perhaps we can rehash it because I'd like to know why it is that you think that for these hundreds of millions of years Suffering is the defining quality of the animal experience to the extent that this is the mechanism God chose to bring about complexity of life on earth.

[00:05:34]Survival of the fittest is the same thing as the death and destruction of the unfit. Disease, predation, starvation for hundreds of millions of years. This is powerful rhetoric. I don't think it's true. Um suffering is not the defining experience of the life of creatures. suffering and death is absolutely present and prevalent and pervasive all throughout the world. And yet life is happening. Life in all its suffering, life in all its glory. Life is happening all the way through. The way that Alex sets this up rhetorically is as though nature is just a hellscape.

[00:06:09]Unremitting agony and torture and misery is happening all throughout the world.

[00:06:15]That that's the picture that Alex wants to bring to you. I want to suggest to you that he's looking through a particular set of lenses in order to see nature in that way and they might not be the most helpful or true lenses. Let's keep going. For some reason, when we get to humans, something kind of special happens. We're insold, whatever it might be, such that our suffering gets to be redeemed, but not theirs. We're talking I mean, if I were to go into the details of what happens to animals in the wild on a regular basis, >> I probably couldn't upload this footage to YouTube because it would get flagged for being too extreme. As you well know, >> again, the rhetoric is on point here from Alex, but it's just not true. I mean, Alex again and again tries to bring the classical problem of animal suffering to the YouTube space, and none of these examples have ever been flagged by YouTube. You can imagine a situation of a tree falling over and trapping a deer's leg and that deer spends the rest of its life in confusion and agony until it starves.

[00:07:16]If Christianity is true and suffering is redeemed, we need an account of this. I want to hear today a direct answer. How can the suffering of a deer on its own in a forest with its leg broken and trapped under a tree already starving in confused agony before being predated upon by having a mountain lion clasped the deer's windpipe in its jaw for an excruciating minutesl long death?

[00:07:39]He explained if supervised by an omnipotent invigilator who if for some reason could not prevent this particular event seemingly could have at least designed the machinery of the natural world to be less prone to this kind of thing. And I'm told that this is the mechanism that God chose to embed into the universe, making a lot of animals, by the way, obligate carnivores. Why would he do that? So that they have to maul each other to death. When a lion eats a zebra, sometimes, usually the zebra is too big to be killed instantly.

[00:08:05]So it suffers for minutes in writhing agony whilst its windpipe is caught in the jaws of a lion. I'm told that this is compatible with an omnipotent, omnib benevolent god. 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. I mean, 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 for 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 whilst its windpipe is caught in the jaws of a lion. Just imagine for a moment what it must feel like to be that zebra. A couple of things here. One is that Alex is very good at describing horrific scenes and making us picture uh the full horror of what he's describing. He tries it again and again and again. Um none of it is too spicy for YouTube. In fact, it is the very common fair of every nature documentary you've ever seen. It is stark. It is brutal. It is chastening to watch how red in tooth and claw nature really is. But nature documentaries are not torture porn. And the person who enjoys watching David Atenburgh is not a terrible human being for enjoying the misery of others. They are seeing a brutality to life that is caught up in the great circle of life. The lenses through which Alex is viewing nature, I don't think are correct. We'll get to that. But um all of this is for me to say I want Alex to have more of a problem with animal suffering. I'm not trying to sidestep the issue of animal suffering. I don't think Alex has a sufficient problem with animal suffering. And I want to invite Alex into the Christian story in which we can properly ground our care for and concern for animals and to talk about animals in the correct sort of way and to experience the nature that is read in Tooth and Claw in the right kind of framework. But I don't think currently Alex has the right kind of framework for looking at nature. But let's keep going with Alex and let's hear how William Lane Craig initially answers Alex and the way he answers Alex is exquisite from a philosophical point of view. It is philosophically a winning move from William Lane Craig. It it really is to to watch William Lane Craig do this. And yet I think something is missing if this is our only response to animal suffering. The question here is whether or not the existence of animal suffering in the world is more plausible given naturalism or atheism than it is given theism.

[00:10:56]And I would argue that animal suffering is vastly more improbable given naturalism >> or atheism than theism. And therefore, even if our inability to penetrate divine psychology and say what reason would have God, God would have for choosing an evolutionary process. Um, which I think we can speculate about.

[00:11:22]Nevertheless, the balance of probability is overwhelmingly in favor of theism.

[00:11:28]Animal suffering is more plausible probable on theism. Now, why do I say that? Well, the reason is because if naturalism were true, >> Mhm.

[00:11:42]>> then it is incomprehensibly more probable that there wouldn't even be life.

[00:11:50]>> Mhm.

[00:11:51]>> Much less sentient life, >> right, >> that could experience suffering. And of course, we're back here to the old fine-tuning argument, aren't we? that given the finetuning of the universe, this is vastly more probable given theism than given naturalism. And so in a sense, the existence of animal suffering as well as human suffering is actually evidence for theism because if naturalism were true, it's overwhelmingly more probable there wouldn't be any sentient life and hence no suffering.

[00:12:25]>> Yes, I understand this line of argument.

[00:12:27]Um, pardon me. I I understand this this line of argument. I understand what you're getting at.

[00:12:34]>> That's a lovely moment. Um, very often when you're on stage, the foldback speakers are not as good as everything that the audience is hearing. So, we are able to hear Alex a lot better than William Lane Craig is able to hear when he's on stage. I think that's that's why they they kind of miss each other at various points. William Lane Craig was actually incredibly ill throughout his trip to the UK and that that might have monkeyied with his hearing as well. But here is an interesting moment in which William Lane Craig does a a judo flip move on Alec. Alex Okconor is raising animal suffering as the chief argument against God's existence. William Lane Craig is saying you can't even have this problem unless my six reasons to believe in God are true. Because to even have a problem with animal suffering, first you need everything to come from nothing.

[00:13:17]You need a beginning point to the universe. You need a finely tuned cosmos and not a chaos. You need a sense of moral outrage and and therefore some kind of sense of moral realism in order to say this is wrong and not just unpleasant. You need sentience and more than sentience in the human situation, you need consciousness in order to actually process this suffering. And you need some kind of moral realm in order to say that this kind of suffering is morally outrageous and not simply unpleasant. In order to have a sufficient problem with animal suffering, you need to come over to the Christian side of things in order to be properly grounded in the problem that you want to have. It's a phenomenal move when viewed philosophically because William Lane Craig is he's not saying, "Okay, I'll grant you your one objection, but I've still got my six arguments." He's saying, "You don't have your one objection without the truth of my six arguments." It's not 6-1 to the Christian, it's 7. It's a phenomenal philosophical move, but Alex still has an issue and he still wants to raise this issue. And I think William Lane Craig needs to take Alex's issue more seriously and I think Alex O' Conor needs to take Alex Okconor's issue more seriously. We'll see what I mean as we keep going.

[00:14:28]>> The issue is I feel like it kind of sidesteps the concern.

[00:14:32]>> It sidesteps >> it sidesteps the concern. Yes, it does.

[00:14:34]There are many people notice William Lane Craig admits he is sidest stepping the issue. He thinks he's philosophically justified to do so and and I think he's right in one sense, but he is happy to sidestep the issue of animal suffering. And at that point, I I want Christians to take more seriously the problem of animal suffering. I would also like atheists to take more seriously the problem of animal suffering, but we'll get to that. There are many people who believe, for example, that there is some kind of naturalistic explanation for finetuning, even if we don't know what it is. There are people here who who disagree with you, Dr. Craig that that think that those arguments aren't sound, aren't strong, at least to the point where they remain agnostic about the existence of a god such that the only data that they can really touch and feel that really sort of strikes them as the most sort of important and plausible is the existence of animal suffering. So I suppose I could frame it this way. Suppose it were the case that all else were equal.

[00:15:28]>> That what >> that all else were equal.

[00:15:31]That that that otherwise apart from this piece of data >> Oh. Oh.

[00:15:35]>> Apart from this piece of data. Oh, but why why should we make such a hypothesis that all else were equal when it's not?

[00:15:43]>> So that we can isolate this particular point of data and see if it at the very least decreases the probability of God's existence.

[00:15:49]>> So you're saying what if animal suffering were just as probable on naturalism is on theism? Then what? I'm saying let's grant the existence of animal suffering and say given that fact about the universe like okay let's grant that there is a universe that exists let's grant that there's a universe exists that abides by physical laws now if if you want to say that we can't have the conversation about why animals would be allowed to suffer until we've addressed the finetuning argument then we'll probably need a bit more time but also I don't think that that functions for people who simply are willing to say well I just don't agree with the fine tetuning argument I still want to know why it is that God would allow him.

[00:16:29]>> If that's to be more than just an opinion or psychological >> autobiographical comment, they need to give some good arguments against the fine-tuning argument. And William Lane Craig is technically absolutely correct on this point. Why should we get rid of those six arguments for God's existence and isolate simply the the problem of animal suffering? How can we isolate the problem of animal suffering when the problem of animal suffering presumes that we live in a finely tuned universe that we all have sentience and consciousness that there's a moral realm by which we can judge suffering to be not just unpleasant but wrong. William Lane Craig is absolutely right that we can't isolate the question of animal suffering from the presumption of a whole bunch of assumptions that really make sense on Christianity and don't make sense on Alex's worldview at all.

[00:17:20]He's absolutely right. And yet he's still missing something because there is still an internal consistency problem for the Christian. The Christian still needs to answer the question, but why?

[00:17:33]Why this kind of suffering? And why so much suffering? And until Christians deal with this much more emotional objection, we're not going to win the hearts and minds of those who are like Alex Okconor who I do take to be seriously seeking God and I do take to be seriously wanting to know whether the God of the Bible is is true or not. So William Lane Craig is philosophically correct that we can't actually isolate this question because the problem of animal suffering sits at top a whole bunch of presumptions that really only work on theism and do not work on naturalism. William Lane Craig is correct. But I urge Christians, we still need to deal with this question of animal suffering and we still need to take Alex's objection seriously. Um that's my plea to Christians. My plea to Alex is I I I think Alex, you and other naturalists need to take the problem of animal suffering even more seriously than you currently do. But again, I invite you into the Christian story in which that problem is truly founded, in which you can truly ask that question.

[00:18:42]The answer to the problem of suffering is not to dissolve the problem. It is to invite people to truly have the problem.

[00:18:50]And I would invite both William Lane Craig and Alex Okconor to have a true problem with this suffering. Let's keep going.

[00:18:58]>> My impression um from reading the literature is that today this fine-tuning argument is the argument for the existence of God that is taken most seriously by non-theists.

[00:19:14]>> Can you can you take uh Alex's just looking at the systemic problem of evil?

[00:19:19]the problem of evil against theism from evolution by natural selection ignoring the others.

[00:19:24]>> And I think the moderator here who stepped in last minute, Jack SS, he interjects here in a helpful way to say, well, let's actually move this question off from fine-tuning and and onto this question of of animal suffering. I think that's a helpful interjection. Does that argument itself count, Alex? because I did say I think we can speculate about God's reasons for allowing an evolutionary history to the world.

[00:19:51]Um, it seems to me that God's overall purpose for creating life on earth um is for the purpose of human salvation and that his goal is to create a world in which the optimal number of people would freely come to know and embrace.

[00:20:19]peace eternal salvation which is an incommenserable good to which the suffering in this world cannot even be compared and I don't think it is at all improbable not in a w improbable that only in a world sused with natural and moral evil that the optimal number of people would freely come to embrace God and his salvation.

[00:20:49]and so find eternal life and that could well be the reason for creating the world with an evolutionary history that involved as you say a lot of animal suffering.

[00:21:01]>> Now William Lane Craig is saying this is speculation. Um he earlier said we can't really pry into divine psychology but if we were to figure out what reasons might there be for God allowing so much suffering. Those are the reasons that William Lane crate offers. And I want to say there's a danger here. It's a danger that Rowan Williams actually identified uh when Alex Okconor was last in conversation uh at at this very venue at the Royal Institute. Because I often say, well, what would it be to have an explanation that made you relax about animal suffering or human suffering where you could just say, "Ah, now I see. Yes, that's fine." And then I'm not looking for that sort of argument, but that doesn't mean I'm very comfortable with with the position. I I struggle as I think most Christians do with putting a theoretical framework around it.

[00:21:48]>> There's a danger in philosophically speculating about why God might allow so much suffering in that you can say well because of factors X Y and Zed therefore this suffering is justified at which point the the evil of the suffering ceases to be evil and starts to be just one of those things. And actually there's a problem for the Christian and a problem for the atheist at this point.

[00:22:10]What we don't want to get to is the position where we say, "Ah, this kind of suffering is just one of those things. X plus Y plus Z adds up to a justification for this level of evil." And that is unsatisfying. And and Alex is going to find this unsatisfying as we'll see. But I don't think Alex has the grounds for having a satisfying problem with animal suffering either. We'll see that. But here's how Alex responds to William Lane Craig.

[00:22:37]>> So the suggestion would be that an animal like a zebra which gets its windpipe caught in the jaws of a lion which is how they're often predated upon that no human ever sees that no human's ever aware of that no other animal is even ever aware of is somehow necessary the conditions under which that occurred are somehow necessary to bring people to salvation in Christ >> you know this is the interesting thing about uh the natural world the tiniest perturbations can over time have a kind of ripple effect such that enormous consequences can follow from seemingly trivial incidents like a zebra is having its trachea collapsed. This is called the butterfly effect and it's illustrated in chaos theory >> uh and in uh quantum theory as well. Uh so that I think we're in no position at all to say when we see some instance of evil >> that God probably doesn't have a good reason for permitting that to occur. I expected to believe that that God is somehow bound by this precarious butterfly effect from a particular instantiation of animal suffering >> that somehow brings about salvation that without which God could have found no way to bring about the same salvation. It seems it seems >> we don't know. I mean, see, this is again where we're we're into the realm of pure speculation, but I'm saying it's not implausible that only in a world suffused with natural and moral evil that the optimal number of people would find eternal salvation. William Lane Craig is not wrong. There is an inscrutability to God that that is unassalable. um the the God's thoughts are higher than our thoughts and and we cannot penetrate into those kinds of reasons. But how do we nevertheless make the Christian position sensible to and believable to Alex? I think I think that's what Christians need to be able to do. And and one thing I would like to do is not so much to have a theory as to why God might have allowed so much suffering, but I I want to go to Alex's side of the fence and look around for a little bit and find that Alex's position is not able to take animal suffering seriously. And then what I want to do is to take you to the Bible and to show you that within the Bible there are there are a set of lenses that you can look through um that actually make sense of the world in a way that simply theistic philosophy doesn't satisfy but also that atheistic philosophy doesn't satisfy. Um but let's let's think about Alex's position just for a minute. And to do that we're going to have a look at uh one of the questions that uh in fact it's the first question that was asked from the audience. And I think the questioner actually brings a really helpful perspective on things. It's interesting to hear the questioner's perspective and then Alex's perspective.

[00:25:46]Check it out.

[00:25:47]>> Thank you both. Alex, um I've seen seagulls float on air and they clearly seem to be delighting at it. Dogs, animals. I I think you put too much emphasis on suffering where I think the animals can delight in their life and play. Um, and Bill, I remember last event you mentioned that the purpose of of life is of salvation and that it was to behold God and to glorify in him. Don't you think God could be more like an artist? Oh, look, there's Joe Foley. There's Joe Foley front row.

[00:26:21]>> And all of creation is this beautiful thing that he's creating, >> Alex.

[00:26:26]>> Um, yeah. I mean, animals can surely take the light in things too, but I think if you look at the totality of the natural world, particularly historically, and add up the pleasure and the suffering involved in animals existence, I think there's good reason to think that the suffering outweighs it. I mean, the number of the number of vertebrates who are even alive on the planet today is so large that we can only possibly estimate it. If you think about what the average day must be like for one of these animals, constant threat of predation. When you think about what the average life of an invertebrate is like or a vertebrate or a primate or like like we we genuinely cannot understand certainly what it means to be a bat. I don't think we can understand what it's like to be a zebra.

[00:27:07]I mean, what kind of day did the zebra have right up until the moment that it was killed by the lion? Probably quite a good day. Which is why nature documentaries are not torture porn. They are not. and and to like David Atenburgh documentaries is not to be a voyer of some kind of endless hellscape of misery and unremitting anguish. That that is not how nature is. And if if Alex has spent any time in nature, I'm sure he does. I'm sure he goes for walks in nature, but he doesn't go for walks in nature because he's a sociopath and he just loves seeing the misery, the anguish, and the unrelitting pain and torment all around him. Oh, good. I'm going for I'm going for a walk through a forest. I might get to see there's this murderous, outrageous, selfish war of all on all good. No, you go for a walk through a forest to see life, right?

[00:27:57]Life in all its fullness, life in all its abundance. It's a wonderful thing to be in nature, don't you think? It's a wonderful thing to see the eagle soaring. It's a wonderful thing to see the zebra in its natural habitat. It's a fearful thing to see it being prayed upon by a lion. That's true. But there's also something awesome and majestic even about that circle of life, right? I just don't think Alex's lenses are correct.

[00:28:25]And he seems to want us to use these lenses to look out at the world and to imagine that the world is just this unremitting, anguishladen, torture saturated hellscape. And it's it's just it's just not. There is so much life out there. so much life and people enjoy nature and they enjoy nature documentaries not because they are voyers, not because they are misery tourists, right? Not not because this stuff is torture porn, but because it is good and fearful and painful and dangerous and worth it.

[00:29:05]Life is worth it. That's what I'd want to say to Alex. Life is life in all its misery and pain and glory and strength and youthfulness and vigor and vitality.

[00:29:21]Life in the round is worth it. Wouldn't you say? Wouldn't you say that? Surely you'd say that. And Alex himself tends to have this kind of viv that that enjoys getting out there in the world and experiencing life in in in all its adventurousness and enjoying life in the round and enjoying nature. Um the the lenses through which Alex is looking they I don't think they are the lenses that even he wears most of the time. I think they're certainly not the lenses that any of us should wear.

[00:29:54]>> It it it might well be. But what I would recommend is there's a there's a chap called um I think his name is Brian Tomasik and he has a website called something like wildan animals suffering.org or something and he recounts he talks about this stuff. He talks about what life is actually like for a wild animal. What kind of experiences they can expect to go through what kind of suffering they can expect to go through and I think that you're mistaken. But even if you weren't, even if you weren't, even if there was lots of pleasure in the life of an animal and then a bunch of intolerable suffering as well, you would still be left to explain why that suffering exists. It's not as simple as just compensating an animal by saying you're going to have a good life and you're going to suffer seemingly completely unnecessarily in ways that you will certainly never understand as as an animal. Definitely not. And yet this seemingly could have been avoided. But I'm also going to give you some pleasure. And so I guess it's kind of fine. It in other words, it doesn't actually do away with the problem of evil. Even if the pleasure kind of balances it out or even exceeds it, you'll still be left with the unexpectedness of suffering, at least that kind of suffering. And I think that if you look into the to the experiences that these wild animals go through, it's not as as as you know, high-flying as as you say it is. So Alex is right that you still need to explain why there is suffering in this world on the Christian account of things. That's true. And we're going to try and have a look at that through some biblical lenses. Um, but why does he then say that that there could be no compensation for the animal, the zebra, right up until the time that the lion tears its throat down, the the zebra has probably had a good life, hasn't he? Um, and and if you say no at that point, you're saying that life is not worth living. It's it's a profoundly anti-natalist position. It's it's kind of it's nonsuicidal because it is saying that life is not worth it because there's death, right? I mean, bring the conversation out of the animal realm into the human realm where we suffer more because we are more conscious. I think Alex would kind of agree with that. And and our reflection upon our own suffering multiplies the anguish that we feel in this world. And yet life is still worth it, isn't it?

[00:32:07]Think of those horrific ways that people have died. And it's been worse than than lions ripping out throats. You know, think think of those those poor unfortunate people on 9/11, 3,000 of them perishing on that day of infamy. I would not wish that day on my worst enemies. And yet those 3,000 lives were worth it. It was worth those 3,000 people having those lives up until September the 11th, 2001, wasn't it? Of course it was. Of course, it was worth it. It's worth it for humans even though we suffer. It's worth it for animals even though they suffer. And yet, Alex doesn't seem to have those kinds of intuitions about life being worth it.

[00:32:47]When he was last at the Royal Institution, he was asked about this very question. And he said this about whether life is worth living. I I think people are generally very um sort of overestimate the extent to to which their life are going well. Um there's actually a I I think it's called the Polyiana principle or something like that. Um David Benar the antiatalist talks about this a lot because he tries to convince people that it's immoral to have children but not just this reason but he does also convince you that your life is he he he makes an argument that even if your life goes really well it's still immoral to have children and then the next chapter is even still your life is going much worse than you think it is and here's why. Um so people are often sort of looking back uh much they struggle to identify the bad parts and they're sort of have like an optimistic bias. I do think suffering abounds menial suffering if suffering can be just defined as an experience which is not wanted when experienced broadly speaking you know being a bit uncomfortable in your chair having to walk upstairs having to stand up and sit down all of these acts that you don't even think about when you actually add them up it's quite a lot of menial suffering that goes that that goes on there are menial joys too but I think that if you were to do a calculus and add up all of those menial sufferings and all of those menial joys I suspect the suffering would come out on top but I don't know that is a profoundly anti-natalist view to have of this world and I I don't think anybody should share those intuitions. I don't think Alex should share those intuitions. Alex, stop having those intuitions. Um because that that is no way to see this world.

[00:34:15]Life is worth it, isn't it? Isn't life worth it? And I think one of the ways that we can tell that Alex is wearing the wrong kind of lenses to view this world is that he is looking at life and privileging the suffering over the glory. And that is not the way that anyone experiences nature. And I don't think it's the way that an animal rights activist should view nature. The reason we want to prevent cruelty to animals is because animals in their natural habitat, animals liberated from the cruelty that humans can do to them.

[00:34:47]Animals can be happy. Animals can be glorious. Animals can rejoice to be the animals that they are bound within the circle of life as they may be. And yet it is worth it. Let's just go to the Bible as we finish. Um because in the Bible there is not a polyiana view of animals. There's there's not a bambian thumper view of animals in the Bible. Um you go back to Genesis chapter 3 and as soon as Adam and Eve bring sin into the world um one of the things that the Lord does is kill an animal. Adam and Eve had made vegetative coverings for themselves. Those fig leaves to cover up their shame. Clearly that human effort at covering over our own sin and shame was insufficient and unworthy. And the Lord sacrifices an animal blood has to be shed because of the sin and shame of Adam. And only through the bloodshed is there going to be a covering for Adam and Eve. And that animal had to suffer.

[00:35:43]And so the Bible is not sentimental about that. Genesis chapter 3, one of the first things the Lord does is kill an animal. The next thing in the next chapter, one of the reasons why Cain's offering was not accepted by the Lord and Abel's was was Abel was a keeper of the flocks and and he offered the first fruits of his flocks. So he offered animal sacrifices in Genesis 4. And he was looked upon with favor by the Lord.

[00:36:09]Whereas Cain offered only vegetation.

[00:36:11]Cain seemed to be making the mistake that his parents had made that somehow through our own efforts we can cover our sin and shame. Abel seems to have learned the lesson that only through the sacrifice, only through bloodshed, can there be atonement. And the Lord favors Abel over Cain. And Alex Okconor is not liking the Bible at this stage. He's really not going to like the Bible once he turns to chapter 6. And we see an extinction level event for the whole world because of human sin and rebellion. The life cycles of millions and millions and millions of animals is cut short on a single day through the flood. And the God of the Bible kills and makes alive. The God of the Bible gives us each breath and none of us are guaranteed another breath. He could move us from this earth and into his presence at any moment whether we are human or animal. God is in the business of moving us from this life and before the judgment seat of Christ. He is in the business of doing that and sometimes he moves a heck of a lot of us from this life and before the judgment seat of Christ. The God of the Bible is good but he is also fearful and he is a judge.

[00:37:11]Nevertheless, life is worth it. And when Job speaks about creation, it's like a David Atenburgh documentary. Listen to how the Lord himself speaks about nature. Who gives the ibis wisdom or gives the rooster understanding? Do you hunt the prey for the lioness and satisfy the hunger of the lions when they crouch in their dens or lie wait in a thicket? Who provides food for the raven when its young cry out to God and wander about for lack of food? Do you know when the mountain goats give birth?

[00:37:38]Do you watch when the dough bears are forn? Do you count the months till lay bear? Do you know the time they give birth? They crouch down and bring forth their young. Their labor pains are ended. Their young thrive and grow strong in the wild. They leave and do not return. Who let the wild donkey go free? Who untied its ropes? I gave it to the wasteland as its home. The salt flats as its habitat. It laughs at the commotion in the town. It does not hear a driver's shout. It ranges the hills for its pasture and searches for any green thing. This is like a nature documentary. And nature documentaries are not torture porn. Life is worth it.

[00:38:10]and animals are full of vitality and vigor and life and joy and flourishing and it's worth it. The Lord goes on in Job 39, "The wings of the ostrich flap joyfully, though they cannot compare with the wings and feathers of the stalk. She lays her eggs on the ground and lets the warm lets them warm in the sand, unmindful that a foot may crush them, that some wild animal may trample them. She treats her young harshly as if they were not hers. She cares not that her labor was in vain, for God did not endow her with wisdom or give her a share of good sense. Yet when she spreads her feathers to run, she laughs at horse and rider. Do you give the horse its strength or clothe its neck with a flowing man? Do you make it leap like a locust striking terror with its proud snorting? It pours fiercely, rejoicing in its strength, rejoicing in its strength and charges into the fray.

[00:38:57]It laughs at fear, afraid of nothing. It does not shy away from the sword. The quiver rattles against its side along with the flashing spear and lance. In frenzied excitement, it eats up the ground. It cannot stand still when the trumpet sounds. 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. Life is worth it.

[00:39:18]Does the hawk take flight by your wisdom and spread its wings towards the south?

[00:39:21]Does the eagle soar at your command and build its nest on high? It dwells on a cliff and stays there at night. A rocky crag is its stronghold, for there it looks for food. Its eyes detect it from afar. Its young ones feast on blood and where the slain are. There it is. Life is worth it. It's worth it for animals.

[00:39:37]It's worth it for humans. Okay. And then we come through into the New Testament and here is Jesus's teaching. And it it beautifully talks about the worth of every creature. It talks about the poignency of death. And it talks about human exceptionalism all in one verse.

[00:39:53]Luke 12:6. Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God. Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don't be afraid. You're worth more than many sparrows. The Lord is conscious of every single sparrow that falls to the ground and every bat and every zebra and every deer and every invertebrate. The Lord thinks upon and cares for all of creation. And there's something poignant about their deaths matter. Each death matters. The deer trapped in the forest fire matters to God more than that deer matters to me or to Alex Okconor. God is not sentimental about it. But God cares for, knows about, takes note of the suffering of every single creature on the planet in ways that no naturalist ever could, in ways that no atheist ever could. There is a care for the life of and the suffering of every sentient creature on planet earth within the Bible. Animal suffering really matters because it really matters to God. And at the same time in the in the same verse, Jesus says, "You are worth more than many sparrows." There's a human exceptionalism here. And it's really important that there is a human exceptionalism. And and Alex, I think, believes in a kind of a human exceptionalism because the the kind of cruelty that humans are able to visit upon animals is of a different order.

[00:41:18]Nobody blames the lion for ripping out the throat of the zebra. But if you saw a human doing that for pleasure, you would say, "How evil." And you would want the language of evil. And so what I want to give to Alex is a language that can truly ask the question that he's asking. And that language relies on there being human exceptionalism. That language relies on there being such a thing as evil and calling it evil and not just suffering. I I think that accords with the intuitions that Alex and I feel when we look at things that are wrong in this world. We don't just say that they are unpleasant or grotesque or malformed or maladaptive to survival. We say that they are wrong.

[00:41:57]And I want to give to Alex a sense of human exceptionalism that will really help him in defending the rights of animals. I think I want to give to him the language of evil that will really help him to name the wrong that animal suffering really is in in certain circumstances. I also want to give to Alex the sense of the Bible's story because there is a narrative going on. There is a fall down into suffering and predation. And then in the end through the redemption of Christ in the Bible, the lion will lie down with the lamb at the end of all things. But through the ordeal comes a redemption.

[00:42:38]There is a kind of a hero's journey that all creation is going on, including the deer, including the lion, including the lamb, including the sparrow. And within the Bible, that suffering matters. Those orals are achieving something. The story makes sense of the suffering. And we all know that to be true, which is why we would all rather watch Lord of the Rings than Teletubbies. In Teletubbies, nothing happens. Right? I'm getting this from Mike Jones of inspiring philosophy.

[00:43:05]He says you would always rather watch Lord of the Rings than Teletubbies, even though there's a heck of a lot of suffering in Lord of the Rings. But that suffering is put in a story and it achieves something. It goes somewhere.

[00:43:16]There is a redemption through suffering to glory. Teletubbies is not the world we want to live in. Middle Earth is.

[00:43:24]Unless you want to volunteer for Teletubby land. I don't want to volunteer for Teletubby land. I want to volunteer for for Middle Earth. And and I think the storied nature of the Bible helps in those things. And the happily ever after. That's the fourth thing that the Bible kind of gives to us that I would want to give to Alex so that he can have a proper problem of animal suffering.

[00:43:45]the lion will lie down with the lamb at the end of all things. I do think soul-building theodysies can work for the Christian and I do think there can be compensation in the next life. And as one Corinthians 15 says, there is a resurrection of all flesh that's that's happening. And there are different kinds of flesh. There's there's human flesh, but there are also there's also animal flesh. And I I do think that the lion will lie down with the lamb literally.

[00:44:10]And that God really cares for suffering, death, predation. He notes the death of all these animals. He says they're not as important as you or I are, but he notes those deaths and there will be a compensation. I do believe that. I want to take animal suffering more seriously.

[00:44:26]I don't want to sidestep the issue as for the purposes of time, William Lane Craig does in this video. And I don't want to minimize the problem of animal suffering the way that the atheist must.

[00:44:37]Because once you get rid of human exceptionalism and the language of evil and the storied nature of existence and the compensation of all things in the new heavens and the new earth, once you get rid of those things, I don't think you can properly account for the true problem of animal suffering. I don't want to dissolve away the problem of animal suffering. I want to ground that problem. I want to invite Alex Okconor and others to have a true problem with that evil. I'm not going to be able to justify the ways of God to man. But I do think that we are in a story and I do think that Jesus has come as the great hero has taken the hell of this world on himself to rise up to a future glory that is worth it. I can't do the weighing up thing that Alex says. You know, how are we going to weigh up between the suffering of animals and the pleasure of animals? How are we going to weigh up? I can't do it. Alex can't do it. None of us can do it. But for the joy set before him, Jesus endured the cross. He weighed it up and he seemed to think that the future glory is worth it even for the hell of his own cross. So how much more worth it will it be for the ordeal that we have to pass through?

[00:45:43]Life is worth it. I can trust Jesus through the story and that there is a happily ever after. That'll do me for now. What did you think about the debate between William Lane Craig and Alex Okconor? What have I missed? Let me know in the comments. And if you want to discover life according to Jesus, why don't you go to 321 right now and experience life according to Jesus?

[00:46:01]We'll see God in his threess, the world in its tuness, you and your oneness.

[00:46:04]It's totally free. Go to 321course.com.

[00:46:07]That'll do us for now. Why don't you give the video a like and share it around the place and subscribe to us so that we can catch you on the next one.

[00:46:13]God bless.