does God like animals?


I’m not a vegetarian, but I love animals. I was disturbed to hear a while ago that CS Lewis thought there would be nothing wrong with torturing a cat.

One of my favorite verses from the OT is at the end of Jonah, where God says he will not destroy a city with many people and animals too.


What in the world…?

I am 99.999999999999% sure that is incorrect.


Perhaps in a misguided, youthful moment. Or in one of his works of literature. But a search of “CS Lewis torture cat”, discovers nothing pertinent - on page 1 of Google. :wink:


On the contrary: … cal-lewis/


Posted on December 12, 2010 by Lee M. under Andrew Linzey, Animals, C.S. Lewis, Ethics, Philosophy, Theology

I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that many C. S. Lewis fans–maybe especially hpecially his many evangelical admirers–don’t know that Lewis wrote a pamphlet for the British Anti-Vivisection Society. This essay, reprinted later in God in the Dock, anticipates some key arguments since made by philosophical proponents of animal rights.

Lewis posits a dilemma for the defender of animal experimentation: either they hold that humans are metaphysically superior to (non-human) animals (he identifies this with the Christian view), or they believe that there is no inherent metaphysical difference between humans and other animals (he calls this the naturalistic or Darwinian view).

If one takes the first view, Lewis argues, it by no means follows that humans are entitled to treat animals any way they wish. “We may find it difficult to formulate a human right of tormenting beasts in terms which would not equally imply an angelic right of tormenting men” (“Vivisection,” God in the Dock, reprinted in The Collected Works of C. S. Lewis, p. 452). Or, we might add, an extraterrestrial right of tormenting men. Further, “we may feel that though objective superiority is rightly claimed for man, yet that very superiority ought partly to consist in not behaving like a vivisector” (p. 452). This turns the superiority argument on its head; Andrew Linzey has also made much of this line of thinking (see his Animal Theology and Why Animal Suffering Matters, among other works).

Of course, as Lewis notes, most of those who experiment on animals are not Christians with a belief in the metaphysical superiority of humanity, but Darwinian naturalists who see humans as just one species of animal among many (albeit one with certain unique characteristics). “We sacrifice other species to our own not because our own has any objective metaphysical privilege over others, but simply because it is ours” (pp. 452-3). But Lewis is quick to point out that if there is no great metaphysical gulf separating human from non-human animals, what reason is there to draw the line at the species barrier? If all that justifies our preference for our own species is sentiment, than wouldn’t sentiment also justify a preference for our own nation, class, or race? “Once the old Christan idea of a total difference in kind between man and beast has been abandoned, then no argument for experiments on animals can be found which is not also an argument for experiments on inferior men” (p. 453).

This argument similar to the one known as the “argument from marginal cases”–i.e., many non-human animals have the same cognitive abilities as so-called marginal humans (e.g., the severely mentally handicapped), so why are we justified in, say, experimenting on animals but not in experimenting on “marginal case” humans?

Of course, it’s open to the naturalist to admit the force of the argument and accept that we aren’t justified in experimenting on “marginal” humans or non-human animals. (James Rachels takes such an approach in his book Created from Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism.) But this just concedes Lewis’s main point: once you do away with the “metaphysical” distinction between humans and animals, there is no rational ground for treating humans and non-human


Well, I clicked the link. Then did a search for the word cat. But nothing came up. Does this deal with animals in general?

But the article talks about medical experiments on animals. Do you prefer them to start with people first and bypass the animals altogether? :unamused:


I wasn’t concentrating on the word ‘cat’ since the inestimable talents of one HFPZ had already been bent in that direction. :smiley:

But I thought the short essay would show the incongruity of the ‘cat’ question with Lewis’ stated stance on animals. :unamused:


Thanks Dave!


Jonah 4:11


Good point, qaz!


Proverbs 12:10
A righteous man has regard for the life of his animal,
But even the compassion of the wicked is cruel.