Human and Nonhuman Animals from Secular and Sacred Perspectives

doi:10.1017/9781108860666.005

4 - Human and Nonhuman Animals from Secular and Sacred Perspectives

from Part I - Concepts

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 July 2022

Charles Taliaferro

Edited by

Alexander J. B. Hampton and

Douglas Hedley

Show author details

Alexander J. B. Hampton: Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Douglas Hedley: Affiliation:
University of Cambridge

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Since the emergence of modern science in the West (roughly the 17th century), there has been tension between classical theism (there is a God, as envisioned in the Abrahamic faiths of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) and different forms of naturalism (the denial of theism and the affirmation of a natural world with no souls, no afterlife, no supernatural, and so on). It is argued that the case for recognizing that some nonhuman animals have thoughts and feelings, and are thus morally significant, is stronger from a theistic perspective rather than from the standpoint of naturalism. Special attention is given to upholding a humane, Christian animal ethic.

Keywords

scientific naturalism broad naturalism classical theism Abrahamic faiths Paul Churchland Descartes Daniel Dennett Thomas Nagel Anne Conway Andrew Linzey

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Companion to Christianity and the Environment , pp. 48 - 62

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108860666.005 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Selected Bibliography

Bonaventure. Bonaventure. Translated by I. B. Brady. New York: Paulist Press, 1978.Google Scholar

Chisholm, Roderick. Person and Object: A Metaphysical Study. LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 1979.Google Scholar

Conway, Anne. Principles of the Most Ancient and Modern Philosophy. Edited by Coudert, A. P. and Course, T.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.Google Scholar

Dennett, Daniel. From Bacteria to Bach and Back Again; The Evolution of Minds. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2017.Google Scholar

Dostoevsky, Fyodor. The Brothers Karamazov. Translated by R. Pevear and L. Yolokhonasky. New York: Vintage Classics, 1991.Google Scholar

Linzey, Andrew. Animal Rites: Liturgies of Animal Care. London: SCM, 1999.Google Scholar

Linzey, Andrew, and Clarke, Paul Barry. Animal Rights: A Historical Anthology. New York: Columbia University Press, 2004.Google Scholar

Linzey, Andrew and Linzey, Clair, eds. The Routledge Handbook of Religion and Animal Ethics. London: Routledge, 2019.Google Scholar

Lund, David. The Conscious Self. New York: Humanities Press, 2005.Google Scholar

Merton, Thomas. No Man is an Island. New York: Harcourt, 1983.Google Scholar

Nagel, Thomas. ‘Is Consciousness an Illusion?’ The New York Review of Books, 9 March (2017).Google Scholar

Philo. The Works of Philo Judaeus. Translated by C. D. Yonge. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988.Google Scholar

Nagel, Thomas. ‘What Is It Like to Be a Bat?’ Philosophical Review 83, no. 4, (1974): 435–450.CrossRef Google Scholar

Rollin, Bernard. The Unheeded Cry: Animal Consciousness, Animal Pain and Science. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.Google Scholar

Searle, John. ‘Animal Mind’. Ethica & Animali 9 (1988): 37–50.Google Scholar

Sprigge, T. L. S. The Importance of Subjectivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.Google Scholar

Taliaferro, Charles and Goetz, Stewart. Naturalism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008.Google Scholar