Introduction: C.S. Lewis (1898-1963) the renowned British theologian cum writer is ostensibly concerned with animal pain and opposed to vivisection, while deep down, he is contemptuous of animals and veganism, due to his misconception of human “dominion” in Genesis 1:26 as divinely ordained superiority over animals (Lewis 1957:8). Nonetheless, he packages his anti-vegan agenda with animal concern in a sophistic, cunning way.
1. Animals Cannot Feel Pain?
In The Problem of Pain, Lewis argues that most animals cannot possibly feel pain because they can just experience a succession of separate, discrete sensations (Lewis 1959:120) (note 1), which, alas, covertly justifies abuse, rape and murder of innocent creatures of God. He also anthropocentrically opines that no animals can go to heaven except through their master’s immortality (Lewis 1959:120).
2. Respectful Vivisection?
In Vivisection, Lewis contends that a Christian pathologist who cuts up innocent creatures of God deserves respect as long as he/she does his/her job carefully, with a deep sense of responsibility and an awareness of the high standard to be met to justify such sacrifices (Lewis 1947:8) (note 2). Lewis’s anti-veganism is also reflected in his mocking of vegetarian characters, such as Eustace’s modern parents and Shift the Ape, in The Chronicles of Narnia (Lewis 1950).
4. Dominion = Authority by Divine Rights?
Lewis’s bizarre hypocrisy concerning animals stems from his misinterpretation of “dominion” in Genesis:- “Man was appointed by God to have dominion over the beasts, and everything a man does to an animal is either a lawful exercise, or a sacrilegious abuse, of an authority by divine right” (Lewis 1959:126).
5. Dominion as Authorityless Servanthood
In reality, “dominion” in Genesis 1:26,28 means neither lordship nor despotism nor even stewardship, but servanthood bereft of power and authority. ירדו (yirdu), the ancient biblical Hebrew word in consonantal form for "dominion" in the verse concerned, refers to either רָדָה (radah) (to tread down, subjugate, rule) or יָרַד (yarad) (to lower oneself, to descend) (cf. Chaim and Laura 2015). IMO, “dominion” can only mean the latter, because, firstly, it is in the spirit of the Jesus who said that He has come to serve, NOT to be served (Mark 10:45); secondly, the instruction is immediately followed by a vegan diet prescribed by God to humans (Genesis 1:29); thirdly, in Genesis 2:15, humans are particularly assigned to be just a humble caretaker of the garden. To "have dominion over animals" in Genesis 1 therefore signifies that God commands humanity to lower themselves and wait upon other animals as a powerless servant rather than a God-like authority (Chen 2024).
6. Conclusion
It turns out that C.S. Lewis’s Pharisaic attitude towards animals is not an isolated phenomenon, but a trait shared by many “animal friendly” theologians before and after him, e.g., John Calvin (1509 –1564), John Wesley, Karl Barth (1886-1968), Sir Matthew Hale (1609-1676), Stephen Webb (1961-2016), William Scully (1959), Michael Rennie Stead (1969-).
These theologians or priests all seemingly progressively think that “dominion” should be interpreted as responsible and compassionate stewardship and care for creation instead of a license for exploitation, and that while humans are granted dominion in terms of power over animals, this privilege comes with the grave responsibility to treat animals with dignity and compassion. The kind of stewardship in their mind, however, includes the right to domesticate and raise innocent creatures of God in order to kill them for food or for clothing, and to use them for labour and entertainment, etc., provided they are treated with dignity while they live. This can all be traced back to their misinterpretation of “dominion” as lordship or surrogate Godhood, instead of servanthood devoid of power and authority. Mind you: "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely!" (Lord Acton 1887).
Notes
1. Lewis devotes a whole chapter of his 1959 book, The Problem of Pain, to animal pain. Lewis, however, claims therein that as most less advanced animals can only experience a succession of separate perceptions without being able to integrate them, they are not conscious, they cannot feel pain, and they have no individuality. At the end of the day, Lewis actually suggests that all animals are like that, without producing any scientific evidence (Lewis 1959:125). This is akin to the notorious and pseudo-scientific animal-machine doctrine as expounded by René Descartes in his 1637 book, Discourse on Method, which contends that animals are machines without any feelings or awareness at all. Both Descartes and Lewis appear to be trying to justify the abuse, exploitation, torture, rape, and murder of animals, with Lewis more cunningly disguising his agenda with animal concern.
2. Lewis published in 1947 a booklet entitled Vivisection which ostensibly condemns vivisection. But in reality, the booklet states that as long as a Christian pathologist experiments on animals carefully, humanely, respectfully and responsibly, he/she deserves our respect, even if we do not agree with him/her. This reminds of Karl Barth who argues that vivisectionists, butchers and hunters are honourable as long as they do their job protectively, caringly, friendlily, and reservedly, like a high priest in remembrance of Jesus Christ’s self-sacrifice (Barth 1961:354-5). One wonders, however, how could there be anything caring and friendly about killing someone who does not want to die.
According to Lewis, from the perspective of those naturalistic, atheist vivisectionists, animals are quintessentially the same as humans, just that the human species is the smartest. “All the grounds a Christian might defend vivisection are thus cut from under our feet. We sacrifice other species to our own not because our own has any objective metaphysical privilege over others, but simply because… they cannot prevent us”, signs Lewis (1947:9). In that case, “it is only logical to cut up imbeciles, criminals, enemies, or capitalists for the same reasons” and the Nazis had just done that, warns Lewis (1947:10). Sounds very progressive, eh? But the logical fallacy here is two wrongs do not make a wrong. When we believe we have any objective spiritual privilege over animals, we may also deem it logical to cut up members of other nations, races, religions, institutions, whom we label “inferior” for the same reason!
Коментарі