**This response is biblically sound and personable. The writer walks the questioner through the arguments logically, demonstrating how to think through them and also how to engage others in thinking through them. The response both answers the question and models how to go about processing through objections people raise about the Bible.**
Question: This was a new objection to Romans 1:20 that I have trouble refuting (posited by an atheist vegan). So vegans believe that animals are capable of suffering and therefore are entitled to the same right to live without being killed as humans. I made a comment about how fish weren’t designed to show emotions the same way humans are, and they responded by claiming that the proper term is “evolved” instead of “designed”. They seemed to insinuate that by affirming God as Creator and accepting that He truly has revealed Himself through what has been made and that humans are without excuse, Christians also believe God gave people His blessing to commit wanton acts of violence against animals and therefore God is okay with going around torturing animals for one’s own amusement (If not to eat them as food). I have no idea how to respond to this. Should I even bother, or is this person just coming up with excuses to hate God despite having no excuse for doing so (if we take Romans 1:20 seriously)?
Profile: Male, North America, 19–25, Christian
Answered by: Paul Sultan, who has been a volunteer with us since September, 2020.
Answer: Thank you for your question.
Is the Romans 1:20 argument that, because God has revealed Himself in nature, humans should not eat animals? The root of the argument seems to be an accusation of hypocrisy – if Christians really believed Romans 1:20, they would not eat animals. But that observation, in the absence of any additional reasoning, fails to complete the connection between the verse and a Biblical mandate of veganism.
The Apostle Paul presents a type of cosmological argument in the first chapter of Romans. It is an assertion that observations of creation itself provide an argument for a creator (natural revelation). There seems to be so much order and purpose to the universe, it is difficult to accept it all exists due to random, undirected processes. One could conclude from the atheist’s argument that humans should not eat anything God created. If so, then the prohibition would include plants in addition to animals, leaving no food for human consumption. This may be the atheist’s point. However, from the Christian perspective, God has no objections to people eating animals (Genesis 9:3; Acts 10:9 – 13).
Does the atheist provide any Biblical citations for the assertion that God has no objection to animal cruelty? Both Genesis and Proverbs indicate the opposite. The Genesis creation account implies that humans are to consider themselves to be stewards or caretakers of nature and not tyrants to rule over it for the sake of ruling (Genesis 2:15). Practicing responsible stewardship is not only an act of obedience, it also seems to be consistent with the narrative’s theme of humans as image-bearers. Proverbs is more explicit. It is righteous, or God-like, to care for the animals over which we have dominion (Proverbs 12:10).
One way to engage the atheist’s argument is to accept the premise and challenge him or her to acknowledge the logical consequences. If it is true that we, and the rest of creation are not intentionally created, then what is wrong with killing and eating animals? A possible response could be reason and logic. If so, then how is my choice to exercise my position at the top of the food chain unreasonable and illogical? Reason and logic may allow me to conclude I should not eat animals because it is cruel. But does that reason and logic compel me to do so? The atheist’s argument suffers the absence of a transcendent standard (i.e., some type of sacred or God-specified assertion) to which we are all obligated to comply. Why does the atheist’s reason and logic take precedence over my own?
References:
Mounce, Robert H. Romans. Vol. 27. The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995.
