Replies

You are certainly entitled to reject modern scientific findings regarding animal intelligence, just as you are entitled to reject the modern scientific embrace of the theory of evolution. I am afraid, however, that your rejection puts you in the camp of obsolete scientific thinking.

Vegetarians by definition do not eat fish. I certainly do not. And, ethical vegetarianism has nothing to do with "P.C." It's a concept as old as Pythagoras, and probably older.

Modern science is unanimous in its conclusion that animals feel pain. As far as science now knows, plants do not feel pain. You may enjoy this essay explaining why: http://skepdic.com/plants.html

Do plants experience something like pain? Perhaps. As you correctly point out, we will never know for sure. Is it on the level of awareness of a cow or human? Of course not. Since one must eat to live, it follows that if one wishes to cause the least amount of suffering, one should eat lowest on the evolutionary scale, that is, eat only plants.

I offer this message as a rebuttal, but I accept that you and I will not agree on whether or not nonhuman animals think and feel (my cats, I'm sure, disagree with you as well). Still, it is good that you reject cruelty to animals, for whatever reasons you may have. Having worked at a sanctuary for abused, tortured, and mutilated animals, I can tell you that their capacity to suffer is all too real.

There are some people who don't care at all about cruelty to animals, and some who outright enjoy inflicting it (such people are usually cruel to other people, too), and while I respect your opinions despite disagreeing with them, for those latter people, I have only comtempt.

" I am afraid, however, that your rejection puts you in the camp of obsolete scientific thinking. "

WE all have our own opinions, and list of forbidden things, but you presuppose that science is always correct.
I place modern scientific "fact" into the realm of possiblilty, only. But to embrace modern science as THE authority, is to follow down a very slippery slope.
Modern science makes us aware of problems we never knew existed. Example: They bring us the dire predictions of the end of life as we know it due to GLOBAL WARMING. Yet, most of the actual data, that the "scientists" use to predict the demise of civization, is based on hypotheses (computer modeling). Most of the ACTUAL data presented by NASA temperature recordings, and most other legitimate sources refute those conclusions. And history shows us tht the world has heated and cooled before! Did automobiles cause the ice age?
Observation and experience can lead to many different conclusions, based on utilizing the same data. But every study always starts with presupposition.
I applaud your commitment to vegetarianism, but I thoroughly enjoyed the NY strip beef steak I grilled for lunch and served with a baked potato, smothered with butter and sour cream. I do not consider the raising of this cow, to be slaughtered for my enjoyment, as cruel.
And to point to science saying that heart disease, hypertension, etc come from eating meat, I just accept that we will all die from something. I am more concerned with what happens AFTER DEATH! It was a good steak!
As for agreement, though, we can both agree that to enforce NEEDLESS suffering is cruel. There is certainly enough data to confirm that most of those folks doing harm to dumb animals, are much more likely to harm a person!
But God will deal with them, not me and you!
But I do accept, BY FAITH, that all of CREATION is for OUR (man/woman) benefit, not for those "dumb" animals. To me, it is not outdated superstition. It is the living, breathing Word of God!
I pray that you will see that science can't compete with Him, only confirm! Science is a religion, supposedly based on fact, but constantly "evolving". God is constant, never changing!
But, He is also benevolent enough to let us have a will, and gives us a choice.