Comparing religious and scientific worldviews

Truth Seeker

Contradictions Among Major Religions

1. Christianity

Core claims:

One God in three persons (Trinity).
Jesus is the incarnate Son of God, fully divine and human.
Salvation through faith in Christ’s atoning death on the cross and resurrection.
Resurrection of the dead: souls go to eternal heaven or hell.
Scripture (the Bible) is divinely inspired and uniquely authoritative.

Contradictions:

Islam and Judaism deny the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus.
Hinduism and Buddhism reject sin and atonement theology.
Jainism, Buddhism, and Hinduism teach reincarnation, not resurrection.
Science and other religious creation stories contradict the Genesis creation timeline.

2. Islam

Core claims:

Absolute monotheism: Allah has no partners or equals.
Muhammad is the final prophet; the Qur’an is the final revelation.
Salvation through submission to Allah and good deeds.
Denies Jesus’s divinity and crucifixion (claims he was raised to heaven).
Afterlife: resurrection, judgment, paradise or hell.

Contradictions:

Christianity affirms Jesus’s crucifixion and divinity.
Judaism rejects Muhammad as a prophet.
Hinduism and Buddhism reject a single creator God.
Zoroastrianism and Baháʼí accept different revelations.

3. Judaism

Core claims:

One God (YHWH), creator and sustainer of all.
God revealed the Torah to Moses; Israel is His chosen people.
Awaiting a future human Messiah (not yet arrived).
The afterlife is ambiguous or metaphorical in traditional Judaism.

Contradictions:

Christianity and Islam claim new covenants that supersede Judaism.
Hinduism and Buddhism deny creation ex nihilo by a personal God.
Sikhism and Baháʼí include prophets outside Jewish tradition.

4. Jainism

Core claims:

The universe is eternal; no creator God.
Souls are eternal and bound by karma.
Liberation through nonviolence and detachment.
Reincarnation until the soul attains perfect purity.

Contradictions:

Monotheistic religions claim a creator deity; Jainism denies one.
Rejects divine grace, atonement, and prophecy - key in Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam).
Jain cosmology contradicts linear creation-and-end-time narratives.

5. Buddhism

Core claims:

No creator God; the cosmos is beginningless.
Life is suffering; liberation ends rebirth.
Morality and mindfulness purify the mind; no permanent soul.

Contradictions:

The denial of an eternal soul contradicts Hinduism’s doctrine.
Rejects divine revelation, creator God, and heaven/hell as eternal states.
Incompatible with Abrahamic resurrection or judgment beliefs.

6. Hinduism

Core claims:

Brahman: the ultimate, formless reality; gods are manifestations.
Cyclic creation and destruction of the universe.
Reincarnation and karma govern all beings. People are born into castes.
Liberation through good karma, devotion, knowledge, and discipline.

Contradictions:

Contradicts Abrahamic linear time and single creation.
Conflicts with monotheistic rejection of polytheism.
Karma and reincarnation oppose ideas of divine judgment or eternal hell.

7. Sikhism

Core claims:

One formless, eternal God.
Founded by Guru Nanak. The Sikh scripture is the Guru Granth Sahib.
Rejects ritualism, caste, and idolatry.
Stresses ethical living, meditation on God’s name, and equality.

Contradictions:

Rejects both polytheism (Hinduism) and incarnation (Christianity).
Denies Muhammad and Jesus as final or unique revelations.
Rejects karmic fatalism, yet accepts reincarnation - unlike Abrahamic faiths.

8. Zoroastrianism

Core claims:

Ahura Mazda is the supreme creator and source of all good.
Angra Mainyu is the spirit of evil - cosmic dualism.
Human free choice determines alignment with good or evil.
Afterlife judgment; eventual restoration of creation.

Contradictions:

Abrahamic monotheism denies any co-eternal evil being.
Hinduism’s cyclical cosmology differs from Zoroastrian linear eschatology.
Buddhism and Jainism reject moral dualism as metaphysical reality.

9. Baháʼí Faith

Core claims:

One God reveals truth progressively through messengers (Abraham, Moses, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, Baháʼu’lláh, etc.).
All religions share one divine source; unity of humanity is the goal.
Science and religion are complementary.

Contradictions:

Christianity, Islam, and Judaism reject new revelation after their prophets.
Buddhism and Jainism do not affirm a personal God or revelation model.
Baháʼí universalism contradicts exclusivist truth-claims of others.

10. Daoism (also translated as Taoism)

Core claims:

The Dao is the natural, ineffable cosmic principle underlying all.
Harmony through wu-wei (non-forcing action) and balance (yin-yang).
No personal creator God; immortality and transcendence sought through harmony.

Contradictions:

Denies personal God of Abrahamic religions.
Rejects moral absolutism - emphasizes balance rather than divine command.
Contradicts the karma/rebirth model of Buddhism and Hinduism.

11. Shintō

Core claims:

Indigenous Japanese religion centered on kami (spirits of nature, ancestors, forces).
No creator god; the world is inherently good.
Ritual purity and harmony with nature are central.

Contradictions:

Polytheism and animism contradict monotheism.
No doctrine of sin or salvation, unlike Abrahamic faiths.
Rejects karma/rebirth system of Buddhism, though often blended in Japan.

12. Animism (Global Indigenous Traditions)

Core claims:

Everything (animals, plants, rivers, mountains) has a spirit or life-force.
The world is a web of relationships; rituals maintain balance with spirits.
Often lacks a supreme creator but recognizes local deities or ancestors.

Contradictions:

Conflicts with monotheistic exclusivity (one God only).
Contradicts non-theistic worldviews (e.g., secular humanism, Buddhism).
Challenges doctrines separating humans from nature or spirit from matter.

Each religion provides a different - often mutually exclusive - account of:

The origin of the universe (created once vs. eternally cycling)
The nature of God (one, many, or none)
The human condition (sin, ignorance, karma, illusion)
The path to salvation/liberation (faith, works, enlightenment, devotion)
The afterlife (heaven/hell, rebirth, none, or ancestral spirit world)

What Science Tells Us

Origin and Age of the Universe

Evidence: Cosmic microwave background radiation, galactic redshift, and abundance of light elements.

Conclusion: The universe began with the Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago.

No evidence supports a six-day creation by the Biblical God or the claim by Biblical literalists that the universe is 6,000 years old.

Age of the Solar System and Earth

Meteorite dating, radiometric isotopes, and lunar samples show:

Solar system: ≈4.57 billion years old

Earth: ≈4.54 billion years old

Evolution of Life

Evidence: Fossil record, DNA homology, comparative anatomy, observed natural selection.

Conclusion: All life evolved through common descent over billions of years.

First single-celled life: ~3.8 billion years ago

Humans share ~98.8% of DNA with chimpanzees.

No scientific evidence supports independent, instantaneous creation of species.

At least 99.9% of all the species that have evolved on Earth so far have gone extinct due to five mass extinctions.

Consciousness and the Soul

Findings: Neural activity correlates with every measurable aspect of thought, memory, and emotion.

Brain injuries, anesthesia, and neuroimaging all show consciousness depends on the physical brain.

No reproducible evidence exists for an immaterial, detachable soul.

Reincarnation and Resurrection

Claims of past-life memory or bodily resurrection lack empirical confirmation.

Rigorous investigations (e.g., by Ian Stevenson, Jim Tucker) remain anecdotal and inconclusive.

No verified mechanism allows the reanimation or transmigration of consciousness after death.

Summary

Every major religion offers mutually exclusive explanations of the universe’s origin, purpose, and future.

Science, using observation, testing, and revision, provides a consistent and independently verifiable picture:

Universe: 13.8 billion years old

Earth: 4.54 billion years old

Life evolved gradually through natural processes

Consciousness arises from neurological activities, not supernatural souls.

Therefore, while religious faiths differ irreconcilably in beliefs, scientific cosmology and biology converge on a single evidence-based worldview - one that continues to expand through discovery rather than divine decree. Hence, my worldview is scientific, secular and vegan. What is your worldview? How do you justify your worldview?

DingoJones

How does Vegan fit in? Vegan is…scientific?

Punshhh

↪Truth Seeker

Science only works with what we can detect with instruments. Its conclusions are limited to that. It is mute about the basis of existence and key philosophical questions.

Truth Seeker

How does Vegan fit in? Vegan is…scientific? — DingoJones

Veganism is based on evidence, reason and empathy. Evidence shows that other organisms are sentient, e.g. cows, dogs, cats, fish, octopuses, elephants, lions, meerkats, zebras, horses, monkeys, chimps, chickens, whales, dolphins, goats, ducks, lambs, turkeys, lobsters, etc. They all respond to pain, the way we respond to pain. They have sophisticated nervous systems. I empathise with the pain and distress of all sentient beings. That's why I am a vegan. Non-vegans cause suffering and death to 80 billion sentient land organisms and 1 to 3 trillion sentient aquatic organisms per year. Veganism is also better for the environment and for human health. Here is more information about reasons to go vegan: https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/why-go-vegan

Truth Seeker

Science only works with what we can detect with instruments. Its conclusions are limited to that. It is mute about the basis of existence and key philosophical questions. — Punshhh

Beautifully said - and I completely agree. Science excels at mapping what happens and how it happens, but not why anything matters. Instruments can register particles, forces, and correlations, but not value, significance, or moral responsibility. Those arise in the first-person field of experience that science must presuppose but cannot exhaust.

For me, that’s exactly where philosophy begins - not in competition with science but as its horizon of intelligibility. Science describes the measurable; philosophy interprets the meaning of measurement. When I speak of Compassionism as a metaphysical condition, I’m not proposing an alternative physics but pointing to the fact that inquiry itself presupposes care: the desire to know, to reduce error, to communicate truth, are all ethical acts. Even science rests on a covenant of trust and cooperation - the minimal compassion of minds working together in a shared world.

So yes, science is mute about the basis of existence, but its very success depends on that silent ground: the lived, ethical, and relational world that gives data its sense. In that light, compassion isn’t opposed to reason - it’s the precondition of reason’s continuity. Without care for truth, evidence, or one another, even science would collapse into noise.

180 Proof

↪Truth Seeker

:up: :up:

Summary

Every major religion offers mutually exclusive [non]explanations of the universe’s origin, purpose, and future.

Science, using observation, testing, and revision, provides a consistent and independently ~~verifiable~~ [testable] picture:

Universe: 13.8 billion years old

Earth: 4.54 billion years old

Life evolved gradually through natural processes

Consciousness arises from neurological activities, not supernatural souls.

Therefore, while religious faiths differ irreconcilably in beliefs, scientific cosmology and biology converge on a single evidence-based worldview - one that continues to expand through discovery rather than divine decree.

Hence, my ~~worldview~~ is scientific, secular and vegan. — Truth Seeker

:100:

What is your ~~worldview~~?

"My ~~worldview~~" consists of (A) anti-supernatural, (B) anti-authoritarian/sectarian/utopian, and (C) anti-dogmatic commitments (i.e. constraints) ...

(2022)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/798898

How do you justify your ~~worldview~~?

I think 'pragmatic absurdism' (re: Laozi ... Zapffe, Camus, Rosset) best describes my day to day existential stance.

Truth Seeker

↪180 Proof

Thank you very much for answering my question. It's always fascinating to learn how others see reality.

ssu

How does Vegan fit in? Vegan is…scientific? — DingoJones

Hypocrite. Human being is an omnivore. We aren't herbivores.

But if you have a better consciousness and feel better about yourself, why not?

ssu

What is your worldview? How do you justify your worldview? — Truth Seeker

That I don't know everything interesting I would want to know and hence are open to new ideas and fact. Hopefully, at least, that's my "hypocrite" way I think of myself.

DingoJones

Hypocrite. Human being is an omnivore. We aren't herbivores. — ssu

Huh? II’m a hypocrite or a vegan is?

But if you have a better consciousness and feel better about yourself, why not? — ssu

Not sure what point you're making.

ssu

↪DingoJones

Humans are omnivores, not herbivores.

Truth Seeker

↪ssu

Humans evolved as omnivores, but we are not obligate omnivores. There are many vegetarians and vegans among humans. I am a vegan. Who are you calling a hypocrite? Here are some resources if you want to learn more: https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/why-go-vegan
https://veganuary.com
https://www.carnismdebunked.com

ssu

Who are you calling a hypocrite? — Truth Seeker

Veganism is an option as you said, but it's not based on science, but moral choices. But then perhaps I misunderstood your OP in that veganism is basically your values. Values aren't based on science as in science things are true/exist or false/don't exist, not right or wrong. That's why the reference to having a better consciousness and feel better about yourself when choosing veganism, when vegetarianism seems not to be enough for you.

Truth Seeker

↪ssu

Thank you for explaining what you mean. Veganism is based on scientific evidence, reason and empathy. Evidence shows that other organisms are sentient, e.g. cows, dogs, cats, fish, octopuses, elephants, lions, meerkats, zebras, horses, monkeys, chimps, chickens, whales, dolphins, goats, ducks, lambs, turkeys, lobsters, etc. They all respond to pain, the way we respond to pain. They have sophisticated nervous systems. I empathise with the pain and distress of all sentient beings.

Why vegetarian isn't enough
The suffering caused by the dairy and egg industry is possibly less well publicised than the plight of factory farmed animals. The production of dairy products necessitates the death of countless male calves that are of no use to the dairy farmer, as well as the premature death of cows slaughtered when their milk production decreases. Similarly, in egg production, even 'ethical' or 'free range' eggs involve the killing of the 'unnecessary' male chicks when just a day old.

That's why I am a vegan.

DingoJones

Humans are omnivores, not herbivores. — ssu

Uh huh, i didnt claim other wise you are confused. Not a vegan.

ssu

↪Truth Seeker

As a choice of an individual, veganism works fine. I myself think that a balanced diet is totally fine too. Perhaps 1-3% of people are vegans. So it is quite understandable, that as a tiny minority, the world isn't going to play by vegan rules. In my world view humans are just very intelligent animals thanks to an advanced language, writing etc. Still, we are a part of ecology of this world part of the animal kingdom, not separate from it. That's also based on scientific evidence, but I understand that others will make a divide between humans and everything else. Yet obviously we have to take care of the planet when we control it. Likely as we will see in the future a peak in human population and the a decrease in the population, we aren't such a danger to the world as some think we are.

But let's think about this for a while.

What value you give to let's say to the life and existence of Ayshire and Holstein cows in the world?

They do exist and live (or are raised), for example, near my summer place. There aren't so many of them around anymore, as there's only one farm with dairy cattle. In my youth decades ago two close neighbors had cattle and I myself sometimes helped to herd the cows from the field to the cowshed with the neighbors family. Every one had a name, btw, but naturally the cowshed wasn't as "luxurious" as let's say the modern cowshed of the University of Helsinki with large open spaces and automatic milking stations. When my great grandmother lived, there were horses, cows and chicken in their home too (now my summerplace), because the roots of Finnish agriculture were still mainly subsistence farming (well into the 20th Century). Now those cowsheds and fields around my summerplace are empty (but the fields are at least still cultivated), basically because of globalization. The neighbors mother (now a grandmother) is sad that her grandchildren never had animals around them in their childhood.

Just to put things into perspective, here's just how cows in general compare to us humans and for example to wild mammals:

w=1350

Now if some global dictator would define that everybody has to be vegan, the "Maoist" version would cause a mass extinction event not only in mammals, but also in birds and fish (let's not forget that half of the fish we eat in the planet are farmed too) and a hectic time for slaughterhouses and a lot of biomass to be burned for energy to make electricity, I guess. As American get about 30% of their calories from animal-based food, that's a huge change which drastically changes the economy. Naturally the more "humane" transformation would be to replace the domesticated animals we have had for over 10 000 years with lab-grown meat, which I presume vegans wouldn't eat, but tolerate, and let all the billions of living being just end their life without growing a new generations. Yet that too would end up in a mass extinction event.

If you argue that Holstein or Ayshire cows shouldn't exist because of their plight or their short life, usually 5 years compared to 20 years they would live, the question is if that short life is still worth to exist? Animal cruelty I object also and the "living standards" of farm animals have improved a lot, which is good. Yet is there any inherent value in the life of our domesticated animals?

Truth Seeker

Only about 1% of the 8.25 billion humans currently alive are vegan even though the word vegan was coined 81 years ago. 80 billion sentient land organisms and 1 to 3 trillion sentient aquatic organisms are killed by non-vegans per year. Despite this, I don't think people should be forced to go vegan. I think conversion to veganism should be voluntary.

There are sanctuaries for animals where rescued animals live out their natural lives. Holstein and Ayshire cows could be moved to such sanctuaries.

If all people gradually become vegan, farmers won't breed animals for slaughter or milk or egg, etc. I think gradual change is easier to manage.

ssu

There are sanctuaries for animals where rescued animals live out their natural lives. Holstein and Ayshire cows could be moved to such sanctuaries. — Truth Seeker

You didn't answer my question.

OK, just look at these Holsteins and Ayshire cows. They have been bread to produce milk and basically are as dependent on us humans as all the pets we have and basically aren't there for surviving in the wild. What sanctuary are you thinking of?

Then, as the graph above depicts clearly, there's multiple times more livestock than there are wild mammals and thus "creating a sanctuary" for all that livestock is quite an ordeal. So if you assume that then there's these sanctuaries (likely the farms that they already are in, for practical purposes) that "they live out their natural lives", then you really have to answer the question: how many do you assume to reproduce? None? That's a mass extinction event. A few? There's something like 22 million Holstein cows now in 160 countries. So would the number be 5 000 Holsteins kept in a museum-sanctuary describing that pre-vegan era human farmed animals? Or just 500?

So let me as the question again. What is the value of the life of livestock including the 22 million Holstein cows for you? Do these animals, according to you, suffer in their life so much they don't even earn those five years of life at all? That they shouldn't exist because of your values?

Truth Seeker

↪ssu

I thought I did answer your question. My answer is to put them in sanctuaries such as this one: https://www.farmanimalrescuesanctuary.co.uk All sentient beings matter equally.

You’re raising a fair logistical question, but it’s built on a mistaken premise. Veganism isn’t about retroactively erasing all domesticated animals - it’s about ending the breeding, exploitation, and killing of sentient beings for profit or palate.

Holsteins and Ayrshires, like dogs or cats, were selectively bred by humans to serve human ends. That doesn’t mean their dependence makes their exploitation ethically acceptable. Dependence isn’t consent. We created that dependence through artificial selection; we can end it responsibly through gradual, compassionate transition.

Sanctuaries are not meant to house all existing livestock. If the demand for dairy and meat declines, so does forced breeding. Populations shrink naturally over time, as fewer animals are brought into existence for human use. That’s not “mass extinction” - it’s the end of an industrial breeding cycle that exists only because humans perpetuate it.

And yes, the lives of most livestock are filled with suffering - separation from their young, physical mutilations, confinement, and slaughter at a fraction of their natural lifespan. The fact that humans created these conditions doesn’t make them justified. If beings are bred into existence primarily to be used and killed, their suffering outweighs the value of their artificially imposed existence.

Vegan ethics doesn’t deny that these animals have value; it insists that their value isn’t dependent on their usefulness to us. The goal is not zero cows - it’s zero exploitation.

In nature, cows can live around twenty to twenty-five years, but in farming, beef cows are typically killed between one and three years old, and dairy cows between four and six, once their milk yield declines. Veal calves are slaughtered at only four to six months old. Pigs can live fifteen to twenty years, yet “meat pigs” are killed at five to six months, and breeding sows after just three to five years when their fertility drops. Sheep and lambs have natural lifespans of ten to twelve years, but most lambs are slaughtered between four and twelve months, while adult sheep used for wool or breeding are killed around six to eight years. Chickens naturally live eight to ten years, but broiler chickens are slaughtered at only five to seven weeks, and egg-laying hens are killed after about twelve to eighteen months when their egg production declines. Male chicks, considered useless for egg production, are usually killed on the day they hatch. Turkeys can live around ten years, yet most are killed between four and six months. Goats can live fifteen to eighteen years, but dairy goats are killed after about four to six years, and meat goats - often called “kids” - between three and twelve months. Buffalo and oxen can live around twenty to twenty-five years, but they are usually slaughtered between three and six years old.

In every case, these animals die long before reaching even a small fraction of their natural lifespan. Veganism questions whether shortening and exploiting sentient lives for taste, tradition, or convenience can ever be morally justified. The issue is not the number of animals alive, but whether beings capable of suffering should exist only to be used and killed.

ssu

We created that dependence through artificial selection; we can end it responsibly through gradual, compassionate transition. — Truth Seeker

So your answer is to end them. With a "gradual, compassionate transition". You want these breeds to be erased, but are "compassionate" about it.

In this view you seem to put a lower value on animals that have been bread by humans than to other wildlife. Why the hostility and the categorical inequality between sentient animals? Or how about reindeer? They were domesticated from Mountain reindeer in the 13th Century in Norway and since them have roamed around freely in the tundra here in the Nordic Lapland. But since we have domesticated them and eat their meat (which is one of the most healthiest meats around as reindeer have a hugely varied diet with hundreds of different plants), I guess according to you the 200 000 or reindeer have to go too.

In every case, these animals die long before reaching even a small fraction of their natural lifespan. — Truth Seeker

Five years out of 20 years isn't a small fraction. And do note that not all live up to 20 years in the wild, just as not all humans reach 75 years.

I think your point is something that is very popular with many people: they make this huge and all-encompassing separation with humans and the wildlife/biosphere being totally different from us. Seems like everything we have touched is contaminated and has to deposed of. With vegans it's about animals, but with others it's foreign species introduced to new environments by humans. Of course this can be destabilizing, when you introduce some species that doesn't have anything eating it or limiting it's expanse. But in many cases the introduction isn't so bad, especially when the plant or animal is basically cultivated or farmed. Yet I don't share this view of humans being different from everything else as I think we are part of the biosphere and just a dominant species among others and what we do is similar to other species that mold their environment. That doesn't mean that we don't have a responsibility, naturally.

Tom Storm

Hence, my worldview is scientific, secular and vegan. What is your worldview? How do you justify your worldview? — Truth Seeker

I live by my intuition and don't really justify my views. I am an atheist and tend to hold simple minded pragmatic positions on most subjects. For now I hold that reality isn’t fixed or fully knowable. Our experience of the world is shaped by the ways we interpret and describe it, and probably not by any underlying objective structure. We can never capture the “whole truth” because reality is always more complex than any explanation. I try to focus instead on understanding the limits of my knowledge and the frameworks I use to make sense of the world.

Truth Seeker

↪ssu

"So your answer is to end them. With a "gradual, compassionate transition". You want these breeds to be erased, but are "compassionate" about it."

No - not “erased,” but retired. Compassionate transition means no longer breeding animals into dependence, suffering, and slaughter. The individuals alive today would be cared for in sanctuaries. What ends is the cycle of artificial breeding for exploitation, not the existence of animals themselves.

If we stop forcing billions of animals into existence only to kill them young, that is not hostility - it’s the cessation of harm. A being who never suffers or dies because we never bred them into bondage isn’t a victim; it’s a harm prevented.

"In this view you seem to put a lower value on animals that have been bred by humans than to other wildlife. Why the hostility and the categorical inequality between sentient animals? Or how about reindeer?"

There’s no hostility toward any sentient being - only opposition to exploitation. I already said in my previous post: all sentient beings matter equally. The ethical distinction isn’t between “wild” and “domesticated,” but between free existence and forced breeding for human exploitation.

Reindeer who roam freely in tundra ecosystems and maintain natural behaviors are not comparable to cows or chickens bred into total dependency, mutilation, and slaughter. The moral issue arises when we breed sentient beings solely as resources to be exploited. If reindeer were no longer bred for consumption but allowed to live and die naturally, that would align perfectly with veganism and ecological balance.

"Five years out of 20 years isn't a small fraction. And do note that not all live up to 20 years in the wild, just as not all humans reach 75 years."

A lifespan cut short by deliberate violence at the hands of humans is fundamentally different from a natural lifespan limited by disease or predation. Factory-farmed cows typically live 4–6 years; their natural lifespan averages 18–25. Chickens are killed at 6 weeks, not 6–10 years. Pigs at 6 months, not 15–20 years. The ethical objection isn’t numerical - it’s that we prematurely and deliberately end sentient lives for unnecessary reasons, when alternatives exist. It's not just the issue of reduced lifespan - the quality of life the farm animals have is horrific. You can search for videos online if you want to see the appalling conditions the chickens, turkeys, pigs, cows, etc. are kept in.

"I don’t share this view of humans being different from everything else as I think we are part of the biosphere and just a dominant species among others and what we do is similar to other species that mold their environment."

We are part of the biosphere, and precisely because of that, our moral awareness gives us greater responsibility, not exemption. Wolves don’t have slaughterhouses, nor do tigers selectively breed prey species for maximal suffering and yield. Ethical agency differentiates might from right.

Saying “we’re just another species” is true biologically but not morally. Other animals act from instinct; humans act with foresight, reflection, and the capacity to choose compassion over cruelty. Recognizing our participation in nature should lead us to minimize unnecessary harm, not rationalize it.

Truth Seeker

↪Tom Storm

Thank you very much for sharing your position. It's always interesting to learn how others view reality.

ssu

I already said in my previous post: all sentient beings matter equally. The ethical distinction isn’t between “wild” and “domesticated,” but between free existence and forced breeding for human exploitation. — Truth Seeker

My point is that when we are responsible for the species and the ecology, we have to make decisions that you seem not to think that don't have to be made. Veganism as a choice of an individual surely doesn't have to answer to these issues, but others have to do it.

There’s no hostility toward any sentient being - only opposition to exploitation. I already said in my previous post: all sentient beings matter equally. — Truth Seeker

You're not making sense. How can you even say that you are treating animals equally when you are hell bent on eradicating all livestock and farm animals? That's billions of animals. That "they would die of old age" isn't as humane as you think it is, just like it wouldn't have made less diabolical the genocidal objectives of the Nazi if they would just had separated every male and female [/i]Untermensch there exists and let them die of old age. We would naturally call it a genocide and that the people would be treated more humanely than being slaughtered doesn't make the end result morally better.

Reindeer who roam freely in tundra ecosystems and maintain natural behaviors are not comparable to cows or chickens bred into total dependency, mutilation, and slaughter. — Truth Seeker

Well, they are killed in the end. So what's different? You think every cow or chicken that has ever lived has been treated cruelly? And because of this they, as animals, shouldn't exist? You truly are drawing dramatic lines on just what species is worthy of living based on their treatment and their connection to humans and then denying this, which is very confusing.

If reindeer were no longer bred for consumption but allowed to live and die naturally, that would align perfectly with veganism and ecological balance. — Truth Seeker

OK, let's think this through.

We know how an "ecological balance" comes about. So your argument would be simply to "let nature take care of the reindeer". Knowing how fragile the Nordic tundra is, that is a recipe for disaster. Now when the reindeer would be left wander on without any supervision and let them freely have offspring, then the amount of them would likely multiply because there simply aren't enough predators around to eat them. For example, just in Finland there are 200 000 reindeer. In one year, they multiply to 300 000 and hence roughly 100 000 are slaughtered annually and the population is kept at a steady 200 000. Predators eat roughly 2000 of them annually and about 3000 of them die in traffic accidents (because they are smart animals, they use the few roads in Lapland as it's more easy to move on them than in the marshy forests and the reindeer lick the salt used to de-ice the roads). Yet that's a small dent in the 100 000 newborn population annually.

Reality for drivers in Finnish Lapland. No need for English translation, the other Finn is pissed off and cursing about the traffic jam, the other one takes it humorously:

So you can easily see how in just a few years, reindeers would be a huge problem when reindeer increase substantially. Of course, the "ecological balance" would be found with the millions reindeer eating the tundra bare land and then dying in numbers in a famine in the millions. In the end, some kind of "balance" could perhaps be the outcome, but the fragile tundra would have gotten a severe beating with likely many plants species becoming extinct.

The introduction of rabbits into Australia shows what happens when there aren't enough predators around.

Simply put it, when we have molded the biosphere as we, we have to take care of it. And taking care means that we have to anticipate what results our actions have. The simplistic ideology of do not harm animals and let them be isn't going to work here, because the "hands off" approach is a horrible decision and to "have some of them die of old age" has also huge consequences. The ideology is simply not taking at all into consideration what it would mean when taken as an universal law.

Comparing religious and scientific worldviews

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions