Adam or Eve? Who to ultimately blame for the fall?

[Ghosty]

To the extent that people have radically different cognitive abilities from other animals (which is what having a soul means), I have to say that the evidence is that this developed in a population through many tiny steps, not in the equivalent of a single massive saltational mutation (or breathing in by God to a single couple) which then spread through the human population.

I’m afraid I have to disagree strongly here. An infant human with a soul has a drastically lower cognitive ability than an adult chimp, or even and adult dog. A person who is functionally a vegetable still has a soul, whether adult or child. Intellectual capacity is most certainly not the defining aspect, or any aspect really, of the human soul. What of advanced AI? Do you dismiss out of hand, on spiritual grounds, the potential for human-level cognition through AI? I know I don’t, though I think it will be very difficult to achieve, but I do dismiss out of hand humans creating souls artificially.

Studies of animals, most recently of dogs, have shown that they have extremely well developed cognitive abilities, far greater than we’ve previously given them credit for, up to and including the definite comprehension, and in some cases application, of complex language structures. I argue that intellect is a fundamentally animal and material quality, not in any way related to spiritual senses.

Incidently, Doctrine is not something that creates a reality, but rather the recognition of a reality. We don’t have souls because the Church said so, we have souls because God said so and the Church has recognized God’s work. Doctrines aren’t “plucked out of thin air”, but are rather spiritual realities that are reinforced by the Church when they come under attack, or are at risk of being forgotten or misunderstood. It’s no different from how scientific theory does not create reality, but rather understands it, albeit in a far more negative (in an active, not qualitative, sense) capacity.

 

[casper1949]

Meggie:

Adam should of protected Eve from, the serpant…he did not fulfil his role as a male protector, therefore it is his fault.

LOL now that is a Frist…

 

[hecd2]

Ghosty:

I’m afraid I have to disagree strongly here. An infant human with a soul has a drastically lower cognitive ability than an adult chimp, or even and adult dog. A person who is functionally a vegetable still has a soul, whether adult or child. Intellectual capacity is most certainly not the defining aspect, or any aspect really, of the human soul. What of advanced AI? Do you dismiss out of hand, on spiritual grounds, the potential for human-level cognition through AI? I know I don’t, though I think it will be very difficult to achieve, but I do dismiss out of hand humans creating souls artificially.

Studies of animals, most recently of dogs, have shown that they have extremely well developed cognitive abilities, far greater than we’ve previously given them credit for, up to and including the definite comprehension, and in some cases application, of complex language structures. I argue that intellect is a fundamentally animal and material quality, not in any way related to spiritual senses.

Incidently, Doctrine is not something that creates a reality, but rather the recognition of a reality. We don’t have souls because the Church said so, we have souls because God said so and the Church has recognized God’s work. Doctrines aren’t “plucked out of thin air”, but are rather spiritual realities that are reinforced by the Church when they come under attack, or are at risk of being forgotten or misunderstood. It’s no different from how scientific theory does not create reality, but rather understands it, albeit in a far more negative (in an active, not qualitative, sense) capacity.

I assume you are not claiming that, however great the cognitive abilities of dogs, chimps or dolphins might be, that they compare with human cognitive ability.

I assume that from what you said you believe that switching off the life support system of a brain dead person is reprehensible. I don’t.

As for having a soul, you are saying that the set of human beings and the set of beings with souls are identical and closed so I assume that by this definition an AI being with cognitive ability, equal to humans, has no soul. Understand that I am speaking hypothetically here and in no way offering an opinion as to whether or not AI can achieve that target, but I have to say that if AI achieves the ability to think abstractly and to feel as we do, or if another species of animal does the same (neither of these hypothetical things is in any way imminent of course) then I would be compelled to think of them like humans.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

space ghost:

We were always taught and I personally believe, that until Adam ate of the fruit it was no sin… what do you think?

I’ve never heard that before. I’m curious if you know why you were taught that. It seems that since Eve KNEW that she wasn’t supposed to eat of that tree that in doing so she disobeyed God.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

casper1949:

LOL now that is a Frist…

No, it’s true that Adam should have protected his bride.

---

Jesus did what Adam failed to do. Adam was not willing to stand up for, possibly even sacrifice himself for, his bride. Jesus was. He stood up to the devil for His Bride, the Church.

---

There is a great Genesis study at www.catholicexchange.com that goes into this in great detail.

 

[Ghosty]

I assume you are not claiming that, however great the cognitive abilities of dogs, chimps or dolphins might be, that they compare with human cognitive ability.

Actually I am claiming that, at the very least in specific circumstances. An infant is a human being with a soul, but has less of a cognitive ability than an adult chimp according to every measurement we can make. A mentally handicapped person is a human being with a soul, but can have less cognitive ability than an adult dog, but we don’t argue that they’re soulless. There is a great danger in defining the soul as cognitive ability, and it’s a view that borders on heresy when taken to its logical conclusion. Furthermore, we aren’t able to determine the capacity for abstract thought in advanced animals, but there are promising signs in many psychological studies that some animals are indeed capable of it. The only thing that limits our ability to study abstract thoughts in other species is our inability to communicate in a complex manner. Linguistic studies of dolphins and whales, however, have noted a startling degree of complexity and variation at a degree matching humans’. While we can’t say for sure that they are using words, we do know that certain animals are able to attach meanings to human words, and even instantly attach meanings to words they’ve never heard before.

The study is still in its infancy, but initial tests with dogs have been impressive to say the least: sciencenews.org/articles/20040612/fob2.asp

These studies can be taken in many different ways, however, so are more for flavor than anything. My main point is that there are human beings with the cognitive level of certain animals, and, in fact, all human beings pass through a phase of development in which they possess less cognitive ability than many animals. If advanced cognition and abstract thought are the characteristics of a soul, then any human younger than a toddler can not be said to possess a human soul.

I assume that from what you said you believe that switching off the life support system of a brain dead person is reprehensible. I don’t.

Actually I don’t either, as such treatment falls under extrordinary means, and no human is bound to live under extrodinary means. There is a huge difference, however, between brain-death and diminished cognition. I would certainly protest the killing of a severly handicapped person who could nonetheless survive by ordinary means, despite their inability to function at an adult, or even 5-year-old, level of cognition. This is why I view cognition-as-soul logic to be dangerously arbritrary, as it’s based on a sliding scale of measurement, a scale in which humans and animals overlap in many cases. It seems the fact is that the existance of the human soul can not be deduced purely through material rationality and understanding without opening the door for other animals, as they exist today, to be considered to have souls.

 

[batteddy]

I believe that we all take our human nature, our souls, Ultimately from Adam and Eve. The first humans in the Religious sense of the word.

We are all descended from them, but not necessarily ONLY them. Their children’s mates and their grandchildren’s mates etc for several generations were probably from the soul-less homo sapien population

Though, if they hadn’t fallen, they would probably have bred brother-sister for a while because as Glorified beings they would have married other beings with souls…but losing their Glory and enlightenment, surely would have biologically bred with their biological compatibles…and remember, brother-sister isn’t necessarily incest…incest is in the Direct Line of ancestry and descent…

Souls, then were, I suppose, an absolutely Dominant trait and if you had one souled parent you had a soul…the Bottleneck population genetically was not two but was probably still relatively small…and Souls began to “take”…

Or maybe souls were linked to some brain trait or dominant genetic thing that came originally from a mutation in Adam and Eve and so some of their descendents didn’t have souls if they didn’t inherit that trait through it being diluted by Non-souled humans interbreeding and getting Double Recessives again…but I think, religiously, it is more probable that if you have one souled homo sapien parent you have a soul…

But either way, for a while, yes there were non-souled homo-sapiens walking around however, and even non-homo-sapien hominids…but we know that they got wiped out…

We know that there are no non-souled homo sapiens walking around today because of the story of the Flood. The “giants” were pretty much wiped out by some disaster, while many souled humans were saved…and thus souled hominids were soon all that was left…

1 " When men began to multiply on earth and daughters were born to them,
2 the sons of heaven saw how beautiful the daughters of man were, and so they took for their wives as many of them as they chose. 3 Then the LORD said: “My spirit shall not remain in man forever, since he is but flesh. His days shall comprise one hundred and twenty years.” 4 At that time the Nephilim appeared on earth (as well as later), after the sons of heaven had intercourse with the daughters of man, who bore them sons. They were the heroes of old, the men of renown. 5 When the LORD saw how great was man’s wickedness on earth, and how no desire that his heart conceived was ever anything but evil, 6 he regretted that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was grieved. 7 So the LORD said: “I will wipe out from the earth the men whom I have created, and not only the men, but also the beasts and the creeping things and the birds of the air, for I am sorry that I made them.” 8 But Noah found favor with the LORD."

Now, often “sons of heaven” is interpretted as angels, and “sons of earth” or “man” as humans…but maybe “sons of heaven” means those souled humans…and “sons of the earth” or “man” means the non-human homo sapiens…and so it shows that the souled humans bred with the non-souled after the fall…and some or all of the children of that union had souls and so could be called “heroes”…but some were still giants and wicked son’s of the earth…and so a disaster happened which ensured that Souled Hominids would overtake and fully replace and breed out and dilute and entirely Soul the population…

 

[hecd2]

Ghosty:

An infant is a human being with a soul, but has less of a cognitive ability than an adult chimp according to every measurement we can make. A mentally handicapped person is a human being with a soul, but can have less cognitive ability than an adult dog, but we don’t argue that they’re soulless. There is a great danger in defining the soul as cognitive ability, and it’s a view that borders on heresy when taken to its logical conclusion. Furthermore, we aren’t able to determine the capacity for abstract thought in advanced animals, but there are promising signs in many psychological studies that some animals are indeed capable of it. The only thing that limits our ability to study abstract thoughts in other species is our inability to communicate in a complex manner. Linguistic studies of dolphins and whales, however, have noted a startling degree of complexity and variation at a degree matching humans’. While we can’t say for sure that they are using words, we do know that certain animals are able to attach meanings to human words, and even instantly attach meanings to words they’ve never heard before.

I suggest that human beings with a wide range of cognitive abilities limited either by age (either extreme young or extreme old age) or by disease states are different in kind from all non-human animals, however ‘bright’ the non-humans might be. I am extemely sceptical of all claims that non-human animals are able to think abstractly as normal adult humans do and I am supported in this by many scientific studies. My view is that the Catholic concept of the possession of souls by all human beings (ie using the set of human beings as that which determines beings with souls) is an unsurprising folk applicaton of the concept that adult humans are cognitively radically different from all other animals; and that humans who are cognitively inferior to some other animals (infants and the handicapped) are included in the set of beings with souls on account of their species relationship with adult humans who possess radically different cognitive abilities from all other animals. The concept is purely a species concept, and whereas modern enlightened Christianity includes all biological humans, it wasn’t always so - there were times, not so long ago, when some races, now acceped as fully human were not considered so and were denied humanity and a soul.

Actually I don’t either, as such treatment falls under extrordinary means, and no human is bound to live under extrodinary means. There is a huge difference, however, between brain-death and diminished cognition. I would certainly protest the killing of a severly handicapped person who could nonetheless survive by ordinary means, despite their inability to function at an adult, or even 5-year-old, level of cognition. This is why I view cognition-as-soul logic to be dangerously arbritrary, as it’s based on a sliding scale of measurement, a scale in which humans and animals overlap in many cases. It seems the fact is that the existance of the human soul can not be deduced purely through material rationality and understanding without opening the door for other animals, as they exist today, to be considered to have souls.

I agree with your assessment about the rights of those to life who have a 5-year old level of cogniton and who live otherwise normally. But the extraordinary means argument is neither straightforward nor focused solely on cognitive ability. You are content to switch off the life support system of a brain dead person as it represents extraordinary means. What do you say about a person with terminal renal failure who is kept alive by bi-weekly dialysis? I’d say it was as extraordinary means as vegatative life support is, but in the one case there is every reason to desist and in the other case there is every reason to persist.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

batteddy:

I believe that we all take our human nature, our souls, Ultimately from Adam and Eve. The first humans in the Religious sense of the word.

We are all descended from them, but not necessarily ONLY them. Their children’s mates and their grandchildren’s mates etc for several generations were probably from the soul-less homo sapien population

Souls, then were, I suppose, an absolutely Dominant trait and if you had one souled parent you had a soul…the Bottleneck population genetically was not two but was probably still relatively small…and Souls began to “take”…

But the genetic evidence is that the bottleneck was a minimum of 10,000 individuals.

Or maybe souls were linked to some brain trait or dominant genetic thing that came originally from a mutation in Adam and Eve and so some of their descendents didn’t have souls if they didn’t inherit that trait through it being diluted by Non-souled humans interbreeding and getting Double Recessives again…but I think, religiously, it is more probable that if you have one souled homo sapien parent you have a soul…

So your view is that having a soul is a genetic thing as you talk about mutation and dominance and ‘double recessive’. I must say that this view is contradicted by others who have answered me.

But either way, for a while, yes there were non-souled homo-sapiens walking around however, and even non-homo-sapien hominids…but we know that they got wiped out…

We know that there are no non-souled homo sapiens walking around today because of the story of the Flood. The “giants” were pretty much wiped out by some disaster, while many souled humans were saved…and thus souled hominids were soon all that was left…

Unfortunately, not only is there no evidence for a global flood but it is disallowed by the physics, the geology, the genetics and almost every other science we can think of. Furthermore the minimum bottleneck is 10,000 human individuals according to the genetic evidence which is rather more than the story of the flood would support, and the minimum bottleneck in many other species is much greater than the limited number than would have been on the Ark. I am afraid the story of Noah is as much a symbolic and non-literal story as the 6-day creation and the story and Adam and Eve are. The story of Noah is most likely the record of a disastrous local flood in the Middle East a few thousand years ago. It has no significance for wider human genetics and is a myth if applied globally.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[agname]

Eve. Women are always nagging us and getting us into trouble.

runs and hides

 

[Ghosty]

The concept is purely a species concept, and whereas modern enlightened Christianity includes all biological humans, it wasn’t always so - there were times, not so long ago, when some races, now acceped as fully human were not considered so and were denied humanity and a soul.

I’m not aware of any time in Church history where any humans were regarded as not having souls. There were debates in non-Catholic Christianity, and varying views, but the Church’s stance has always been that all humans have souls. The simple fact that Missions were often among the first things established in new lands is a sign of this.

I believe your argument delves into the realm of pure speculation, and ultimately it boils down simply to sentimentality. It seems to be a false jump in logic to apply a soul (which you argue is a degree cognition and abstract thought) to beings that have very limited cognition and no abstract thought based purely on their sexual compatibility with beings that do have souls. How does viable sexual compatibility impart this special quality of which no signs are present? Why do beings with no evidence of a soul, according to your definition, enjoy the benefit of one merely by relation? At what point can beings be said to have a soul? Was there a specific point at which abstract thought and cognition developed in a single generation to the degree necessary for a soul, or did it occur in steps, leaving people with “half-souls”? If people at one time had “half-souls”, then what level of soul-development do modern chimps have? What makes you think that we modern humans have a “complete” soul? For that matter, what defines a species? What of humans who naturally can’t sexually reproduce?

These questions point to the reason I believe that naturalists must either hold that there is no such thing as a soul, or abandon pure naturalism all together and adopt a spiritual model. Naturalist models simply can’t speak on the existance of the soul. In this particular case, the spiritual model that the Catholic Church proposes is grounded well within scientific knowledge and also in Revelation.

What do you say about a person with terminal renal failure who is kept alive by bi-weekly dialysis? I’d say it was as extraordinary means as vegatative life support is, but in the one case there is every reason to desist and in the other case there is every reason to persist.

I work with end-stage renal failure patients every day, and I don’t force them to go to dialysis any more than I force them to eat. Extraordinary means applies only to those who can’t make the decision themselves and who have left no orders for their care. A concious, right thinking person is well within their rights to request extraordinary means of treatment, or to deny it, just as they are well within their rights to stop eating.

 

[agname]

hecd2,

Read the following:

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ15.HTM

I don’t feel like writing a five page post.

 

[Ghosty]

The story of Noah is most likely the record of a disastrous local flood in the Middle East a few thousand years ago. It has no significance for wider human genetics and is a myth if applied globally.

In this you also seem to agree with the Church’s teaching on the subject. The Flood occured, but not globally, and likely not for exactly 40 days and 40 nights. This goes back to the use of figurative language to describe actual events.

 

[hecd2]

Ghosty:

In this you also seem to agree with the Church’s teaching on the subject. The Flood occured, but not globally, and likely not for exactly 40 days and 40 nights. This goes back to the use of figurative language to describe actual events.

Yes you, I and the Church agree 100% on this. However I was replying to someone (batteddy) who claimed that a global flood was the mechanism by which hominids without souls were eliminated from the world.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Ghosty:

I work with end-stage renal failure patients every day, and I don’t force them to go to dialysis any more than I force them to eat. Extraordinary means applies only to those who can’t make the decision themselves and who have left no orders for their care. A concious, right thinking person is well within their rights to request extraordinary means of treatment, or to deny it, just as they are well within their rights to stop eating.

Thanks for this clarification. So we are justified in withdrawing extraordinary means from vegetative adult patients. Conscous adult patients can make their own judgement about whether to use or withdraw from extraordinary means. What do we say about infants who need extraordinary means of life support? When must we provide it if we can, when are we justified in withdrawing it and when are we morally bound no longer to continue with it?

Ghosty, I don’t mean to be tricksy here - as a physician you face far more difficult ethical situations daily than I do, and I hugely respect that, but I simply want to make the point that once you accept that life support can be withdrawn in some circumstances then you are no longer in a absolute moral milieu but in a regime where you need to make relative judgements. And since you have been insisting that all humans regardless of cognitive abilities have souls (and I don’t disagree) I am genuinely puzzled as to how you distinguish between those cases where support can be removed and where it can’t.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

agname:

hecd2,

Read the following:

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ15.HTM

I don’t feel like writing a five page post.

What is your point??
Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Ghosty]

Let me first clarify that I’m not a physician, but rather a nurse-in-training working as an EMT. The same medical rules apply to us, however, both legally and morally.

What do we say about infants who need extraordinary means of life support? When must we provide it if we can, when are we justified in withdrawing it and when are we morally bound no longer to continue with it?

We are bound in the same way with infants as we are with unconcious adults, since both are unable to express their desires. In medicine (not involving Catholic Doctrine) we have what’s called “implied consent”, which is defined as the level of care a “rational” person would request if they were able to. If someone goes unconcious, we must treat them as if they were anyone else we found down unless they have written orders to do otherwise. This is a matter of American medical practice and not of any religious belief.

The Church has this to say about medical treatment in extreme circumstances (from the Catechism):

[2278](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2278.htm’) Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of “over-zealous” treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.
2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.

To summarize, extraordinary means are those that merely prolong the inevitable result of an injury or illness. If the expected result is “permanent brain death”, then life support can be removed because it will not alleviate the problem. Death is not desired directly, but rather the inevitable is accepted, and death is acquiesced to. As medicine progresses, the definition of extraordinary means can change, as the expected result of treatment changes; two centuries ago amputation would not have been viewed as an “overly zealous” treatment for an infected limb, but today it is an option of last resort. This has to be determined by the people in charge of the medical care of the patient, and by the person in charge of making decisions for the patient. Intentionally causing death is always murder, however, and can not be morally permitted. Accepting death in our lives is not the same as encouraging it.

Now I’ll admit that there have been times when I’ve wished that actively killing a patient was permitted, primarily in the case of terminal burns. In these cases death can’t be avoided, and sometimes the patient is even alive and fully alert during the process that can take hours or possibly days. Just recently in my area we had a woman who was fatally burned along with her children, and survived long enough in the hospital to make funeral arrangements for her and her children, contact her family, and finally die after hours of being held by her mother. In such circumstances we simply have to provide the best pain medication we can, possibly a full anesthetic, and let the trauma run its course. It can be terrible to watch, but neither current medical practice in the U.S., nor Catholic moral law permits us to do otherwise.

 

[Ghosty]

Yes you, I and the Church agree 100% on this. However I was replying to someone (batteddy) who claimed that a global flood was the mechanism by which hominids without souls were eliminated from the world.

I understand. I was just using your words to expound on the subject, not suggest something new to you in particular

 

[hecd2]

Ghosty:

Let me first clarify that I’m not a physician, but rather a nurse-in-training working as an EMT. The same medical rules apply to us, however, both legally and morally.

We are bound in the same way with infants as we are with unconcious adults, since both are unable to express their desires. In medicine (not involving Catholic Doctrine) we have what’s called “implied consent”, which is defined as the level of care a “rational” person would request if they were able to. If someone goes unconcious, we must treat them as if they were anyone else we found down unless they have written orders to do otherwise. This is a matter of American medical practice and not of any religious belief.

The Church has this to say about medical treatment in extreme circumstances (from the Catechism):

To summarize, extraordinary means are those that merely prolong the inevitable result of an injury or illness. If the expected result is “permanent brain death”, then life support can be removed because it will not alleviate the problem. Death is not desired directly, but rather the inevitable is accepted, and death is acquiesced to. As medicine progresses, the definition of extraordinary means can change, as the expected result of treatment changes; two centuries ago amputation would not have been viewed as an “overly zealous” treatment for an infected limb, but today it is an option of last resort. This has to be determined by the people in charge of the medical care of the patient, and by the person in charge of making decisions for the patient. Intentionally causing death is always murder, however, and can not be morally permitted. Accepting death in our lives is not the same as encouraging it.

Now I’ll admit that there have been times when I’ve wished that actively killing a patient was permitted, primarily in the case of terminal burns. In these cases death can’t be avoided, and sometimes the patient is even alive and fully alert during the process that can take hours or possibly days. Just recently in my area we had a woman who was fatally burned along with her children, and survived long enough in the hospital to make funeral arrangements for her and her children, contact her family, and finally die after hours of being held by her mother. In such circumstances we simply have to provide the best pain medication we can, possibly a full anesthetic, and let the trauma run its course. It can be terrible to watch, but neither current medical practice in the U.S., nor Catholic moral law permits us to do otherwise.

Thank you for this extremely thoughtful and careful reply. Thank you also for sharing the heart rending story of the burnt mother and her children.

Your post emphasises for me the fact that, although the vast majority of cases will be clear cut, moral principles can never release us from considering borderline cases on their own merit - that at the boundaries there is no such thing as absolute morality. In the vast vast majority of cases, deliberately causing death by medical means is reprehensible. And yet…

In some countries euthanasia is now legal with extremely strict controls in the case of intractable terminal long-term illness that is accompanied by great suffering.

And in many countries the withdrawal of feeding from patients in an apparently irreversible coma (who do not require life support such as artificial respiration or pacemaking) is also accepted, although in very rare cases such comas have resolved even after a long time (and I personally know one case).

This is entirely off-topic for this thread. I am happy to take it into a different thread or drop it as you wish.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Ghosty]

hecd2: All I’ll say is that while it is permitted in certain countries, I feel that such an approach is morally reprehensible. Killing a person in a coma is nothing more than murder, at least when they don’t require extreme life-support. Again, killing can never be the intention, only an undesired side-effect of care.

Of course, people who want to kill themselves certainly can, though I fear for their souls. It’s not the job of medical professionals like myself to put people to death, however. Every case still must be taken on its own merits, but there are certain lines that must be established in order to even begin taking each case on its own.