Animal Intelligence

[Faith1960]

What is the position of the CC with regard to animal intelligence. I know She says that only humans have intellect but I’m watching a documentary titled Blackfish, about Orca whales and the cruelty in how they’re captured and forced to live in places like Seaworld.
They talked a little about how the whales have a language among themselves.

I know the CC says only humans have intellect so how does She explain how animals have their families, communicate with one another etc.?

 

[MarcoPolo]

I’m not aware of the Church saying animals have no intelligence. Even their behavior is used in Scripture and in tradition for us to compare to our own lives (i.e. sheep, birds…)

I think the Church teaches only humans have a soul and that animals don’t “reason,” at least in the way humans do (cf. CCC#1951). As far as some measurable intelligence, that is in the arena of science and beyond the Church’s capacity to make a pronouncement.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Fr Groeschel explained it best.

Animals live intensely in the present, have limited recall of the past, and no concept of the future.

Jim

 

[bzkoss236]

I’m not aware of the Church saying animals have no intelligence. Even their behavior is used in Scripture and in tradition for us to compare to our own lives (i.e. sheep, birds…)

I think the Church teaches only humans have a soul and that animals don’t “reason,” at least in the way humans do (cf. CCC#1951). As far as some measurable intelligence, that is in the arena of science and beyond the Church’s capacity to make a pronouncement.

Actually, the Church teaches that all living things have a soul, including plants and animals, but only humans have a rational and immortal soul. Plants and animals have what is called a material soul.

 

[GEddie]

Any creature with a brain has some form of intelligence. This is needed simply to integrate the senses, move the body, etc.

And animals also have emotional consciousness, much as we do.

It remains that only human beings have a conscious or rational mind.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Jon_S_1]

Actually, the Church teaches that all living things have a soul, including plants and animals, but only humans have a rational and immortal soul. Plants and animals have what is called a material soul.

Can you provide a source for this? It doesn’t sound right to me, and if like to read more about it.

 

[GEddie]

Can you provide a source for this? It doesn’t sound right to me, and if like to read more about it.

The Latin word for soul is anima. By definition, an “animal” is a being possessing a soul.

This is a natural soul, or psyche in Greek. As such, it supports neither a cognitive mind nor the capacity for everlasting life.

Because the natural soul (psyche) gives rise to natural life, the Greek term for our bodies (psychikon soma) is translated into English as “natural body.” The life of our bodies is identical to the life of animals.

But as human beings, our soul is also spiritual, and therefore resides the human stuff: a rational mind and the prospect for everlasting life.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Jon_S_1]

The Latin word for soul is anima. By definition, an “animal” is a being possessing a soul.

This is a natural soul, or psyche in Greek. As such, it supports neither a cognitive mind nor the capacity for everlasting life.

Because the natural soul (psyche) gives rise to natural life, the Greek term for our bodies (psychikon soma) is translated into English as “natural body.” The life of our bodies is identical to the life of animals.

But as human beings, our soul is also spiritual, and therefore resides the human stuff: a rational mind and the prospect for everlasting life.

ICXC NIKA.

I suppose I understand the Greek thought on this as you described but you claimed it was catholic teaching and I was looking for a catechism reference or something describing what you spoke of.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Just found this that answered my question. Thanks.

catholic.com/quickquestions/do-animals-have-souls-like-human-beings

 

[GEddie]

I suppose I understand the Greek thought on this as you described but you claimed it was catholic teaching and I was looking for a catechism reference or something describing what you spoke of.

Actually, it was not me who said that.

However, it sounds like something from Saint Thomas Aquinas.

ICXC NIKA

 

[MarcoPolo]

Actually, the Church teaches that all living things have a soul, including plants and animals, but only humans have a rational and immortal soul. Plants and animals have what is called a material soul.

Good clarification. I think you are correct.

 

[NeedsMercy]

What is the position of the CC with regard to animal intelligence. I know She says that only humans have intellect but I’m watching a documentary titled Blackfish, about Orca whales and the cruelty in how they’re captured and forced to live in places like Seaworld.
They talked a little about how the whales have a language among themselves.

I know the CC says only humans have intellect so how does She explain how animals have their families, communicate with one another etc.?

Maybe the confusion lies in the word “intellect”. “Intellect” can be defined a couple of different ways, i.e., the way Aquinas meant it—“the faculty of reasoning and understanding objectively, esp. with regard to abstract or academic matters”–and the real-world definition, which would be “the faculty of the mind by which one knows or understands, as distinguished from that by which one feels or wills; capacity for thinking and acquiring knowledge”. With the latter definition in mind, animals do indeed have “intellect”. I don’t think the Church can dispute that animals have intellect using this latter definition.

 

[NeedsMercy]

Just found this that answered my question. Thanks.

catholic.com/quickquestions/do-animals-have-souls-like-human-beings

Umm, there are a couple of statements in that article that are questionable and totally unproven. Let’s see.

Animal and vegetable souls are dependent entirely on matter for their operation and being. They cease to exist at death. (There’s no “doggie heaven.”)

Human souls, by contrast, aren’t material. They’re spiritual. Only a spirit can know and love, a spirit’s two chief faculties being the intellect (which knows) and the will (which loves). We know human souls are spiritual since humans can know and love.

We are to believe that a) animals do not have spiritual souls and b) the souls they do have cease to exist at death. There is absolutely no proof for these statements. It is pure conjecture on the part of the Church, probably based on some of the more bizarre ideas about the nature of the soul that Aquinas had. Although the Church doesn’t like to openly admit it, he was wrong about the nature of Mary’s soul and about the nature of man’s soul before birth. There’s a pretty good chance he’s wrong here too.

Does anyone here really believe that animals cannot “know and love”? It’s foolishness. As I mentioned in another post, animals do possess intellect. And it is the consensus of the scientific community today that animals possess consciousness.

Finally see Luke 12: 6-7:

“Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? And not one of them is forgotten before God. Why, even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not; you are of more value than many sparrows.”

(emphasis mine)

God does not forget the sparrows. It doesn’t say “He forgets the sparrows after they die.” He does not forget them. Period. There IS a “doggie heaven”—it’s the same as our Heaven, and dogs are in it.

 

[NeedsMercy]

Fr Groeschel explained it best.

Animals live intensely in the present, have limited recall of the past, and no concept of the future.

Jim

Sorry, but IMHO, Groeschel is wrong, wrong, wrong. Every day studies come out showing that animal memory is stronger than we think. Cat memory is very similar to human memory, even when it comes to memory loss with aging. If animals did not have a robust memory, they would be totally unable to adapt to changing environments. And learning in animals is all about the future. The dog who has learned a trick knows that if he does x, he will get a treat, a future prospect.

 

[JerryZ]

You are mistaken, the trick and treat behaviour has nothing to do with the future and much to do with the present.
It is called reflex conditioning. Pavlov did a lot of experiments on dogs to see how the process worked.

All animals interactions with the environment are conditioned firstly by instinct.
It is quite a mistery how the basic behaviours are “built in” in the animal psique right at birth.

A newly hatched worker bee for example will immediately fly off to find polen for the hive she belongs to.
No one needs to teach her how to find the way back to the hive, she will go out, get her bearing and she knows instantly how to get back.

Compare that with humans that require years of rearing.

Of course higher level animals will show greater complexity, but from that to claim they have an immortal soul is quite a stretch.
In it’s more extreme form this is called “anthropomorphism” and it is a heresy.

Dogs are without doubt the first animal that was domesticated by man and all the different breeds are the result of direct human intervention. Is it any wonder we are so attached to them?

We should thanks God for His gift of all the animals, especially those that give so much help to us, but should avoid going to that extreme.

–

 

[Iron_Donkey]

To the OP - animals do have varying amounts of intelligence, but the worth of man is not based on how smart he is (either individually, or as a species) but rather on the fact that he was made in the image of God. The ability to reason as we do could be said to be a consequence of this thing that gives us worth, but it is not what gives us worth itself, and so we should be careful with ideas along the lines of “intelligence gives us worth, these animals appear to have some form of intelligence similar to (if lesser than) what we have, so they must have some amount of/the same/whatever value that we have.” (Which is not to say I think you were saying this, just that many people that bring up animal intelligence start heading in this direction.)

That said, animals are creations of God and deserve respect, and excessive cruelty towards them ought to be avoided. And I would probably agree that the more an action seems to bother an animal, the more justification is required to do it, and so the amount of intelligence displayed by an animal may very well impact how we can treat it. But animals are nevertheless sub-human, and so can be used by humans to meet our needs.

I can’t say whether or not the treatment of animals at seaworld or similar would count as excessive cruelty or not - this would depend on whether or not such really is harmful to the animals (which I suspect is not as clear in one direction or the other as some on both sides would say), and whether or not some good is achieved that justifies it if so (harming animals is not by itself intrinsically evil). But the mere fact that the animals display some amount of intelligence is not enough to make using them for our ends immoral, even if doing so causes them some harm.

I suppose I understand the Greek thought on this [rational soul vs non-rational soul] as you described but you claimed it was catholic teaching and I was looking for a catechism reference or something describing what you spoke of.

Not an explicit endorsement, but a usage of the phrase “rational soul”:

1934 Created in the image of the one God and equally endowed with rational souls, all men have the same nature and the same origin. Redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ, all are called to participate in the same divine beatitude: all therefore enjoy an equal dignity.

Also, this site has some reference to the same: ewtn.com/faith/teachings/goda42a.htm (specifically, number 49.)

Many people use the word soul to mean what is meant by “rational soul”, and I suspect that if you make this substitution in the things that you would normally say about souls, you will find no disagreement. (Animals don’t have rational souls, rational souls are immortal, non-rational souls are not immortal (and so animals don’t have immortal souls), etc etc).

 

[thistle]

Umm, there are a couple of statements in that article that are questionable and totally unproven. Let’s see.

We are to believe that a) animals do not have spiritual souls and b) the souls they do have cease to exist at death. There is absolutely no proof for these statements. It is pure conjecture on the part of the Church, probably based on some of the more bizarre ideas about the nature of the soul that Aquinas had. Although the Church doesn’t like to openly admit it, he was wrong about the nature of Mary’s soul and about the nature of man’s soul before birth. There’s a pretty good chance he’s wrong here too.

Does anyone here really believe that animals cannot “know and love”? It’s foolishness. As I mentioned in another post, animals do possess intellect. And it is the consensus of the scientific community today that animals possess consciousness.

Finally see Luke 12: 6-7:

“Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? And not one of them is forgotten before God. Why, even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not; you are of more value than many sparrows.”

(emphasis mine)

God does not forget the sparrows. It doesn’t say “He forgets the sparrows after they die.” He does not forget them. Period. There IS a “doggie heaven”—it’s the same as our Heaven, and dogs are in it.

As a Catholic I believe the Church’s position trumps your opinion.
Animals do not have immortal souls and do not go to Heaven.
It is a Church teaching that only humans from creation are ordered to a supernatural life. That excludes animals.

By the way I think that forum rules forbid attacking the Church.

CCC 367 Sometimes the soul is distinguished from the spirit: St. Paul for instance prays that God may sanctify his people “wholly”, with “spirit and soul and body” kept sound and blameless at the Lord’s coming. The Church teaches that this distinction does not introduce a duality into the soul. “Spirit” signifies that from creation man is ordered to a supernatural end and that his soul can gratuitously be raised beyond all it deserves to communion with God.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Sorry, but IMHO, Groeschel is wrong, wrong, wrong. Every day studies come out showing that animal memory is stronger than we think. Cat memory is very similar to human memory, even when it comes to memory loss with aging. If animals did not have a robust memory, they would be totally unable to adapt to changing environments. And learning in animals is all about the future. The dog who has learned a trick knows that if he does x, he will get a treat, a future prospect.

Animal’s memory is limited as he stated, but also their behavior is conditioned, and not the same as humans, where memory is reasoned and pondered to help or in most cases, manipulate an image in the present and future.

Fr Groeschel was a clinical psychologist and his expertise on the subject is very credible.

Also, I believe he said their level of intelligence is no greater than a two to three year old infant. I’m going from memory here so, don’t freak out if I’m quoting him incorrectly.

Jim

 

[NeedsMercy]

You are mistaken, the trick and treat behaviour has nothing to do with the future and much to do with the present.
It is called reflex conditioning. Pavlov did a lot of experiments on dogs to see how the process worked.

A few seconds into the future is still the future. But I won’t argue the point. BTW, did you know how much Pavlov tortured his animals?

All animals interactions with the environment are conditioned firstly by instinct.
It is quite a mistery how the basic behaviours are “built in” in the animal psique right at birth.

Instinct accounts for a very small percentage of animal behavior. If animals were incapable of learning from memory, they would never survive.

A newly hatched worker bee for example will immediately fly off to find polen for the hive she belongs to.
No one needs to teach her how to find the way back to the hive, she will go out, get her bearing and she knows instantly how to get back.

What about the bee dances? The bees that know the location of pollen will dance in a pattern which indicates the location to the other bees. Memory and learning.

Compare that with humans that require years of rearing.

Of course higher level animals will show greater complexity, but from that to claim they have an immortal soul is quite a stretch.
In it’s more extreme form this is called “anthropomorphism” and it is a heresy.

It’s less of a “stretch” to say that animals have immortal souls than it is to say that they don’t! And you and the Church know, without a doubt, that animals DO NOT have immortal souls based on…what? Please enlighten me.

That you are calling me a heretic is telling. You cannot support the Magisterium’s teaching in this area, so you say I am wrong and that I am a heretic. If it makes you feel better about yourself, go ahead.

Dogs are without doubt the first animal that was domesticated by man and all the different breeds are the result of direct human intervention. Is it any wonder we are so attached to them?

Yes, man is responsible for many breeds of dogs. It is only now that we are learning that all this genetic manipulation is causing more and more dogs that are handicapped and sick.

We should thanks God for His gift of all the animals, especially those that give so much help to us, but should avoid going to that extreme.

I thank God every day for His creation of the animals and plants and rocks, too. I don’t see what is so extreme about believing their souls are more like ours than we think.

 

[NeedsMercy]

As a Catholic I believe the Church’s position trumps your opinion.
Animals do not have immortal souls and do not go to Heaven.
It is a Church teaching that only humans from creation are ordered to a supernatural life. That excludes animals.

The Church’s position is pure speculation. It is their opinion, and opinion only. My opinion is no more wrong nor no more right than theirs. If the Church’s position is not speculation, please give me their basis for the position.

CCC 367 Sometimes the soul is distinguished from the spirit: St. Paul for instance prays that God may sanctify his people “wholly”, with “spirit and soul and body” kept sound and blameless at the Lord’s coming. The Church teaches that this distinction does not introduce a duality into the soul. “Spirit” signifies that from creation man is ordered to a supernatural end and that his soul can gratuitously be raised beyond all it deserves to communion with God.

Understand that I am not saying that the souls of animals are the same as those of humans. I am saying that they are more than what the Church currently says they are.

By the way I think that forum rules forbid attacking the Church.

I’m not “attacking the Church”.