At what point in the evolutionary line did humans start getting souls.

[Jerry-Jet]

If Cain did breed with a Neanderthal would that offspring have a soul?

It seems to me to be quite possible that Seth and his offspring as Homo Sapiens might not have ever breeded with Neanderthals.

Also remember that there weren’t alot of years between Abel/Seth and Cain and Noah.

Which seems to make sense–even if the Genesis years are not literally equivalent with current years–the time of overlap between Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens is not a large amount of years either.

If Cain’s line had been geographicaly distinct from Seth’s line then it would be altogether possible that Neanderthals would have vanished with the flood which explains why we can’t find hard evidence of interbreeding.

I’m not arguing in favor of creation happening only 6,000 years ago–what I am arguing is that the Catholic Church is correct in saying that we are all descended from Adam and Eve.

And that can be reconciled with evolution if Adam and Eve were truely the first Homo Sapiens directly and not evolutionaryily made by God and if Neanderthals were a distinct species and the last evolutionary ring in chain of soulless individuals.

Now some would say that there is evidence of Neanderthals having spiritual beliefs.

That would be possible if their belief in God had come from Cain.

Whether a crossbreed would have a soul or not I do not know but I will posit this: it would be conceivable that a crossbreed could intellectually have a belief in God given to them by Cain without having a soul!

Maybe Cain later on repented and will be in heaven and any soulless half breed Homo Sapien Neanderthal hybrid descendents of him will go wherever animals go when they die!?

Since God is just if any crossbreed individuals were given a soul by God and died in a state of grace then they would go to heaven.

And God would still be just if later on generations of the crossbreds if they had souls were killed in the flood because they were wicked–just like all the other wicked who came from Seth and were wicked also died in the flood.

I just think that all currently alive come from Adam and Eve and I don’t believe that Adam and Eve are a product of evolution.

That doesn’t mean that I don’t believe in all other forms of evolution.

I believe that evolution and Adam and Eve as first parents could BOTH be true.

Am I a good Catholic for believing that both things could be possible?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

You are welcome. Please put Adam in the search box. Also put creation in the search box. Other words will come to you as you scan the various paragraphs. Sometimes, one has to read paragraphs above and below the cited one to get the full meaning.

www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

That is a nifty Catechism site, but…

I haven’t been able to find where it says that humans are the only possible “persons” - that is, non-angelic beings with an eternal soul. If you don’t give a specific reference, how am I to make out what is your opinion and what is Church teaching?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

This whole “crossbreed” business is getting us off track. Our definition of “species” means nothing to God, nor do we have any guarantee that all ensouled persons could interbreed.

(Note: this whole discussion assumes that evolution is true, in regard to humans. This assumption may be wrong).

1. Considering that God *made the world *(that is, nature), it makes sense that the soul would be a part of nature (although perhaps on another “dimension”, as it were).
2. If the soul is a part of nature, then it would be instantiated in natural experience, as a *natural *progression of a natural process - evolution. The soul would become manifest through something that some evolved being would become capable of, which would give him dignity as a person.
3. Scripture, and reason, both tell us that the distinguishing mark of a “person” is his capacity for moral and immoral action. Immoral action is impossible without self-consciousness – that is, the awareness that *there is a self *, which is a prerequisite to the self being subject to moral law.
4. Therefore, those types of beings who are capable of self-consciousness have souls. When evolution turns out a being (Neanderthal or human) who is self-conscious, then – viola! – God has created a person with a soul. Hi there, Adam.

God doesn’t interfere in time, to give the human race souls. God created time, and all physical processes, and time and physical processes provide the fertile soil for the soul.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

God interferes all the time in miracles.

God interfered when Jesus was resurrected from the dead.

Jesus interfered with time in offering the Eucharist before His death on the Cross at the Last Supper.

God interfered by granting Hezekiah a longer life span.

Tell me how it is impossible for God to interfere in time when it comes to evolutionary processes?

 

[Ghosty]

1. If the soul is a part of nature, then it would be instantiated in natural experience, as a *natural *progression of a natural process - evolution. The soul would become manifest through something that some evolved being would become capable of, which would give him dignity as a person.

Human souls are immaterial, and therefore can not arise from material processes like evolution. This is just basic reasoning, no need for religious argumentation. Furthermore, the Catechism teaches:

[366](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/366.htm’) The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235

So we are not permitted to believe that the soul is a product of evolution even if it were reasonable (which it isn’t); it is created immediately by God.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Human souls are immaterial, and therefore can not arise from material processes like evolution. This is just basic reasoning, no need for religious argumentation. Furthermore, the Catechism teaches:

You’re misunderstanding. I’m not saying that the soul is material, in the Church’s definition. I’m saying that the soul is *substance *-- that it is material, in the sense of being a part of Creation. The soul must be a part of nature, because “nature” simply means “everything that is”. If this is the scientific definition of nature, then souls are a scientific (read: material) reality.

Consider that the “immaterial” affects the material. How can this be, if they inhabit different realities? Therefore, they must not inhabit two realities. Rather, the “immaterial” is another dimension of our reality, which we cannot access through our five senses.

The problem is the word “supernatural”, which has boggled the minds of philosophers since Hume. If Catholics scrap that word, we lose nothing, and we gain scientific respectability. Let’s scrap that word!

So we are not permitted to believe that the soul is a product of evolution even if it were reasonable (which it isn’t); it is created immediately by God.

Everything is created immediately by God, at the moment of Creation. God does not create in time, for He is outside of time.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

God interferes all the time in miracles.

God interfered when Jesus was resurrected from the dead.

Jesus interfered with time in offering the Eucharist before His death on the Cross at the Last Supper.

God interfered by granting Hezekiah a longer life span.

Tell me how it is impossible for God to interfere in time when it comes to evolutionary processes?

We experience God interfering in time. But God is all act, and all at one time – He is outside time. He does not observe; He knows. Does an author interfere when He plans out the story that way from the beginning? Of course not. What we experience as interference is actually creation, from the beginning.

 

[grannymh]

That is a nifty Catechism site, but…

I haven’t been able to find where it says that humans are the only possible “persons” - that is, non-angelic beings with an eternal soul. If you don’t give a specific reference, how am I to make out what is your opinion and what is Church teaching?

Mea Culpa. I entirely agree with your “but…” Half the time, I stumble on stuff. If I ever meet the Pope, I will tell him a thing or two about how to organize the Catechism’s index. I will issue invitations to my funeral next week.

Seriously, I understand your position because the Catholic Church teachings involve faith and morals and not scientific findings. Usually the basic belief is stated so that one can sort out the 'scientific" information. In other words, there is only one continuous story line regarding the economy of salvation. Most likely, “possible other person-ideas” were left out for that reason.

I found a lot of information about what a person is when looking for “original sin”, Adam, creation and soul. The search box on the link will give you citations. I read through a bunch of paragraphs which emphasized the uniqueness of Adam and his relationship to all of salvation history, that is, to Jesus Christ, etc. The clear way these and other paragraphs were written depended on the foundation of humanity as we are today.

Personally, you might be more comfortable with CAF sources such as the library etc.

Catechism link:
www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[Ghosty]

You’re misunderstanding. I’m not saying that the soul is material, in the Church’s definition. I’m saying that the soul is *substance *-- that it is material, in the sense of being a part of Creation. The soul must be a part of nature, because “nature” simply means “everything that is”. If this is the scientific definition of nature, then souls are a scientific (read: material) reality.

I didn’t misunderstand you at all. You said that the soul could arise from evolution, but that is logically impossible because evolution is a material process (read: crude matter, if you prefer. The immaterial can affect the material, but the material can not affect the immaterial, at least not directly.

As for science, if science is defined to include metaphysics, then souls fall under science. If the term is used as it is in modern parlance, souls do not fall under science because science deals with the empirical study of crude material processes, and immortal souls can’t fall “under the microscope”, so to speak.

The problem is the word “supernatural”, which has boggled the minds of philosophers since Hume. If Catholics scrap that word, we lose nothing, and we gain scientific respectability. Let’s scrap that word!

You’re the one bringing it up, not me. That being said, the proper definition of supernatural is any act of God, since God alone is above nature, both in the sense of the “natural world”, and in the sense of not belonging to a certain nature, but rather being the source of natures. The Divine Nature is called a nature analogically, not as if it is a nature like human nature, or angelic nature. This is a whole other topic, however.

Everything is created immediately by God, at the moment of Creation. God does not create in time, for He is outside of time.

You’re misunderstanding the property of being outside of time. God is indeed outside of time, but this does not mean He can not act within time. The Incarnation, for example, was indeed an act within time, as the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary. Likewise, the creation of the immaterial soul is a direct act of God within time, though God’s act considered in itself is indeed eternal and without change. When this eternal act “touches” a specific moment of time, God is said to act in time, and it is by this standard that we say that God creates our souls immediately.

Whatever the case, it is not permitted by the Catholic Faith to believe that human souls evolve through worldly or otherwise natural processes, material or immaterial. They quite simply can not arise from creation itself, because of their immateriality.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Mea Culpa. I entirely agree with your “but…” Half the time, I stumble on stuff. If I ever meet the Pope, I will tell him a thing or two about how to organize the Catechism’s index. I will issue invitations to my funeral next week.

Seriously, I understand your position because the Catholic Church teachings involve faith and morals and not scientific findings. Usually the basic belief is stated so that one can sort out the 'scientific" information. In other words, there is only one continuous story line regarding the economy of salvation. Most likely, “possible other person-ideas” were left out for that reason.

I found a lot of information about what a person is when looking for “original sin”, Adam, creation and soul. The search box on the link will give you citations. I read through a bunch of paragraphs which emphasized the uniqueness of Adam and his relationship to all of salvation history, that is, to Jesus Christ, etc. The clear way these and other paragraphs were written depended on the foundation of humanity as we are today.

I agree that the Church has not taken upon itself the goal of “working out” the way that faith and science correspond, discursively. This is a good thing, because it is really speculative theology, and therefore quite prone to error.

What I’ve written above is also speculative theology – basically, I’m trying to hash out how certain scientific and religious truths can coexist, as organically as possible. I see nature as an expression of the mind of God, and I see all processes as God’s processes. (An exception would be some human processes, because humans have free will).

Adam is clearly unique in our salvation story, and our salvation story clearly applies universally to us. We have no reason to think that Adam is not unique in all the universe, but we also have no knowledge that there could not be another world with a counterpart to Adam.

As for your meeting the Pope…when you do, could you bring me back a souvenir funny-looking hat?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I didn’t misunderstand you at all. You said that the soul could arise from evolution, but that is logically impossible because evolution is a material process (read: crude matter, if you prefer. The immaterial can affect the material, but the material can not affect the immaterial, at least not directly.

Let’s look at what I said, because I certainly didn’t say that the “soul could arise from evolution”. Here’s what I said:

If the soul is a part of nature, then it would be instantiated in natural experience, as a natural progression of a natural process - evolution. The soul would become manifest through something that some evolved being would become capable of, which would give him dignity as a person.

The phrase “instantiated in” is the problem here. The soul *comes from *God, directly, in the first Creation of man. This is, as you say, God’s acting in time (from our point of view) – but it is acting in time once and for all. This is by no means contrary to Catholic teaching - ask any Catholic philosopher.

When I say that the soul is *instantiated *through a natural process (evolution), I am not saying that evolution causes the soul to be. I am saying that a milestone brought on by evolution (self-consciousness) **is the occasion of the existence **of the human soul. Just so, the parents bringing a baby to church is the occasion of the baby’s being baptized – but the action of bringing a baby to church does not cause the remission of sins! The actions are parallel, and nature (which proceeds from God) cooperates with grace.

I am explaining a speculative theology, but it is not against Catholic teaching.

(As a side note, there is no such thing as “crude” matter. All matter is God’s matter, and all of it is made to glorify Him.)

…science deals with the empirical study of crude material processes…

No philosopher of science would agree with you. Science is the study of what is, everything that is. If we cannot observe it and test for it, however, we cannot yet say that we scientifically know it.

That being said, the proper definition of supernatural is any act of God, since God alone is above nature, both in the sense of the “natural world”, and in the sense of not belonging to a certain nature, but rather being the source of natures.

But philosophy defines nature as “everything that is”, so in that sense God cannot be above nature unless He doesn’t exist.

You’re misunderstanding the property of being outside of time. God is indeed outside of time, but this does not mean He can not act within time. The Incarnation, for example, was indeed an act within time, as the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary. Likewise, the creation of the immaterial soul is a direct act of God within time, though God’s act considered in itself is indeed eternal and without change. When this eternal act “touches” a specific moment of time, God is said to act in time, and it is by this standard that we say that God creates our souls immediately.

I think we entirely agree on this part.

 

[edwest2]

You’re misunderstanding. I’m not saying that the soul is material, in the Church’s definition. I’m saying that the soul is *substance *-- that it is material, in the sense of being a part of Creation. The soul must be a part of nature, because “nature” simply means “everything that is”. If this is the scientific definition of nature, then souls are a scientific (read: material) reality.

Consider that the “immaterial” affects the material. How can this be, if they inhabit different realities? Therefore, they must not inhabit two realities. Rather, the “immaterial” is another dimension of our reality, which we cannot access through our five senses.

The problem is the word “supernatural”, which has boggled the minds of philosophers since Hume. If Catholics scrap that word, we lose nothing, and we gain scientific respectability. Let’s scrap that word!

Everything is created immediately by God, at the moment of Creation. God does not create in time, for He is outside of time.

“gain scientific respectability” When did we lose that? The Pontifical Academy of Sciences has been around for a long time.

What did Jesus say? “What is born of the flesh is flesh, what is born of the spirit is spirit.” The soul is spiritual. It exists with us in this reality and body and soul will exist after the last judgement.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Ghosty]

When I say that the soul is *instantiated *through a natural process (evolution), I am not saying that evolution causes the soul to be. I am saying that a milestone brought on by evolution (self-consciousness) **is the occasion of the existence **of the human soul.

I’m not sure what you mean by the “occaision of the existence” of the human soul. If you are in any way saying that the human soul is somehow inherent in the natural process, and becomes expressed after a certain point of evolutionary development, you are indeed going against the Faith as I quoted from the Catechism.

If you are simply saying that after a certain point in evolution, predetermined by God, He infused an immaterial soul into the first true human, Adam, then you are in line with the Catholic Faith. One can believe that God infused the immaterial soul at a certain point in evolution, but one can not believe that God allowed the immaterial soul to “come out” from a kind of dormancy of expression, like a seed sprouting, after a certain point of evolution.

(As a side note, there is no such thing as “crude” matter. All matter is God’s matter, and all of it is made to glorify Him.)

Let’s not be coy. Crude matter refers to physical matter, as opposed to “matter in general”, or prime matter, which all creations are made from.

No philosopher of science would agree with you. Science is the study of what is, everything that is. If we cannot observe it and test for it, however, we cannot yet say that we scientifically know it.

You clearly just cut a portion of a sentence and responded to it as if it had no context. I explained my use of the term science in that very paragraph, yet you latched on to the nuance rather than the point itself.

But philosophy defines nature as “everything that is”, so in that sense God cannot be above nature unless He doesn’t exist.

I don’t know what philosophical language you’re using, but there are none that I’m familiar with which would define nature as you have. What philosophical school of thought are you getting this from? There is no “philosophy” that defines, but rather philosophers who define terms in order to explain their philosophy.

Peace and God bless!

 

[edwest2]

This is a pointless discussion since science cannot study the soul. There is no scientific connection with the soul and evolution, if that actually happened.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Prodigal_Son]

First of all, my apologies if any of my posts have been a trifle peevish. I’ve got three kiddoes running amok in my house today knocking over everything, including each other, in 90 degree weather, so the whole experience kind of carries over into my writing.

I’m not sure what you mean by the “occaision of the existence” of the human soul. If you are in any way saying that the human soul is somehow inherent in the natural process, and becomes expressed after a certain point of evolutionary development, you are indeed going against the Faith as I quoted from the Catechism.

Here’s an item from the Catechism right before the one you quoted:

365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

This indicates that body and soul are one nature united. My “anthropology” of the soul is speculative and liable to error, but it is simply an attempt to understand how the body – which is (for the sake of this argument) subject to evolution – can be one with the soul, which is immediately and with no intermediary subject to God. Evolution, of course, is also subject to God, but through a long chain of causality. God acts in both the physical and the spiritual chain, and it makes sense (to me, at least) that the action of the spiritual realm would manifest itself dually, through the physical as well.

Please realize, I am not posting my beliefs, but my ideas. There is a long history of the Church allowing philosophers to work things out through the use of reason. Sometimes this results in heresy, which means that the philosopher ought to reject it – not because it is heretical, but because it cannot be reconciled with the Truth. We ought to tread lightly here, though: Aquinas himself said that “authority is the weakest form of proof.”

If you are simply saying that after a certain point in evolution, predetermined by God, He infused an immaterial soul into the first true human, Adam, then you are in line with the Catholic Faith.

Essentially, this is what I believe. But the word “infused” seems backwards. The soul precedes the body – it might be more accurate to say that the body was affixed to the soul. Which particular body was chosen? A body capable of virtue and of mortal sin – that is, a body which was self-conscious. I don’t see what is objectionable in this.

Let’s not be coy. Crude matter refers to physical matter, as opposed to “matter in general”, or prime matter, which all creations are made from.

I really haven’t encountered the idea of “prime matter” before, so I was not aware of the distinction. I really didn’t know what you meant by calling matter “crude”.

You clearly just cut a portion of a sentence and responded to it as if it had no context. I explained my use of the term science in that very paragraph, yet you latched on to the nuance rather than the point itself.

You’re right. Mea culpa. :banghead:

I don’t know what philosophical language you’re using, but there are none that I’m familiar with which would define nature as you have. What philosophical school of thought are you getting this from? There is no “philosophy” that defines, but rather philosophers who define terms in order to explain their philosophy.

I’m mostly talking about empiricist thought, which grounds much of scientific thinking. When empiricists talk about discerning “laws of nature”, they are not talking about discerning that which govern the *material *universe; they are saying that these laws govern everything. They may hold the assumption that the material universe is all there is – but in many cases this is not even an assumption, because they have simply defined the term “material universe” to mean “everything that exists”. When faced with such a person, my goal is to convince them that the “material universe” contains more than they imagine.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

“gain scientific respectability” When did we lose that? The Pontifical Academy of Sciences has been around for a long time.

Thank you for taking my words out of context.

What did Jesus say? “What is born of the flesh is flesh, what is born of the spirit is spirit.” The soul is spiritual. It exists with us in this reality and body and soul will exist after the last judgement.

The soul is perfectly spiritual, and can exist as long as God sustains it, body or no. I would never, in a million years, say otherwise.

 

[SonofMonica]

Don’t mean to derail again, but I have to ask because I’ve never heard of this: what is this Cain breeding with a neanderthal business, and where does this idea come from?

 

[ms_alternative]

---

if the universe is 6000 years old and stars are 1 million light years away how can we see there light? it would take 1 million years for the light to reach us

why do fossils that are more primitive buried deeper and not mixed with more developed ones?

why douse the bible have contradictions if it came from god?

why douse 50% of the world suffer from starvation?

if god can heal people why douse he not heal an amputee?

why did god create people to send them to hell?

is it OK to say hell here i do not mean it as a bad word but a place?



Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha

 

[grannymh]

Don’t mean to derail again, but I have to ask because I’ve never heard of this: what is this Cain breeding with a neanderthal business, and where does this idea come from?

Breeding with neanderthals, hominids, or any of the pre-humans in the evolutionary line is from someone’s creative imagination. It probably came from a comic book. It is now an urban myth.

 

[grannymh]

---

if the universe is 6000 years old and stars are 1 million light years away how can we see there light? it would take 1 million years for the light to reach us

why do fossils that are more primitive buried deeper and not mixed with more developed ones?

why douse the bible have contradictions if it came from god?

why douse 50% of the world suffer from starvation?

if god can heal people why douse he not heal an amputee?

why did god create people to send them to hell?

is it OK to say hell here i do not mean it as a bad word but a place?



Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha

Welcome to CAF.

Your questions are good ones. You will find threads discussing these topics by scrolling down the list of forums. Apologetics and its group are good places to look. Non-Catholic religions, Sacred Scripture, and the news forums are also interesting.

Try to ask your questions on a thread that is discussing a similar topic. You will find a lot of threads involving evolution. People will always question why God does something. Hell used as a place is fine.

Blessings,
granny

All human beings are worthy of profound respect.