Being Human?

  • Thread starter Thread starter atheistgirl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
grannymh said:
The philosophical definition of a human being would include human nature which is an unique union of the material (genes, etc.) anatomy and the spiritual (rational and will) soul. The human person is not two natures pasted together; rather their union is a single nature.

Natural science can study the material anatomy, but it cannot put the spiritual soul under its microscope. But that does not exclude spiritual reality which can be known by the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought. These tools are part of human nature – the human being one sees in the mirror.
Click to expand...
The person is not metaphysically separate from the material body. I’m speaking from the perspective of nature. The person can exist separately from the body by a supernatural act on the part of God.

It’s like a portrait painting. The person portrayed is not separate from the paint. The person is “in” the paint.

Or one could say, the paint “discloses” that person.

Or one could say, the person is the “meaning” of the paint.

But one could not say the person is ontically “other” than the paint.

Just like you cannot say that the portrait is ontically “other” than the paint. The paint is the portrait!
 
Biologically, the human brain is what separates us most from other creatures. We are not just different in degree, but in kind as well. No other mere animal could imagine God. No other mere animal could imagine life on other planets. No other mere animal could imagine a way to get to the moon and beyond. No other mere animal could invent science and discover its own genome.
 
levinas12 said:
The person is not metaphysically separate from the material body. I’m speaking from the perspective of nature. The person can exist separately from the body by a supernatural act on the part of God.

It’s like a portrait painting. The person portrayed is not separate from the paint. The person is “in” the paint.

Or one could say, the paint “discloses” that person.

Or one could say, the person is the “meaning” of the paint.

But one could not say the person is ontically “other” than the paint.

Just like you cannot say that the portrait is ontically “other” than the paint. The paint is the portrait!
Click to expand...
When I said that the person is not ontically other than the paint, I really meant that the “presence” of the person in the portrait is not ontically other than the paint. Of course, the actual flesh-and-blood person is indeed ontically other than the portrait and a fortiori ontically other than the paint.

The metaphor of portrait painting is meant to convey the idea that a person is an “expression” of a body. It’s not as if there are two things conjoined together, a person and a body. The person and the body are one and the same; just like the portrait and the paint are one and the same.

This is why the resurrection of the body is necessary. A disembodied human person is “unnatural”. Only a supernatural act by God can maintain us apart from our bodies.

Because “person” is a bodily expression, there is a connection between the human genome and “person”.
 
atheistgirl said:
If it’s not necessary to have ‘‘human’’ parents to be human, why did Jesus need to be born of a human woman to be human? Why couldn’t He have just been created, in the same way Adam and Eve were?
Click to expand...
Such a good question. You are a natural born theologian.

As mentioned in my postings above, there is a connection between the human genome and person.

Jesus intended to be identified totally with us (save sin). Thus, He took on our DNA. If He simply popped into existence, with His own DNA, it wouldn’t have been the same.

n.b. this does not mean that Adam and Eve simply dropped in out of nowhere. Their DNA was mostly continuous with previous DNA but there was also a discontinuity. You can call this discontinuity a “mutation” (or a series of “mutations”). But we believe that this
“mutation” was not random.
 
Clarification.

Post 38 considers that the human being is a person whose nature is a profound unification of two separate worlds. It is the very union per se which is human nature per se. There is one nature to one person. One cannot separate the person from her or his nature. It is the living rational soul which is separated from the material DNA at death. This is because the material/physical world has power over the material/physical guts and blood of human anatomy but does not have power over the
supernatural.

In my humble observation, one at least has to consider the possibility that a supernatural being exists as a supernatural being in order to understand how human nature works. Obviously, human nature works regardless of what one believes.

That is all I have to offer.
 
An additional thought.

Jesus not only had our DNA, but, more specifically, the DNA of his ancestors.

This is why genealogies are so important in the Bible.
 
levinas12 said:
And what changes in DNA allowed the “human difference” to happen?
Click to expand...
Regarding Catholic teaching

What is key is that the soul is not some special kind of DNA and is not produced by the parents through generation. The spiritual soul is directly created by God
 
Regarding Catholic teaching

Human nature is peerless in our material environment.

The human person’s nature is a profound unification of both the spiritual world (rational soul) and the material/physical world (blood and guts anatomy). It is the union per se which is human nature per se.

In my humble observation, one at least has to consider the possibility that a supernatural Creator God exists in order to understand how human nature works.

Obviously, human nature works regardless of what anyone believes.🙂

That is all I have to offer.
 
grannymh said:
Regarding Catholic teaching

What is key is that the soul is not some special kind of DNA and is not produced by the parents through generation. The spiritual soul is directly created by God
Click to expand...
Yes, God directly creates the human person. In fact, “person” ultimately is a singular relation to God.

I say “singular” because the relation does not fit into the traditional Aristotelian understanding of relation. The “relation” of the person to God is analogous to the relations the three Persons of the Trinity have to each other.

It is important to remember that the philosophical term “soul” refers to the Aristotelian form which equates to “human nature”. This “form” is defined by genus and specific difference, i.e., “rational animal”. However, “person” is not “form”. A “person” cannot be defined by a genus and a specific difference.

The human genome is related both to “human nature” and to “person”.

But it’s not easy to unpack the role of the human genome. In some respects, it’s like a material cause; in other respects, like an efficient cause. But when it’s seen as an efficient cause, it’s actually the person who is at work. One thing is sure. The person is there from the moment of conception, i.e., from the moment the new DNA emerges from the union of the egg and the sperm.
 
tonyrey said:
Catholic theology is based on the historical fact of the Incarnation. It does not claim it is impossible for God to choose to be consubstantial with us in any other way.
Click to expand...
Of course doesn’t say it would be impossible. But there is a specific philosophy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top