Did Neanderthals have souls?

[KostyaJMJ]

I believe that our Original Parents were not Neanderthal. That is my belief, the Church has not defined this and you are free to believe otherwise.

True enough.

 

[whm]

This question probably belongs in another sub-forum…

What we as Catholics are obliged to believe regarding the origins of man:
Adam and Eve, ONLY Adam and Eve, are the first humans, created, as it says in Genesis, in the image and likeness of God (with eternal souls). And from these two descended the whole human race (i.e. men with souls).

To hold another view is a heresy called Polygenism. From Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis:

In addition, the CCC clearly names Adam and Eve as “our first parents” (#375, and elsewhere, I’m sure).

Any speculations regarding the origins of the human race must not contradict this teaching in any way. These details are very important, as they affect the doctrine of original sin, which in turn affects the doctrines of the Incarnation and the Salvation of all through the Cross of Christ.

Exactly, we should be careful what we declare human and not human in this area. We don’t know exactly when Adam and Eve lived and who descended from them. We don’t want to paint ourselves in a corner only to find out that the earth is not flat, the earth revolves around the sun. I cringe at folks declaring neanderthals are absolutely not human without eternal souls, when there is evidence that they committed “sins” like murder and attempted murder, buried their dead with artifacts, had complex tools, used animal skins… etc. I think it is best not to make an absolute declaration one way or the other.

 

[whm]

Notice the big weasel words wedged right in with that statement: "it is in no way apparent. That statement certainly doesn’t rule out polygenism, it just states that there is no apparent way to reconcile it with original sin. If in the future a way is discovered to reconcile polygenism with original sin we are certainly allowed to believe it.

Jimmy Akin last week, brought up a very similar point.

 

[The_Bucket]

What did Dirk ever do to you to deserve being called a Neanderthal. I’m no Mavs fan. but the dude can clearly play ball and is far more articulate than most American athletes despite being from Wurzburg

 

[KostyaJMJ]

Jimmy Akin last week, brought up a very similar point.

I’ll have to check it out. This is where I remember reading about it:

markshea.blogspot.com/2009/02/interesting-conversation-on-polygenism.html

 

[whm]

Scientifically, I highly doubt that Neanderthals interbred with modern humans, at least not to any significant extent. No one has found any conclusive evidence to date that would indicate cross-species interbreeding. The fact that some modern humans may have some features that are generally associated with Neanderthals is not scientific evidence that one species derives from the other; they may simply be manifestations of dormant genes that came from our ancestors, which can be any species in the genus homo.

The link was kind of a joke, but non-the-less there is a fair amount of chatter regarding Dirk and others. I had an anthropology prof. that would try to hold a quarter on his brow ridge… (He isn’t neanderthal either)

Ultimately our scientific naming conventions don’t mean anything, God decides who is human and not human and is not restricted by a handful of partial fossils, and human after the fact classification thereof.

 

[whm]

What did Dirk ever do to you to deserve being called a Neanderthal. I’m no Mavs fan. but the dude can clearly play ball and is far more articulate than most American athletes despite being from Wurzburg

That is it I don’t consider it an insult.

 

[Consecrated]

Exactly, we should be careful what we declare human and not human in this area. We don’t know exactly when Adam and Eve lived and who descended from them. We don’t want to paint ourselves in a corner only to find out that the earth is not flat, the earth revolves around the sun. I cringe at folks declaring neanderthals are absolutely not human without eternal souls, when there is evidence that they committed “sins” like murder and attempted murder, buried their dead with artifacts, had complex tools, used animal skins… etc. I think it is best not to make an absolute declaration one way or the other.

WHAT? how in the world did you get this from my post??! IF the creatures we are talking about came before Adam and Eve, they most certainly did NOT have human souls, nor were they created in the image and likeness of God. IF they came after Adam and Eve, then they are either human or animal. If they are human, with a human soul, they are direct descendants of Adam and Eve, just as are we. This is definitively taught by the Church. It is not a point on which we are allowed to speculate.

 

[Consecrated]

Notice the big weasel words wedged right in with that statement: "it is in no way apparent. That statement certainly doesn’t rule out polygenism, it just states that there is no apparent way to reconcile it with original sin. If in the future a way is discovered to reconcile polygenism with original sin we are certainly allowed to believe it.

It absolutely does rule out polygenism. You’re trying too hard to see what’s not there. There is no way to reconcile the idea of polygenism with the Doctrine of Original Sin: the **one **sin committed by the our first parents, **one **man and **one **woman, and **directly **inherited by the whole human race.

 

[BadTurkey]

The link was kind of a joke, but non-the-less there is a fair amount of chatter regarding Dirk and others. I had an anthropology prof. that would try to hold a quarter on his brow ridge… (He isn’t neanderthal either)

Ultimately our scientific naming conventions don’t mean anything, God decides who is human and not human and is not restricted by a handful of partial fossils, and human after the fact classification thereof.

I certainly do not purport to know God’s classification with regard to human beings. However, I just wanted to emphasize the seemingly inevitable conclusion from known evidence, from both science and religion. Here is what we do know with much certainty.

1. God created Adam and Eve, who are the first humans created in God’s image.
2. Science dictates that Neanderthals are on a dead branch in the human family tree, hence they do not descend from Adam and Eve.
3. Given the above two pieces of evidence, it is safe to conclude that Neanderthals were either created before Adam and Eve, or created after Adam and Eve but not descendants of Adam and Eve.
4. If Neanderthals were created before Adam and Eve, that certainly means they’re not human, and hence do not possess souls.
5. If Neanderthals were created after Adam and Eve, we already established that they do not descend from Adam and Eve, so that also renders them not human.

In conclusion, by the preponderance of both religious and scientific evidence, it is safe to assume through logical deduction that Neanderthals are not human and hence do not possess souls.

On the other hand, if I’m lucky enough to make it to Heaven, I’ll try to let you know whether I see any Neanderthals up there.

 

[whm]

I certainly do not purport to know God’s classification with regard to human beings. However, I just wanted to emphasize the seemingly inevitable conclusion from known evidence, from both science and religion. Here is what we do know with much certainty.

1. God created Adam and Eve, who are the first humans created in God’s image.
2. Science dictates that Neanderthals are on a dead branch in the human family tree, hence they do not descend from Adam and Eve.

This is where people are not following me. Everybody seems to be concluding that Adam and Eve don’t pre-date the Neanderthal line.

1. Given the above two pieces of evidence, it is safe to conclude that Neanderthals were either created before Adam and Eve, or created after Adam and Eve but not descendants of Adam and Eve.

I don’t know of any evidence that Adam and Eve first existed after the Neanderthal line. We don’t know when Adam and Eve lived, that is why am caution as ruling them non human. Your logic doesn’t include this a possible set

1. If Neanderthals were created before Adam and Eve, that certainly means they’re not human, and hence do not possess souls.
2. If Neanderthals were created after Adam and Eve, we already established that they do not descend from Adam and Eve, so that also renders them not human.

In conclusion, by the preponderance of both religious and scientific evidence, it is safe to assume through logical deduction that Neanderthals are not human and hence do not possess souls.

On the other hand, if I’m lucky enough to make it to Heaven, I’ll try to let you know whether I see any Neanderthals up there.

That would be great! If I’m not there yet, throw me some prayers!

 

[whm]

WHAT? how in the world did you get this from my post??! IF the creatures we are talking about came before Adam and Eve, they most certainly did NOT have human souls, nor were they created in the image and likeness of God. IF they came after Adam and Eve, then they are either human or animal. If they are human, with a human soul, they are direct descendants of Adam and Eve, just as are we. This is definitively taught by the Church. It is not a point on which we are allowed to speculate.

I don’t see where I am not in line with Church teaching here. I am not making the assumption that Adam and Eve post date Neanderthals. I am also not making the assumption that our nomenclature over-rules God’s definition of humans. I think we are more or less in agreement, you seem to be saying the same thing my post did. I said we don’t know if neanderthals descended from Adam or Eve or not, so we should not absolutely declare them non human.

 

[Consecrated]

This is where people are not following me. Everybody seems to be concluding that Adam and Eve don’t pre-date the Neanderthal line.

*If *Adam and Eve pre-date the (theoretical) Neanderthal line, then (theologically speaking) there are two options:

1. Neanderthals were direct descendants of Adam and Eve, and thus had souls and were made in the image and likeness of God.
2. Neanderthals were not direct descendants of Adam and Eve, and did NOT have human souls, and were NOT made in the image and likeness of God.

*If *Adam and Eve DON’T pre-date the (theoretical) Neanderthal line, then

1. Neanderthals are not direct descendants of Adam and Eve, and therefore do NOT have human souls, and are NOT made in the image and likeness of God.

All speculations can go from here! This is how I understand Church teaching, anyway. Maybe I’ve made it too simplistic in my mind?

 

[Consecrated]

I think we are more or less in agreement, you seem to be saying the same thing my post did. I said we don’t know if neanderthals descended from Adam or Eve or not, so we should not absolutely declare them non human.

Oh, I see. I’m sorry for the misunderstanding.

I don’t see where I am not in line with Church teaching here. I am not making the assumption that Adam and Eve post date Neanderthals. I am also not making the assumption that our nomenclature over-rules God’s definition of humans.

I hope I’m not misunderstanding again, but just to be clear, it is true that God has given the Church teaching authority in regards to faith and morals. And since the Church has definitive teaching regarding humans and human souls, it can more or less be said that the Church’s “nomenclature” in this matter IS God’s definition of humans, albeit very weak (considering our limitations in respect to describing God), but no less binding. Am I understanding you properly?

 

[whm]

Oh, I see. I’m sorry for the misunderstanding.

I hope I’m not misunderstanding again, but just to be clear, it is true that God has given the Church teaching authority in regards to faith and morals. And since the Church has definitive teaching regarding humans and human souls, it can more or less be said that the Church’s “nomenclature” in this matter IS God’s definition of humans, albeit very weak (considering our limitations in respect to describing God), but no less binding. Am I understanding you properly?

To cut to the point I’m talking about the scientific nomenclature. Homo-neanderthal vs. homo sapien - neanderthal. I wasn’t trying to get real deep on this point.

I am not doubting the Church’s authority to reveal God’s truths regarding faith and morals. I think the Church is being very wise to not try and be a scientist. In my experience the science is a moving target.

 

[GEddie]

I would think that Neanderthals do not have souls. In order to have souls, they would have to be human.

Nope; by definition, “animals” are beings possessing a soul. “Anima” is the Latin term for soul. The Neanderthal were animals, as are we, since they breathed, moved, etc. Therefore they had a soul.

The Church teaches that the “animal soul” is not sutained beyond death, while the human soul, is. Basically the difference is that the human soul expresses a cognitive mind; which, of course, leaves no fossil traces. Therefore the possible eternal life for neanderthals must remain an open question.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Consecrated]

To cut to the point I’m talking about the scientific nomenclature. Homo-neanderthal vs. homo sapien - neanderthal. I wasn’t trying to get real deep on this point.

I am not doubting the Church’s authority to reveal God’s truths regarding faith and morals. I think the Church is being very wise to not try and be a scientist. In my experience the science is a moving target.

lol since I know nothing much about scientific nomenclature…
Regarding the relationship between the Church and the modern sciences, Humani Generis is a very good and enlightening document.

 

[Faith1960]

I would guess yes, although Neanderthals have been (at times) put is a separate “species” by science, they always been on the boarder line. I remember from my colleges anthropology courses that one theory about their disappearance was that they may have interbred with other humans.

I think I may have met a few of their descendants. Here’s a link to a news article supporting that theory.
nytimes.com/2010/05/07/science/07neanderthal.html?src=mv

 

[Faith1960]

Scientifically, I highly doubt that Neanderthals interbred with modern humans, at least not to any significant extent. No one has found any conclusive evidence to date that would indicate cross-species interbreeding. The fact that some modern humans may have some features that are generally associated with Neanderthals is not scientific evidence that one species derives from the other; they may simply be manifestations of dormant genes that came from our ancestors, which can be any species in the genus homo.

Apparently scientists think they have now…

 

[Mickey_Finn]

I think I may have met a few of their descendants. Here’s a link to a news article supporting that theory.
nytimes.com/2010/05/07/science/07neanderthal.html?src=mv

An interesting and timely article. I’ve an interest in neanderthals and read what I can on the subject. Nothing like an expert though.

I think it stands to reason, giving human behavior patterns. That if they met up with neanderthals there was some interaction of the biological nature. Were they close enough geneticly to reproduce successfully? Drawing much from such a small sample of DNA seems reckless to me.

I still feel that they were very different from us. So, I’m inclined to believe like others. That they lacked a soul like ours. Though I wish otherwise.

ATB