Do Animals Have Immaterial Souls?

[Camron]

My first premise is; I believe in the immaterial soul.

My second premise; although i believe that physical objects accompany or allow human-awareness( E.g, we need and depend on a fully funtioning brain to think), I do not believe that self awareness is ultimately the property and produce of atoms.

My problem, is that certain animals, such as dolphines and monkeys (not sure which type), are said to be capable of very basic abstract thinking. That might not be true according to some of you; but i have observed the behavior of cats and dogs and they appear to be “self-aware”. It cannot be simply described as random goings on in the brain or some biological software program which was brought together by accident; now running its coarse through-out the lives of every species. Some animals appear to have fun and play.

Conclusion; If we are to believe in the immaterial soul at all, we either have to redifine it as something which relates only to our relationship with God and not Our “selfawareness”. Making the mind a purley physical reality. Or, we ought to think that certain types of complex organism, although they do not have a “rational soul”, have a immaterial soul, like us.

Any comments, disagreements or wisdom?

One simple test for self awareness (that doesn’t involve excruciating tortures) is simply placing a white dab of paint on the animal’s face and check if they recognize it when they look into a mirror.

Elephants are one of the few animals that seem to notice something different on their face (they’ll reach up with their trunk to touch the white dab when they look into a mirror and see their own reflection). I think some monkeys are able to do this too.

Most other animals do not seem to have the self-awareness enough to figure out there is something different though.

I’m not sure if self-awareness necessarily means they have an immortal soul though. If animals are found in heaven I think it would be because God elevated their “natural soul” for some reason. I do not think this “eternal nature” is an intrinsic part of their 'natural soul".

 

[Camron]

I thought I would add this,

The famous studies accomplished by Wolfgang Kohler in the Canary Islands clearly demonstrated the use of rational cunning and conjugated actions by superior monkeys. Among the countless observations led by this scientist, there is one that, not only due to its humorous aspect, but also because of the existence of a definite abstract component in the process, deserves to be mentioned here. It has to do with the malicious and wicked attitude practiced by two male chimpanzees against a chicken: one of the monkeys presents a food to the fowl, encouraging it to approach. As soon as the chicken gets close enough, the other chimpanzee hits the fowl with a wire that he had maintained hidden behind his back. The chicken retreats but soon falls again in the trap, since its mind is not capable to establish association between the offer of food and the following blow. And the game goes on and on, until the monkeys, possibly tired of their joke, move away from the stupid gallinaceous. The abstract component is denounced by the evident forethought of an elaborated conspiracy, executed, in an united action, by the two chimpanzees.

Abstract Thought - Brain & Mind Magazine

any thoughts?

My only question is:

Do these monkeys actually know that what they are doing is evil (or at least cruel)?

If they do not possess this capability of human reason then they do not possess a soul in the same sense as humans do.

The primary “functional” difference between the animal’s soul and the human’s soul is that the animal’s soul does not seem to be able to move above the “cause and effect” to clearly see the morality of their actions.

Of course, some modern philosophers scoff at the idea of any particular action being good or evil. It seems they have perhaps gone the way of the beast…

Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings; yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord.

But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.

They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.

2 Peter 2:11-13

 

[Pete_1]

One simple test for self awareness (that doesn’t involve excruciating tortures) is simply placing a white dab of paint on the animal’s face and check if they recognize it when they look into a mirror.

Elephants are one of the few animals that seem to notice something different on their face (they’ll reach up with their trunk to touch the white dab when they look into a mirror and see their own reflection). I think some monkeys are able to do this too.

Most other animals do not seem to have the self-awareness enough to figure out there is something different though.

I’m not sure if self-awareness necessarily means they have an immortal soul though. If animals are found in heaven I think it would be because God elevated their “natural soul” for some reason. I do not think this “eternal nature” is an intrinsic part of their 'natural soul".

Robots pass this test (see my post above)

 

[Camron]

Robots pass this test (see my post above)

Note: Links usually are not read regardless of how informative they might be.

Anyway, robots do not pass this test unless they’ve chosen to touch the dot. Simply programming something to recognize something doesn’t count as a soul, except of course for the soul of the programmer who progrmmed it to act that way. When a robot has a fee-will then I suppose we discuss this further. Until then…

1. The self robot Rs imitates the action of its own image reflected in a mirror because the self robot Rs is programmed to imitate the action of its own image reflected in a mirror.
2. The self robot Rs imitates an action taken intentionally by the other robot Ro as imitative behavior because the self robot Rs is programmed to imitate an action taken intentionally by the other robot Ro as imitative behavior .
3. The controlled robot Rc is controlled completely from the self-robot to imitate his behavior because the controlled robot Rc is programmed to be controlled completely from the self-robot to imitate his behavior.
4. The self robot Rs imitates the random actions of the automatic robot Ra because the self robot Rs is programmed to imitate the random actions of the automatic robot Ra.

Before you can talk about being self-aware it has to first have a “self”. When something is simply responding to stimulus that it was programmed to respond to in the first place, this doesn’t even count as being aware to begin with. There is no choice involved.

It’s like saying that a magnet is “aware” of the metal that it is attracted to. It’s not. The magnet has no choice in whether it will be attracted to the metal or not. A conscious being, however, does have a choice.

In fact, if the metal were not attracted to the magnet, someone might conclude that the magnet is broken. No one would conclude that the magnet chose not to attract the metal.

The same thing is true of the experiment presented in the link.

Goodness gracious, if this is what’s being presented as evidence of consciousness, then I would indeed say that our modern scientific society is in deep doggy doo doo…

 

[Pete_1]

Note: Links usually are not read regardless of how informative they might be.

Anyway, robots do not pass this test unless they’ve chosen to touch the dot. Simply programming something to recognize something doesn’t count as a soul, except of course for the soul of the programmer who progrmmed it to act that way. When a robot has a fee-will then I suppose we discuss this further. Until then…

1. The self robot Rs imitates the action of its own image reflected in a mirror because the self robot Rs is programmed to imitate the action of its own image reflected in a mirror.
2. The self robot Rs imitates an action taken intentionally by the other robot Ro as imitative behavior because the self robot Rs is programmed to imitate an action taken intentionally by the other robot Ro as imitative behavior .
3. The controlled robot Rc is controlled completely from the self-robot to imitate his behavior because the controlled robot Rc is programmed to be controlled completely from the self-robot to imitate his behavior.
4. The self robot Rs imitates the random actions of the automatic robot Ra because the self robot Rs is programmed to imitate the random actions of the automatic robot Ra.Before you can talk about being self-aware it has to first have a “self”. When something is simply responding to stimulus that it was programmed to respond to in the first place, this doesn’t even count as being aware to begin with. There is no choice involved.

It’s like saying that a magnet is “aware” of the metal that it is attracted to. It’s not. The magnet has no choice in whether it will be attracted to the metal or not. A conscious being, however, does have a choice.

In fact, if the metal were not attracted to the magnet, someone might conclude that the magnet is broken. No one would conclude that the magnet chose not to attract the metal.

The same thing is true of the experiment presented in the link.

Goodness gracious, if this is what’s being presented as evidence of consciousness, then I would indeed say that our modern scientific society is in deep doggy doo doo…

What I was trying to say was that passing the mirror test does not necessarily indicate self awareness. Animals could simply be automata like the robot.

 

[Camron]

What I was trying to say was that passing the mirror test does not necessarily indicate self awareness. Animals could simply be automata like the robot.

While I don’t think that animals have a rational soul, I do believe they have material souls which are capable of choices. I’m sure there’s more than enough data available in scientific experimentation to justify the belief that animals are capable of making choices too. They certainly feel emotions just like we do. Although some animals might have some altruistic instincts I suppose, I just don’t think they fully perceive the moral implications of their choices like humans do.

 

[mapleoak]

What I was trying to say was that passing the mirror test does not necessarily indicate self awareness. Animals could simply be automata like the robot.

Animals are not unlike robots in that they follow pre-defined instict. Example, when a buck in rut comes across a doe in heat, it is helpless to anything but mating with the doe. It cannot decide it will excercise self control and not mate. Likewise it cannot come upon a heap of food and being hungry, decide it will sacrifice and go without this time around.

 

[MacRath]

Could someone please point me to the dogmatic statement that demands we acquiesce to the belief that animals have no eternal souls. The last time I looked through the catechism the only thing I could find was that by their very existence they are a blessing to God never to be exploited but given unto us in stewardship.

Yes, the Church had opinions, but I was not aware that the faithful were required to accept them as dogmatic, leaving it rather to our conscience. I was assured as such by a seminarian who mentioned Aquinas work.

I know some kids in FOCUS got confused by this, perhaps an unconscious vestigial belief of their leaders who ate the husks of American evangelism before coming or returning to the Church.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Going back to Thomistic Philosophy, it states that everything living has a soul. The difference is in the kind of soul. Humans have a rational, immortal soul, created in the image of God All other living things on earth have what is termed a mortal and irrational soul It teaches that upon death, the mortal, irrational soul ceases to exist.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[MacRath]

Thank you. Sincerely. But is that a dogmatic teaching like the Assumption? Are we required to believe once an animal dies its soul perishes as well?

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

No, to the best of my knowledge, it is not dogma like the Assumption. I would however reflect on Genesis wherein all creation was made subject to man. Plants and animals. That being so, would deny immortality on part of animals and all that flesh eating would imply. The soul is the principle of life, not only for man but for all non human living organisms. Irrationality bespeaks mortality of soul. . No creature, other than rational man was created in the image of God, and that image includes immortality.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[mapleoak]

Thank you. Sincerely. But is that a dogmatic teaching like the Assumption? Are we required to believe once an animal dies its soul perishes as well?

If one were to ponder the implications of an irrational creature being capable of everlasting life, would you say it is deserving of eternal happiness or eternal damnation?
It is reasonable to believe that since animals have no basis for merit or demerit and since God does not force creatures to love Him, that animals are not made to praise God for all eternity nor to suffer eternal anguish for a life which they have no account of.

 

[MacRath]

Thank you both for your thoughts.

I was embarrassed…my spiritual director corrected me this w/e on dogma versus infallible teaching. The Assumption being infallible teaching.

Because the catechism so clearly instructs that animals are a blessing to God by their very existence, I prefer to believe that that blessing, presumably being God’s in the first place, will persist in some way.

But the above is my private opinion, not infallible teaching and no one is required to believe it any more than they are required to believe animals have finite souls. I only say this so it is clear that I am not attempting to argue against the philosophies put forth in this thread already, or to suggest that those philosophies are wrong, or to be devalued in any way.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

T
.my spiritual director corrected me this w/e on dogma versus infallible teaching. The Assumption being infallible teaching.
.

In response to the above, let me simply quote “The Catholic Encyclopedia” A one volume edition put out by Our Sunday Visitor it says in part:
**In the only declared exercise of papal infallibility, Pope Pius XII, after consultation with all the bishops of the Catholic church, on November 1, 1950, *proclaimed the Assumption of the blessed Virgin Mary a doctrine of the Faith. The dogma of the assumption *states that Mary was taken up body and soul into heaven, after the completion of her earthly life (in theological terminology, her dormition, or falling asleep in the Lord) since by reason of her Immaculate Conception shse should not duffer the consequences of original sin. **
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Pete_1]

This extract from the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy shows that the question of animal consciousness is in no way answered:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-animal/

 

[MindOverMatter]

What would it mean for Christian theology if it were found to be the case that some animals share at least a sense of self, like human beings? Do we not have to accept that animals have immaterial souls? For if we do not accept it, then we must accept that “self”, is a material phenomena.

If i am inccorect, then please correct me, or give me some links which have free (up-to-date) treatese on the nature of “self” and the soul.

Thank you to all who have participated.

 

[JLongoria]

What would it mean for Christian theology if it were found to be the case that some animals share at least a sense of self, like human beings? Do we not have to accept that animals have immaterial souls? For if we do not accept it, then we must accept that “self”, is a material phenomena.

If i am inccorect, then please correct me, or give me some links which have free (up-to-date) treatese on the nature of “self” and the soul.

Thank you to all who have participated.

I don’t think that it would affect Christian theology at all for one very important reason. Someone else said it, but I’ll reiterate it here: the capacity to think does not a soul make.

Just to show that I’m not biased here, I have a cat; a fat cat, whom I love very much. I really consider him a gift from God in my life (despite the fact that he’s aging, and has recently contracted kitty IBS), whom acts as comfort. I can really see the reason why St. Francis loved animals as he did.

Humans are special because we are not only aware, but we are aware that we are aware. Yet that’s not the only thing that makes us special; in fact, the thing that makes us most important is that we were made in God’s image. And it’s most important because this is the creature whom God came in to in order for our sake and our salvation.

It becomes necessary to say that the possession of an intellectual faculty is kept clear away from the definition of “soul”. If not, we find ourselves in a hefty conundrum concerning those who have limited capacity for thought, such as children or the mentally ill or challenged.

 

[peary]

My first premise is; I believe in the immaterial soul.
My second premise; although i believe that physical objects accompany or allow human-awareness( E.g, we need and depend on a fully funtioning brain to think), I do not believe that self awareness is ultimately the property and produce of atoms.

My problem, is that certain animals, such as dolphines and monkeys (not sure which type), are said to be capable of very basic abstract thinking. That might not be true according to some of you; but i have observed the behavior of cats and dogs and they appear to be “self-aware”. It cannot be simply described as random goings on in the brain or some biological software program which was brought together by accident; now running its coarse through-out the lives of every species. Some animals appear to have fun and play.

Conclusion; If we are to believe in the immaterial soul at all, we either have to redifine it as something which relates only to our relationship with God and not Our “selfawareness”. Making the mind a purley physical reality. Or, we ought to think that certain types of complex organism, although they do not have a “rational soul”, have a immaterial soul, like us.

Any comments, disagreements or wisdom?

**All we can glean from the bible and our tradition is that God created male and female human beings. Above all other forms of creation, He infused within these beings immortality - the ability to live forever, just as God is eternal. This immortal aspect of the human person is called the ‘soul’ and exists from the moment of conception to physical death. We are infused with the glory of God!

This has nothing to do with the brain per se. The brain allows us to understand, contemplate and manipulate the outer physical world. The brain allows us to contemplate and know God in our personal lives. Even with a lower functioning brain, we would still possess the gift of immortality.**

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Don’t forget. God created man (and woman) in his image. Only man and woman in his image. All of the rest of creation was put under the dominion of mankind. That is your difference.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[packermann]

The church says they don’t have an immaterial soul. I’m just wondering what the Pope would say if it was latter found out that they did.

Not sure I agree. I did read a Catholic philosophy book once that said that although animals do not have immortal souls, they do have immaterial souls.