Do Animals Have Souls of Some Sort?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ClemtheCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m not sure about immortal souls. What defines an immortal soul? Is it the ability to know right from wrong? And, if it is, must one be able to exercise such ability?

Consider someone born with severe mental retardation, does that person have an immortal soul? He or she cannot know right from wrong. Further, imagine if such person were less intelligent than a certain chimp or a bonobo, would that mean that such person has an immortal soul even though he or she is less intelligent than a chimp or bonobo?

Indeed, what if there was a super chimp or super bonobo who did have the ability to know right from wrong, would such animal then be given an immortal soul? Would such animal then be on the same level of man?

Also, is the ability to exercise right from wrong important. If a baby is born healthy, but dies after a month or two, the baby had the potential to know right from wrong unlike the person born with severe mental retardation, but never had the ability to know right from wrong due to dying at such a young age. Would such baby still have an immortal soul?
 
Agnostic_Batman said:
I’m not sure about immortal souls. What defines an immortal soul? Is it the ability to know right from wrong? And, if it is, must one be able to exercise such ability?

Consider someone born with severe mental retardation, does that person have an immortal soul? He or she cannot know right from wrong. Further, imagine if such person were less intelligent than a certain chimp or a bonobo, would that mean that such person has an immortal soul even though he or she is less intelligent than a chimp or bonobo?

Indeed, what if there was a super chimp or super bonobo who did have the ability to know right from wrong, would such animal then be given an immortal soul? Would such animal then be on the same level of man?

Also, is the ability to exercise right from wrong important. If a baby is born healthy, but dies after a month or two, the baby had the potential to know right from wrong unlike the person born with severe mental retardation, but never had the ability to know right from wrong due to dying at such a young age. Would such baby still have an immortal soul?
Click to expand...
The term “spiritual soul” or “human soul” is better than immortal soul. Biblically, immortality belongs only to God.

The human soul is every human being’s birthright. It does not matter what brain conditions (or early death) prevent full development of the mind. Being born human is all that is required.

ICXC NIKA
 
GEddie said:
The term “spiritual soul” or “human soul” is better than immortal soul. Biblically, immortality belongs only to God.

The human soul is every human being’s birthright. It does not matter what brain conditions (or early death) prevent full development of the mind. Being born human is all that is required.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
Ok, that makes more sense. So, humans have spirituals souls regardless. That makes more sense to me. Humans are special in a way animals are not.

Still, isn’t it our ability to reason and think which really separates us. If an animal was as intelligent as you or I, and believed In Jesus as his Lord and Savior, would that animal have a “human type” soul. Indeed, it does not have to be limited to animals, it could be a robot which was given artifiicial intelligence that has become aware i.e. Short Circuit.
 
Agnostic_Batman said:
Ok, that makes more sense. So, humans have spirituals souls regardless. That makes more sense to me. Humans are special in a way animals are not.

Still, isn’t it our ability to reason and think which really separates us. If an animal was as intelligent as you or I, and believed In Jesus as his Lord and Savior, would that animal have a “human type” soul. Indeed, it does not have to be limited to animals, it could be a robot which was given artifiicial intelligence that has become aware i.e. Short Circuit.
Click to expand...
Too many what if’s there.

But I’d say yes, if some other creature demonstrably possessed a human-class mind, we would theologically be required to assume a spiritual soul. Only in that one instance though, not the entire species it belonged to.

A robot would be a more difficult case, as it was clearly programmed before it “developed” a conscious mind. It could simply be expressing a change in the programming it had received.

NB, I am not a theologian or priest, just a sinner.

ICXC NIKA
 
Consciousness =soul. My soul is my consciousness. Obviously animals are conscious*, therefore it is obvious that they have a soul.
  • To say otherwise implies that there is nothing wrong with torturing animals because animals feel no pain. A position both repugnant and absurd.
 
wittgenstein said:
Consciousness =soul. My soul is my consciousness. Obviously animals are conscious*, therefore it is obvious that they have a soul.
  • To say otherwise implies that there is nothing wrong with torturing animals because animals feel no pain. A position both repugnant and absurd.
Click to expand...
Your post seems to imply that feeling pain equates to consciousness. The ability to feel pain derives from nerves and sensors that trigger responses to the brain after certain stimulus.

If a human had the inability to feel pain, as some do in cases of certain diseases, I don’t think that has anything to do with or with not having a soul.

I don’t look at a mouse and say that the mouse has a soul because it feels pain. The mouse doesn’t know its a mouse. It doesn’t know about sin. It has no ability to think or reason beyond its own instincts

However, perhaps your torturing does not refer to self-infliction of pain, but instead to an animal seeing another animal whom it has a kindred relationship injured. For example, it would be torture to me to see my loved ones being hurt in front of my eyes, and being unable to help them. This is an interesting proposition. While I’m not sure a mother mouse would care if she had to watch one of her children eaten or tortured, there may be other animals that do. I could imagine chimpanzees, dolphins, and elephants may have some aversion. Would that aversion be to the level of torture? Perhaps, I do not know.
 
You are confusing C-fiber firing with pain. If an animal only had C fiber firings, there would be no qualia (I’d give a link but Im on a tablet. Google stanford encyclopedia of philosophy qualia).
I am not saying that pain =consciousness. I am making the obvious point that one cannot experience pain without being conscious.
 
Also google "Mary’s room Jackson " and “Searle chinese room”. Both are strong arguments from major (and academically validated) philosophers.
 
I do not see my intellect as my soul. If I was less intelligent (if you can imagine that :D) I would not have less of a soul. Also, if my brain had programmed in it “2+2=4” that would only be a brain pattern if I was unaware of that information. Matter has no intentionality (in the philosophical sense, a piece of matter is not about something.) For example, a light switch being on is not the “meaning” of the light being on.
Google cognitive phenomenology.
 
Oh, ok, so you are saying that something is conscious if 1) It can experience pain and 2) knows that it is experiencing pain.

Well, pain is very broad, thats why I mentioned the torturing of another which can cause one to experience emotional pain.

There is a disease called congenial insensitivity which eliminates someone’s ability to feel actual pain such as “ouch, that’s hot.” I’d imagine its almost like a lobster who dies by being boiled alive, but doesn’t know that he’s being boiled because it has no pain receptors. So, I don’t thing experiencing physical pain equates to consciousness.

Renee Descartes had the phrase “cogito ergo sum” also known as I think, therefore I am. I guess one could say, I experience pain, therefore I am. However, I’m not sure there really is a level of self-consciousness or consciousness with simply the ability to feel pain.
If you put many animals in front of a mirror, only a select few are able to look in the mirror and know that the creature in the mirror and it are one. I think of consciousness more in this light, more in the ability of being aware of one’s own existence. Further, being aware of one’s own existence, past and present and being able to reflect on that past and present so as to live a better life.

To me, simply being able to feel physical pain doesn’t satisfy consciousness. Yes, it shows that the animal is alive and can feel pain, but can it reflect on this pain or the decisions that led to this pain? Perhaps our problem stems from an equivocation of what consciousness means for you and I respectively.

However, emotional pain is much more interesting. For example, a mother chimp or elephant who cries or shows sadness or experiences other forms of emotional pain after seeing its baby tortured or killed is intriguing to me. There seems to be a different level of consciousness as to that.
 
I am not saying that if one is numb (unable to feel pain) one is not conscious. I am saying that if one experiences pain one must be conscious.
Similarily, if I said that if one were a dog one must be a mammal,. I am not saying that if one is a mammal one must be a dog.
 
Perhaps our disagreement is merely semantic. But I believe there is a difference between self awareness (self consciousness ) and consciousness.
Self consciousness is awareness of something,the self. Right there you split the soul in two.
Consciousness, however is not consciousness of a thing. For example, I may have the self concept I am a married white male,that believes in God…etc. However, that self concept is not me.
Similarily, I may have the concept “1+1=2” but that concept is not me,my soul.
 
wittgenstein said:
I am not saying that if one is numb (unable to feel pain) one is not conscious. I am saying that if one experiences pain one must be conscious.
Similarily, if I said that if one were a dog one must be a mammal,. I am not saying that if one is a mammal one must be a dog.
Click to expand...
Ahh, I see. The distinction is between sufficient and necessary conditions. If pain, then conscious. But, if one is unable to experience pain, there may still be a route to consciousness.

Still, we may have divergent views of what it means to be conscious. If I am able to reflect on my life and have the ability to reason about my existence with and with respect to others, then I am conscious.

Yet, my statement cannot be correct because I could imagine a scenario where a person was born with severe retardation and cannot reflect, is that person then not conscious? No, they must be conscious. However, are they as conscious as I am, as I currently type away what I believe it even means to be conscious? Probably not.

Yet, that may not be right either. That would seem to imply that the more one had the ability to think, the more conscious he or she is. Thus, Einstein, Humes, and Newton are more conscious than you or I. Yet, that hardly makes any sense. Perhaps there is a certain base level of consciousness. I would like to believe that I a human am more conscious than a rat. Thus, perhaps we mean consciousness in two different kinds of capacities.

Nevertheless, Ozzacam’s razor posits that the simplest answer is usually the best. In this case, your answer is much simpler than mine 👍
 
the only problem i have had recently with this topic of Animals and God, is my own interaction with the companions I had, they have all since passed, the friendship i had with them looking back i realize was taking the place of human relationships it was a safety blanket, animals / companions have a lot of human qualities and human like emotions, an as much as i cared for them and still miss them i now have to adjust and start taking risks engaging real people, and it becomes hard. Animals do deserve to be treated with compasion and kindness, but they shouldn’t be put above or even equal to humanity. This was a similar topic i started on an eco / conservation forum, and it aggrivated most to no end, the general feeling was that people are the main problem in the world , and are the entire cause to the destruction of the planet in general. An that if a species die we too will be closer to extinction. Which i find to be a nonsense arguement considering the dinosaurs have gone extinct along with plenty of other creatures an the planet and humanity is still going. They perpetuate that the survival of the planet is the most important and worth while cause but for what? Some I have encoutered on the site i speak of, have no recognition of God or are flat out do not believe, and say that it is the survival of the planet that really matters this idea of " mother earth " ( which is a saying i hate to no end ) .

There are plenty of good honest conservation programs out in the world that are run by all kinds of people from all kinds of faith in our local areas, but i am finding more an more that big name NGOs like the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and Greenpeace are indeed under a major mindset that animals/ cetaceans are either equal to if not worth more than a human because they " play a pivotal role in the survival of the planet ". It is a shame to because the NGOs are doing good things for the world, but under the wrong premise, and the founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society Paul Watson, is one of those people who goes out of his way to bash mainly Christianity, yet boasts about backing from the dali lama, and perpetuates how the world will come crumbling down because a species of cetacean dies off. I do not question how humanty has no right to be slaughtering animals in the cruel an pointless manner that it does, but i have problem with people who put animals equal to or greater than Humanity, and I find it troubleing when people like Paul Watson who does something good like protecting cetaceans from over explotation and destruction, to then turn around and go out of his way to discredit Christianty. He is a person i constantly pray for conversion. He needs an awakening.

I have too heard about the rainbow bridge poem / story , it is indeed beautiful and comforting, I for one do hope God will bless me and my family to be with Him in Heaven and I also hope He will allow me to be reunited with the companions He blessed me with ! Because they were a big part of my life in some very hard times.
 
I am greatly enjoying this conversation, thanks! Most people think that philosophy is superfluous to life. I strongly believe that the ultimate questions are far more important then practical considerations such as the price of toilet paper.
 
I strongly believe that the Bible is profound and to understand it literally makes it mundane.
Consider, our last interaction and incorporate those concepts with Luke 17:21 and 1 Corinthian 13:12
" Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror. Then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part,then I shall know in full,even as I am fully known."
“I am that I am” Exodus 3:14
I think therefore I am!
 
I’ve so enjoyed reading this thread. I’m glad to know there are other Catholics like me who believe animals DO go to Heaven!

It just makes sense to me. If we love animals how much more infinitely must God love them. And animals are not capable of sinning so they’re not capable of separating themselves from God.

I’m looking forward to being reunited with many beloved pets in Heaven someday.
 
RCinColo60 said:
I’ve so enjoyed reading this thread. I’m glad to know there are other Catholics like me who believe animals DO go to Heaven.
Click to expand...
Oops, should’ve said “other Christians…” since I just noticed not everyone who posted is Catholic. Sorry, new here :o
 
john78 said:
the only problem i have had recently with this topic of Animals and God, is my own interaction with the companions I had, they have all since passed, the friendship i had with them looking back i realize was taking the place of human relationships it was a safety blanket, animals / companions have a lot of human qualities and human like emotions, an as much as i cared for them and still miss them i now have to adjust and start taking risks engaging real people, and it becomes hard. Animals do deserve to be treated with compasion and kindness, but they shouldn’t be put above or even equal to humanity. This was a similar topic i started on an eco / conservation forum, and it aggrivated most to no end, the general feeling was that people are the main problem in the world , and are the entire cause to the destruction of the planet in general. An that if a species die we too will be closer to extinction. Which i find to be a nonsense arguement considering the dinosaurs have gone extinct along with plenty of other creatures an the planet and humanity is still going. They perpetuate that the survival of the planet is the most important and worth while cause but for what? Some I have encoutered on the site i speak of, have no recognition of God or are flat out do not believe, and say that it is the survival of the planet that really matters this idea of " mother earth " ( which is a saying i hate to no end ) .

There are plenty of good honest conservation programs out in the world that are run by all kinds of people from all kinds of faith in our local areas, but i am finding more an more that big name NGOs like the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and Greenpeace are indeed under a major mindset that animals/ cetaceans are either equal to if not worth more than a human because they " play a pivotal role in the survival of the planet ". It is a shame to because the NGOs are doing good things for the world, but under the wrong premise, and the founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society Paul Watson, is one of those people who goes out of his way to bash mainly Christianity, yet boasts about backing from the dali lama, and perpetuates how the world will come crumbling down because a species of cetacean dies off. I do not question how humanty has no right to be slaughtering animals in the cruel an pointless manner that it does, but i have problem with people who put animals equal to or greater than Humanity, and I find it troubleing when people like Paul Watson who does something good like protecting cetaceans from over explotation and destruction, to then turn around and go out of his way to discredit Christianty. He is a person i constantly pray for conversion. He needs an awakening.

I have too heard about the rainbow bridge poem / story , it is indeed beautiful and comforting, I for one do hope God will bless me and my family to be with Him in Heaven and I also hope He will allow me to be reunited with the companions He blessed me with ! Because they were a big part of my life in some very hard times.
Click to expand...
Good post!! You have described the attitude of modern man to his fellow humans.
Both the left and the right are guilty of this mindset. :tiphat:
 
Any issues with this definition of the human soul: “Man’s immortal spiritual element which is separated from the body at natural death.”?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top