Do Animals Have Souls?

[kooldood]

Wasn’t so sure where to put this thread. Anyway…

I beleived, and still pretty much do, that animals don’t have souls. However, I was visiting this school for kids discerning the priesthood (a boarding school) and the kids got into a discussion about whether animals have souls.

Which got me thinking.

I have absolutely no evidence for or against it. So I was thinking if any of you all could shed some light on the subject. While you’re at it, do animals have feelings?

Thanks to all.

 

[Lutheranteach]

I was once asked by a 10 year old if there were dogs in heaven. IF there were none, he wanted to go somewhere else when he died. That boy loved his dog as he was handicapped and his dog was a service dog that truly opened the young man’s world

 

[Sair]

If animals have souls, humans have souls - humans are animals too.

If there is a spiritual aspect to living things - perhaps the thing that makes us ‘live’ - it is shared amongst all living things.

The alternative is that no animals have souls, which means humans have no souls either. Considering that there is much evidence linking mental experience with brain activity, and absolutely no unequivocal evidence for the existence of spirits or a spirit realm, at present I hold to this understanding.

And quite frankly, even when I was a Catholic, I didn’t want to be in a heaven that didn’t admit my dogs! I always found it impossible to believe that a benevolent god would exclude such innately loving creatures from eternal bliss.

 

[John21652]

Wasn’t so sure where to put this thread. Anyway…

I beleived, and still pretty much do, that animals don’t have souls. However, I was visiting this school for kids discerning the priesthood (a boarding school) and the kids got into a discussion about whether animals have souls.

Which got me thinking.

I have absolutely no evidence for or against it. So I was thinking if any of you all could shed some light on the subject. While you’re at it, do animals have feelings?

Thanks to all.

I was taught at school (Catholic schools all the way) that animals don’t have souls. If they did and most went to heaven, there’d be a lot of stray dogs and cats roaming around. And how would God decide which dog was good and bad?
Let’s not even get into the lions and tigers and snakes and spiders and…

Do animals have feelings?
Yes they do. They know fear and friendship, loneliness, happiness and stress. However, the tendency for us is to use human descriptive terms and so we ascribe to them human feelings and emotions. This, in my experience, is fallacious.

A cow will miss is calf, when the calf is taken away, but only for a few days. Then it goes back to what it concentrates on the most - its stomach! The calf will immediately attach to whoever, or whatever, delivers the milk. Almost all animals are social creatures and don’t like to be on their own, but whether it is because they feel more secure in a group, or whether they feel lonliness, like we do, who knows. I suspect the former. Anyone of us could write a long essay on the subject, referencing animal after animal and this is not the place for that. However, a main concern of mine is the notion that animals have equal, or similar rights, to people. I find that predicated on a misguided attempt at alleviating what some humans view as ‘animal misery’, but desribed, once again, from the human perspective. Too many people today are concentrating on turning animals into ‘people’.

 

[vz71]

Animals have souls.
But these souls are not the eternal type that man has. They die.

Point being said…
I have been asked by my children if pets go to heaven.
I truthfully answer that heaven is a place of eternal happiness.
If a pet is needed to make you happy, I am sure one will be provided.

Now as to feelings…
Possible, but I do not believe they could be the same feelings we experience.

 

[GreenWhiteBlue]

I was taught at school (Catholic schools all the way) that animals don’t have souls.

Really? I was taught at school (and it was Catholic school for me to the end of high school) the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas: animals have souls (because if they didn’t, they would be dead matter, and not living beings), but those souls were not rational and not immortal.

 

[kimmielittle]

Hiyas

God created humankind in His image. Separate from all other creation.

All life has Spirit.

All life has worth.

IMHO God made no mistakes.

Will my puppy go to Heaven? I think, yes… If God knows I need my puppy.

As always, just my thoughts

 

[Robintrinket]

If animals have souls, humans have souls - humans are animals too.

If there is a spiritual aspect to living things - perhaps the thing that makes us ‘live’ - it is shared amongst all living things.

The alternative is that no animals have souls, which means humans have no souls either. Considering that there is much evidence linking mental experience with brain activity, and absolutely no unequivocal evidence for the existence of spirits or a spirit realm, at present I hold to this understanding.

And quite frankly, even when I was a Catholic, I didn’t want to be in a heaven that didn’t admit my dogs! I always found it impossible to believe that a benevolent god would exclude such innately loving creatures from eternal bliss.

One does not have to believe that either animals and humans are both spiritual, or both completely material.

Animals do not have intellect and free will like humans do, or a soul that will live forever, as humans do. The intellect and free will (ability to make moral choices) is what makes humans created in the image of God. “Mental experience” is linked to brain activity, but our brains are the instruments of our souls. In Genesis, God made humans in His own image, and they were given dominion over the rest of creation.

Animals are purely material, not spiritual. Since they cannot make moral choices like humans, they cannot merit reward or punishment. Since animals are purely material, I think they probably cannot be in Heaven now, until the end of the world when the material world is made new and everyone rises from the dead. Then maybe even particular animals, like pets, could be made again, just like our material bodies will rise again.

Another point I would like to make is that people in Heaven will be completely happy, whether their pets are there or not. All humans really need for happiness is God.

 

[Sair]

I was taught at school (Catholic schools all the way) that animals don’t have souls. If they did and most went to heaven, there’d be a lot of stray dogs and cats roaming around. And how would God decide which dog was good and bad?
Let’s not even get into the lions and tigers and snakes and spiders and…

Do animals have feelings?
Yes they do. They know fear and friendship, loneliness, happiness and stress. However, the tendency for us is to use human descriptive terms and so we ascribe to them human feelings and emotions. This, in my experience, is fallacious.

A cow will miss is calf, when the calf is taken away, but only for a few days. Then it goes back to what it concentrates on the most - its stomach! The calf will immediately attach to whoever, or whatever, delivers the milk. Almost all animals are social creatures and don’t like to be on their own, but whether it is because they feel more secure in a group, or whether they feel lonliness, like we do, who knows. I suspect the former. Anyone of us could write a long essay on the subject, referencing animal after animal and this is not the place for that. However, a main concern of mine is the notion that animals have equal, or similar rights, to people. I find that predicated on a misguided attempt at alleviating what some humans view as ‘animal misery’, but desribed, once again, from the human perspective. Too many people today are concentrating on turning animals into ‘people’.

My mother is one of the most committed Catholics I know, and as far as I’m aware, she has always believed other animals must have souls. I don’t think Christian faith precludes belief that all animals have an immortal spiritual aspect.

As to feelings, I think it is legitimate to suppose, from what evidence we can access, that animals experience emotion. Much as I would love to be able to climb inside my dog’s head and discover what it’s like to be him, I can’t see that happening any time soon! However, what I can discern is that he demonstrates signs of pleasure when I come home from work in the afternoons, or when I feed him, or when I take him to the beach; similarly, he exhibits signs of distress when one of the cats takes a swipe at him, when confronted by aggression from a larger dog, or when (as recently happened) he has an allergic reaction to something. His emotions may well be more simple than mine, but I see no reason to doubt that they are present. I don’t think it’s necessary to anthropomorphise other animals in order to suppose them capable of suffering or of experiencing pleasure, and this is a legitimate motivation for those interested in animal welfare.

And just as an interesting aside, is there a discernible difference between feeling insecure when not part of a group, and feeling loneliness? Or are these degrees of the same kind of feeling? I know that it’s often possible to feel lonely in company, when we feel no connection with the other people near us - but that also implies, to me, that we feel insecure because we don’t trust the others to care about us. By the same token, I see my dog react differently to other dogs, depending upon how well they seem to ‘connect’ - he tolerates my husband’s dog, but they don’t play together; on the other hand, my dog will happily play with other dogs in our neighbourhood. What I assume from this is that different dogs have different personalities, and some are more compatible than others.

 

[JReducation]

According to Aquinas the lower animals have material souls. This is a soul that is finite, whereas the human soul is supernatual. We’ll have to wait to get to heaven to find out if Aquinas was right.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[John21652]

Really? I was taught at school (and it was Catholic school for me to the end of high school) the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas: animals have souls (because if they didn’t, they would be dead matter, and not living beings), but those souls were not rational and not immortal.

Well, I grew up believing animals did not have souls and none of the nuns ever said otherwise. Or at least not that I recall and I can absolutely gaurantee I listened to every word in -]geography/-] -] maths /-] -]sport/-] -]history/-] , er, religion?

As for animals having feelings, of course they do, but, as **Sair **pointed out, we can’t get inside the heads of our pets. What we know has to be from observation. I spent most of my life running a farm and I’ve seen and studied animal behaviour up close. They do experience emotions, but we can only describe them in terms of what we experience and that is wrong, IMO. Naturally, sensible people recognise that animals can react to ill treatment and so act accordingly. However, it should be an animal welfare issue and not an animal rights issue. The latter is, in my opinion, a slippery slope onto which we, as Catholics and Christians, should fear to tread.

 

[JReducation]

Well, I grew up believing animals did not have souls and none of the nuns ever said otherwise. Or at least not that I recall and I can absolutely gaurantee I listened to every word in -]geography/-] -] maths /-] -]sport/-] -]history/-] , er, religion?

As for animals having feelings, of course they do, but, as **Sair **pointed out, we can’t get inside the heads of our pets. What we know has to be from observation. I spent most of my life running a farm and I’ve seen and studied animal behaviour up close. They do experience emotions, but we can only describe them in terms of what we experience and that is wrong, IMO. Naturally, sensible people recognise that animals can react to ill treatment and so act accordingly. However, it should be an animal welfare issue and not an animal rights issue. The latter is, in my opinion, a slippery slope onto which we, as Catholics and Christians, should fear to tread.

I guess you can use “animal rights” as long as it is understood that the rights of the lower animals are not the same as those of the human animal. These animals have a right to live, to be treated with kindness and respect, to protected from cruelty and to have their natural environments respected. But it must be understood that one cannot usurp the rights of a human being over those of an alligator, for example.

But if you commit youself to a pet, the animal has a right to be treated with kindness, to be cared for, and to be protected from cruelty by outsiders.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that there are different rights that are appropriate for different life forms.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[John21652]

I guess you can use “animal rights” as long as it is understood that the rights of the lower animals are not the same as those of the human animal. These animals have a right to live, to be treated with kindness and respect, to protected from cruelty and to have their natural environments respected. But it must be understood that one cannot usurp the rights of a human being over those of an alligator, for example.

But if you commit youself to a pet, the animal has a right to be treated with kindness, to be cared for, and to be protected from cruelty by outsiders.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that there are different rights that are appropriate for different life forms.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Now that’s quite a sensible answer. I’m sure you’ll agree that most of us have the capacity to be sensible, particularly when it comes to owning and handling animals.

However, there is a distinct division between ‘animal welfare’ and ‘animal rights’ and that is why I mentioned the slippery slope. Animal Rights is predicated on equality being afforded to different races and different species. The ‘father’ of animal rights, Philosopher Peter Singer, tells us we are guilty of ‘specieism’ and that has caused us to treat animals terribly. In fact, for him, treating animals terribly means eating them and utilising them for the manufacture of other, animal based products. Now here I don’t want to get into the rights and wrongs of eating animals. What I would like to show, however, is that aligning ourselves with an ‘animal rights’ philosophy is dangerous to Christianity and dangerous to Catholicism.

Animal rights is based on Utilitarianism. That Philosophy dictates that philosophical, political and social outcomes should result in the greatest good, or happiness, for the greatest number. It tells us that morality is not objective, as in a god given creed, but is based on relations between living things. Singer has broadened the concept of ‘personhood’ to include ‘sentient beings’ and his logic has included sentient beings into the sphere of relations between living beings. His definition of personhood, based on sentience, includes animals. Thus animals are to be considered alongside humans when moral deliberations are taking place. Thanks to Singer’s Philosophical predications, the world is now considering animals as being worthy of equal consideration to humans. animal libberation activists disrupt industry, violate the nations laws and all in the name of ‘animal rights’.

The thing is, in his treatises, Singer writes that the bible is “myth” and the Judeo-Christian ethic is responsible for the ills that have befallen our animals. Thus, this Utilitarian based, egalitarian approach to life on earth is non Christian. It actually denounces Christianity to form one of the basic syllogisms for its entire philosophical theory. Many are attracted to the animal rights issue because of reports on so called factory farms and because the killing of anything can be an emotive issue to people now a long way removed from the food chain which supplies them with nourishment. The trap is, that good God fearing Catholics and other Christians are unwittingly giving credence to a philosophy which is predicated on the non existence of God. It is a Philosophy which will open up a major chink in the armour of our western Judeo-Christian heritage, which is already under seige from an increasingly secularised, liberal society.

The alternative approach for our Christian society should be a further developement of animal welfare codes which do not raise up the status of animals to that of ‘persons’ and so conflict with the Bible and even the teachings of Aquinas and his successors.

 

[John21652]

I guess you can use “animal rights” as long as it is understood that the rights of the lower animals are not the same as those of the human animal. These animals have a right to live, to be treated with kindness and respect, to protected from cruelty and to have their natural environments respected. But it must be understood that one cannot usurp the rights of a human being over those of an alligator, for example. But if you commit youself to a pet, the animal has a right to be treated with kindness, to be cared for, and to be protected from cruelty by outsiders. I guess what I’m trying to say is that there are different rights that are appropriate for different life forms. Fraternally, Br. JR, OSF

SOME READINGS
Wikipedia - basic reading on Singer and animal rights.
All animals Are Equal, by Peter Singer.
Singer on animal Liberation 1985
In Defense Of Animals :The Second Wave Edited by Peter Singer

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Wasn’t so sure where to put this thread. Anyway…

I beleived, and still pretty much do, that animals don’t have souls. However, I was visiting this school for kids discerning the priesthood (a boarding school) and the kids got into a discussion about whether animals have souls.

Which got me thinking.

I have absolutely no evidence for or against it. So I was thinking if any of you all could shed some light on the subject. While you’re at it, do animals have feelings?

Thanks to all.

I believe all living things have souls, or spirits, from the highest to the lowest, from an elephant to a virus.

One of my personal crackpot theories is that God is going to drive us off the planet, for a couple of reasons. First He’s put an immense universe out there and He hasn’t finished with the human story. Second He’s going to make, or allow, conditions to get so bad on earth that we’ll have to go. This will also serve the purpose of a judgement.

I personally the juxtaposed images of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the emaciated Holocaust survivors staring out through the barbed wire give some idea of where we’re heading. At Akita in 1973/74 for example, Mary stated quite bluntly, “You have no idea what’s being prepared for you if you do not change…” and “the living will envy the dead” (which is also stated in Revelation). I personally believe the satanic images in the smoke of 9/11 were a further warning.

This leaves the question of how we’ll move in large numbers. Rocketry is far too slow. I believe we’ll learn to quantum teleport, but I also believe that there will be a significant ttime lapse between the time we teleport material items and living creatures. If living creatures possess souls, or spirits, then that will not be quantised, and they will arrive invariably dead. Eventually we’ll learn to get around that, but it will also be the “proof” that living creatures have souls.

 

[Sair]

Now that’s quite a sensible answer. I’m sure you’ll agree that most of us have the capacity to be sensible, particularly when it comes to owning and handling animals.

However, there is a distinct division between ‘animal welfare’ and ‘animal rights’ and that is why I mentioned the slippery slope. Animal Rights is predicated on equality being afforded to different races and different species. The ‘father’ of animal rights, Philosopher Peter Singer, tells us we are guilty of ‘specieism’ and that has caused us to treat animals terribly. In fact, for him, treating animals terribly means eating them and utilising them for the manufacture of other, animal based products. Now here I don’t want to get into the rights and wrongs of eating animals. What I would like to show, however, is that aligning ourselves with an ‘animal rights’ philosophy is dangerous to Christianity and dangerous to Catholicism.

Animal rights is based on Utilitarianism. That Philosophy dictates that philosophical, political and social outcomes should result in the greatest good, or happiness, for the greatest number. It tells us that morality is not objective, as in a god given creed, but is based on relations between living things. Singer has broadened the concept of ‘personhood’ to include ‘sentient beings’ and his logic has included sentient beings into the sphere of relations between living beings. His definition of personhood, based on sentience, includes animals. Thus animals are to be considered alongside humans when moral deliberations are taking place. Thanks to Singer’s Philosophical predications, the world is now considering animals as being worthy of equal consideration to humans. animal libberation activists disrupt industry, violate the nations laws and all in the name of ‘animal rights’.

The thing is, in his treatises, Singer writes that the bible is “myth” and the Judeo-Christian ethic is responsible for the ills that have befallen our animals. Thus, this Utilitarian based, egalitarian approach to life on earth is non Christian. It actually denounces Christianity to form one of the basic syllogisms for its entire philosophical theory. Many are attracted to the animal rights issue because of reports on so called factory farms and because the killing of anything can be an emotive issue to people now a long way removed from the food chain which supplies them with nourishment. The trap is, that good God fearing Catholics and other Christians are unwittingly giving credence to a philosophy which is predicated on the non existence of God. It is a Philosophy which will open up a major chink in the armour of our western Judeo-Christian heritage, which is already under seige from an increasingly secularised, liberal society.

The alternative approach for our Christian society should be a further developement of animal welfare codes which do not raise up the status of animals to that of ‘persons’ and so conflict with the Bible and even the teachings of Aquinas and his successors.

For the sake of clarity, it should be pointed out that Singer’s arguments for animal rights - and for defining much of our treatment of and attitude towards other animals as ‘speciesist’ - rest on the premise of dealing in the same manner with the same interests. Where it can be reasonably inferred that two creatures have the same needs, interests, preferences - call them what you will - these needs ought to be given equal consideration. Does a steer, for example, have an interest in being alive, and having the opportunity to do the kinds of things cattle naturally do, and thus experiencing what we might think of as bovine satisfaction? Arguably, yes it does. Singer would argue that these interests ought to be weighed against the comparatively trivial desire of humans to eat steak on a regular basis, when deciding whether large-scale commercial farming is an ethical enterprise.

The utilitarian position states that whenever there is a conflict of interest, the outcome ought to be decided by which course of action will produce the greatest overall happiness, taking into account the nature of the needs involved. It could certainly be argued that the fundamental needs of other animals are often ignored for the sake of comparatively trivial human needs or desires. Where many human worldviews - including often the Christian worldview, I’m sorry to say - deviate from Singer’s philosophy is in dismissing the needs of other animals as unworthy of consideration, because they’re not human needs, and hence the accusation of speciesism. Singer’s argument for animal rights does not claim that other animals must be accorded exactly the same rights as humans - that would be patently absurd - but that where the needs of other animals may be compromised by the way humans treat them, those animals’ needs must be seriously weighed in the balance.

 

[cassini]

Wasn’t so sure where to put this thread. Anyway…

I beleived, and still pretty much do, that animals don’t have souls. However, I was visiting this school for kids discerning the priesthood (a boarding school) and the kids got into a discussion about whether animals have souls.

Which got me thinking.

I have absolutely no evidence for or against it. So I was thinking if any of you all could shed some light on the subject. While you’re at it, do animals have feelings?

Thanks to all.

All living creatures have souls as we call that which enables things to live. The animal soul is not rational or immortal as the human one is. It is infused with instinct and will follow this. An animal’s instinct contains a vaviable amount of what we call reasoning, otherwise dogs would walk into walls and would not know their masters etc…
Aminals have no rights, only humans have rights. Animals do not have responsibilities, only humans have responsibilities. One of these responsibilities is to treat animals as humanely as possible. God gave man dominion over animals.
Do animals go to heaven? I used to think no until our cat of 13 years died. She gave us love and we loved her back. Thus we see this question in another perspective now. God is infinite Love. He promised us the same if we get to heaven. Would this same God not add to our heavenly love that which we miss from Kitty? Of course He would. So while not any sort of doctrine or promise there is HOPE. To many of us, even in Heaven, we believe we would miss our beloved animal companions. Indeed to us Heaven would be meeting up with all our loved one, both human and animal. Alas, at the back of my mind I suspect that heaven might not need our cats and dogs to be infinitely happy. So, we will just have to wait and see.

 

[Robintrinket]

For the sake of clarity, it should be pointed out that Singer’s arguments for animal rights - and for defining much of our treatment of and attitude towards other animals as ‘speciesist’ - rest on the premise of dealing in the same manner with the same interests. Where it can be reasonably inferred that two creatures have the same needs, interests, preferences - call them what you will - these needs ought to be given equal consideration. Does a steer, for example, have an interest in being alive, and having the opportunity to do the kinds of things cattle naturally do, and thus experiencing what we might think of as bovine satisfaction? Arguably, yes it does. Singer would argue that these interests ought to be weighed against the comparatively trivial desire of humans to eat steak on a regular basis, when deciding whether large-scale commercial farming is an ethical enterprise.

The utilitarian position states that whenever there is a conflict of interest, the outcome ought to be decided by which course of action will produce the greatest overall happiness, taking into account the nature of the needs involved. It could certainly be argued that the fundamental needs of other animals are often ignored for the sake of comparatively trivial human needs or desires. Where many human worldviews - including often the Christian worldview, I’m sorry to say - deviate from Singer’s philosophy is in dismissing the needs of other animals as unworthy of consideration, because they’re not human needs, and hence the accusation of speciesism. Singer’s argument for animal rights does not claim that other animals must be accorded exactly the same rights as humans - that would be patently absurd - but that where the needs of other animals may be compromised by the way humans treat them, those animals’ needs must be seriously weighed in the balance.

It sure would be absurd to say animals must be accorded the same rights as humans. But who is supposed to decide what a “trivial” use of animals is, and what an animal’s “needs” are supposed to be, and how far to go with this? Animals exist *for *humans.

 

[RobbyS]

For the sake of clarity, it should be pointed out that Singer’s arguments for animal rights - and for defining much of our treatment of and attitude towards other animals as ‘speciesist’ - rest on the premise of dealing in the same manner with the same interests. Where it can be reasonably inferred that two creatures have the same needs, interests, preferences - call them what you will - these needs ought to be given equal consideration. Does a steer, for example, have an interest in being alive, and having the opportunity to do the kinds of things cattle naturally do, and thus experiencing what we might think of as bovine satisfaction? Arguably, yes it does. Singer would argue that these interests ought to be weighed against the comparatively trivial desire of humans to eat steak on a regular basis, when deciding whether large-scale commercial farming is an ethical enterprise.

The utilitarian position states that whenever there is a conflict of interest, the outcome ought to be decided by which course of action will produce the greatest overall happiness, taking into account the nature of the needs involved. It could certainly be argued that the fundamental needs of other animals are often ignored for the sake of comparatively trivial human needs or desires. Where many human worldviews - including often the Christian worldview, I’m sorry to say - deviate from Singer’s philosophy is in dismissing the needs of other animals as unworthy of consideration, because they’re not human needs, and hence the accusation of speciesism. Singer’s argument for animal rights does not claim that other animals must be accorded exactly the same rights as humans - that would be patently absurd - but that where the needs of other animals may be compromised by the way humans treat them, those animals’ needs must be seriously weighed in the balance.

Singer always seems to try to level humanity. A human infant is therefore no better than
a primate of the same age, or a disabled one, somewhat less. So far as the other animals are concerned, we are of course to treat them as they ought to be treated. After all, wasn’t Adam supposed to be the gardener of creation?

 

[JReducation]

The teaching of the Church on the rights of animals and humans is very interesting.

**2416
Animals are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.197 Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.

2417
God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image.198 Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

2418
It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.**

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF