Do Animals Have Souls?

[JReducation]

Sorry JR, but I can’t abandon reason quite to the extent that you are willing to. Contrary to the purveyors of the nineteenth-century “warfare thesis” faith and reason go hand in hand. Reason is not the enemy of faith.

No one said that faith and reason are enemies. Nor did anyone say that reason should be abandoned. In fact, what Benedict XVI has said is that it is reasonable for faith to enlighten human knowledge and that it is reasonable for man to opt for faith when science is in conflict with revealed truth.

The idea of an “immortal soul” is a Greek category imposed onto Hebrew thought. The early Christians who developed the idea that all and only humans have immortal souls could not know that all life on earth is genetically related (as Pope Benedict notes), and that humans share many of their genes even with plants.

Of course, during the past several million years our hominid ancestors developed larger brain size and more flexibility of behavior, leading to the development of moral consciousness and spiritual awareness. These qualities mark humans as substantially more developed in the cognitive sphere. You would be hard pressed to find the precise generation where you could say with certainty, “this creature is human, but his parents were not human.”

An intriguing problem with the all-humans-and-only-humans-have-immortal-souls position is what you would do with rational life on other planets. When we find morally conscious and spiritually aware life elsewhere in the universe (and remember, there are 300 billion galaxies averaging one hundred billion stars each) how will we determine their “soular” state? If the image of God they worship is different than the human image we worship in the person of Jesus, how will we handle this theologically?

Intriguing questions! (I am going into the wilderness this weekend and may have no computer access until Sunday night; I’ll reply on Monday.)

StAnastasia

Regardless of the above, the Church has said what it said about the soul and will not change it, because it is part of the Deposit of Faith.

Do you believe that we can change the Deposit of Faith? You never responded to the questioins that I asked you. How can you accept all the other things that we believe when science and reason say that they are not possible. Just narrow it down to two: 1) Jesus could not have had two natures. 2) Jesus could not have risen from the dead.

According to science and reason, there is not way that we can have a God-Man and a Risen Christ. But we do.

Why don’t you have a problem with that, but you have a problem with a less significant topic, by comparison?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[itinerant1]

I’m not a biblical literalist, so I hold no illusion that the entire universe will end because of what one species of intelligent primates on one planet imagine. There is no scientific reason to believe the universe will come to en end even when our sun burns out in five billion years.

Believing in the Last Things has nothing to do with biblical literalism. That was an unusual remark on your part. You have a tendency to discount numerous proper interpretations of Scripture as “literalist” because you choose not to believe much of what the Catholic Church teaches in matters of the Faith. I hope your Bible is not like Thomas Jefferson’s Bible. Jefferson literally snipped out all references to the miraculous since he did not believe in miracles. (He is still one of my favorite presidents, regardless of the limitations of his Deism).

Furthermore, it’s telling that you have not cited any Biblical scholar in support of your dismissing of the Last Things as mere symbolism (whatever that would mean).

Believing in the Resurrection, Second Coming, Final Judgment, and so on, are matters of prophecy and Revelation, and are doctrines defined by the Church. These are not matters open to personal interpretation according to the Apostle Peter’s warning, “No prophecy of Scripture is for anyone’s private interpretation.”

Also, I did not say the universe would end. I referred to the end of time, in which there is the final conflagration, as foretold, and the transformation of the cosmos also implied in St. John’s vision of a new heavens and a new earth.

You seem to be in an uncommon situation in which your beliefs find no support in science, since science has not the scope or competency to prove or deny Revelation; and your beliefs find no support in official Catholic doctrine, or in the history of Biblical exegesis by exegetes of any competence and repute.

I think you are at an intellectual impasse with no evidence or solid argument, theological, philosophical or scientific.

Regarding the soul, common descent and the genetic facts this implies is no argument or evidence whatsoever against the fact of man being possessed of a spiritual soul. To date, there is no scientific data that contradicts the existence of a spiritual soul. If you think otherwise, you are most welcome to present an argument for your position, rather than just making what are basically unsupported statements about genetics and the soul.

You seem to extol reason yet you discount reason itself when you arbitrarily discount Greek thought. Faith came from the Jews and reason arose amongst the Greeks. Have you not read the papal encyclical wherein the pope cites Athens as “that home of all learning”.

Jerusalem and Athens: Fides et Ratio

 

[itinerant1]

Of course, during the past several million years our hominid ancestors developed larger brain size and more flexibility of behavior, leading to the development of moral consciousness and spiritual awareness. These qualities mark humans as substantially more developed in the cognitive sphere. You would be hard pressed to find the precise generation where you could say with certainty, “this creature is human, but his parents were not human.”

You are giving a fundamentalist argument. Creationists think they can disprove evolution by pointing to real or imaginary weaknesses in the theory. You argue above against the spiritual soul, based on the limitations of scientific knowledge of the evolutionary past. Your logic is fundamentalist, albeit a scientific fundamentalism.

An intriguing problem with the all-humans-and-only-humans-have-immortal-souls position is what you would do with rational life on other planets. When we find morally conscious and spiritually aware life elsewhere in the universe (and remember, there are 300 billion galaxies averaging one hundred billion stars each) how will we determine their “soular” state? If the image of God they worship is different than the human image we worship in the person of Jesus, how will we handle this theologically?
StAnastasia

The idea of intelligent life on other planets is welcomed by the Vatican. Only those who do not understand Catholicism think the Church would have a problem with intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.

Since we have not detected much intelligent life on Earth, most of us would welcome finding it elsewhere in God’s creation.

Last week I attended a lecture by the Vatican’s lead astronomer, Bro. Guy Consolmagno. The audience had a good laugh at Consolmagno’s stories about what people think about the Church and intelligent life on other planets.

Here is a brief video, which will give you an idea of the situation. Bro. Consolmagno makes an appearance on the Stephen Colbert Show. Very funny! E.T., Phone Rome!
Gold, Frankincense and Mars

 

[JReducation]

We have to strike a balance between science and biblical inerrancy. Pope Benedict has condemned those who go around saying that the content of the bible is not to be taken as historical. What he says is that both scientific theories must be of great interest to the Catholic as the historicity of the Bible.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[RobbyS]

Based on my own reading of his arguments, I suspect you’re misrepresenting Singer’s motives and intentions. He isn’t trying to ‘level’ humanity - as you seem to be implying, to ‘reduce’ humans to the level of other animals; he is, rather, trying to open people’s eyes to what are, in effect, gross miscarriages of justice in our treatment of other species.

When Singer argues that a human infant should not be thought any ‘better’ than a young chimpanzee, for example, he says this on the basis of the cognitive, emotive and affective capacity of each - a chimpanzee of a certain age has a greater capacity to experience pleasure or suffering than a human infant. These are the things that ought to be taken into account when determining appropriate treatment for a sentient creature. If it’s not okay to mistreat a human infant (which I think we all agree it isn’t) then it isn’t okay to mistreat chimpanzees, orangutans, gorillas, and so forth - these animals are our closest living relatives in evolutionary terms, but the treatment they have frequently received at the hands of humans (such as habitat destruction and often cruel experimentation) is execrable.

Any notion that a human being should be accorded more consideration than any other animal because they are human is, literally, speciesist - it’s an arbitrary distinction based not on qualities of sentience, but on membership of the human species.

Sorry to be so late in replying. if you are reading this, my answer is that human beings are superior to chimps in that we are obviously MORE" sentient" than they are. Or Rather we have a quality of intelligence that allows us, as a species, to do things that make us “gods” in comparison with them. BY this I mean, in our capabilites we are as superior to
them as the Greek gods were to the Greeks, sharing with them only on attribute that the Greeks, except the likes of Heracles, did not share with the gods, which was a place at Olympus.

As to treatment of champs with due respect, I agree, But your logic would would course require us to forgo treating as things any animal down to the lowly amoeba, since even they are comparable to the fertilized human egg.

 

[RobbyS]

You are giving a fundamentalist argument. Creationists think they can disprove evolution by pointing to real or imaginary weaknesses in the theory. You argue above against the spiritual soul, based on the limitations of scientific knowledge of the evolutionary past. Your logic is fundamentalist, albeit a scientific fundamentalism.

The idea of intelligent life on other planets is welcomed by the Vatican. Only those who do not understand Catholicism think the Church would have a problem with intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.

Since we have not detected much intelligent life on Earth, most of us would welcome finding it elsewhere in God’s creation.

Last week I attended a lecture by the Vatican’s lead astronomer, Bro. Guy Consolmagno. The audience had a good laugh at Consolmagno’s stories about what people think about the Church and intelligent life on other planets.

Here is a brief video, which will give you an idea of the situation. Bro. Consolmagno makes an appearance on the Stephen Colbert Show. Very funny! E.T., Phone Rome!
Gold, Frankincense and Mars

The study of evolution began as a study of animal/plant populations. Given the size of early human populations, it would be a miracle of paleantologists were to discover enough individuals to demonstrate the transition from non-human to human. There remain on earth no animals who are close enough to being human to be “tweeked” into being human, as on Dr. Moreau’s Island. So no demonstration is possible unless geneticists can come up with much more than they have. Of course if human intelligence is guiding the process, is it really “natural selection”?

 

[JReducation]

The study of evolution began as a study of animal/plant populations. Given the size of early human populations, it would be a miracle of paleantologists were to discover enough individuals to demonstrate the transition from non-human to human. There remain on earth no animals who are close enough to being human to be “tweeked” into being human, as on Dr. Moreau’s Island. So no demonstration is possible unless geneticists can come up with much more than they have. Of course if human intelligence is guiding the process, is it really “natural selection”?

The theory that man evolved from an ape has been debunked. Very few subscribe to it. We do believe that man has evolved in all respects: physical, intellectual, social, etc. But almost all the theories of evolution suggest that there was not transition from a non-human speceis to a human one.

That does not have anything to do with this topic. It’s just interesting stuff. As far as I’m concerned, this question about pets and souls was settled by the Church and that’s good enough for me. It has to be. Either I accept what the Church includes in her body of truth or I have to leave the Church, because I can’t ask the Church to change her faith for me.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[kimmielittle]

The theory that man evolved from an ape has been debunked. Very few subscribe to it. We do believe that man has evolved in all respects: physical, intellectual, social, etc. But almost all the theories of evolution suggest that there was not transition from a non-human speceis to a human one.

That does not have anything to do with this topic. It’s just interesting stuff. As far as I’m concerned, this question about pets and souls was settled by the Church and that’s good enough for me. It has to be. Either I accept what the Church includes in her body of truth or I have to leave the Church, because I can’t ask the Church to change her faith for me.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Amen

 

[itinerant1]

The theory that man evolved from an ape has been debunked. Very few subscribe to it. We do believe that man has evolved in all respects: physical, intellectual, social, etc. But almost all the theories of evolution suggest that there was not transition from a non-human speceis to a human one.

That the human body has a pre-history is natural evolutionary processes is widely maintained by Catholic scientists and the current Pope. Pope John Paul II was also a supporter of evolutionary science. Contrary to what you may believe, there is no single theory of evolution. Pope John Paul II correctly spoke of “theories” (plural) of evolution, and warned only against materialist theories of the neo-Darwinian type which leave no room for God and the human soul.

The idea that man’s body has evolved from lower forms has not been debunked by any means. In fact, the evidence is now stronger than ever. Your comment suggests you are unfamiliar with the mind of the Church and modern science. I can recommend books by the Pope, Cardinal Schonborn, Fr. Stanley Jaki, and others, which can enlighten you on a subject of which you appear to be greatly mis-informed.

 

[JReducation]

That the human body has a pre-history is natural evolutionary processes is widely maintained by Catholic scientists and the current Pope. Pope John Paul II was also a supporter of evolutionary science. Contrary to what you may believe, there is no single theory of evolution. Pope John Paul II correctly spoke of “theories” (plural) of evolution, and warned only against materialist theories of the neo-Darwinian type which leave no room for God and the human soul.

The idea that man’s body has evolved from lower forms has not been debunked by any means. In fact, the evidence is now stronger than ever. Your comment suggests you are unfamiliar with the mind of the Church and modern science. I can recommend books by the Pope, Cardinal Schonborn, Fr. Stanley Jaki, and others, which can enlighten you on a subject of which you appear to be greatly mis-informed.

First of all, my statement does not suggest that I am unfamiliar with the mind of the Church. My statement maintains that there are theories of evolution, in the plural as you rightly say, but that most disagree that humanity came from another animal, but rather a lower form of human life.

Second, my point is that we have evolved, as I clearly stated.

Third, The Church has not taken an official position on the theories of evolution. Therefore, every theologian has an open field with which to work. I’m a theologian, not a biologist. Biologists will have to present evidence that is consistent with Revelation, as Pope John Paul said. In addition, Pope Benedict has demanded that theologians not deny the historical truths of scripture. Therefore, we place the burden of proof on science and demand that the proof be consistent with Revelation. We’re not asking for Creationism. We’re asking for scientific truth that is consistent with revealed truth. Because we believe that they can compliment each other.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[itinerant1]

First of all, my statement does not suggest that I am unfamiliar with the mind of the Church. My statement maintains that there are theories of evolution, in the plural as you rightly say, but that most disagree that humanity came from another animal, but rather a lower form of human life.

I realized you verbally acknowledged multiple evolution theories, but your statement did not seem obviously consistent and gave the impression that you are not overly familiar with evolution theories. Perhaps this is all just a matter of mis-communication.

Here are your statements:

1. the theory that man has evolved from an ape has been debunked.
2. most disagree that humanity came from another animal
3. but rather a lower form of human life
4. we have evolved.

In regard to # 1, evolutionary theory maintains that apes and humans have a common ancestry. Hence, there is no theory to be debunked that says man evolved from ape.

Concerning # 2, it is unclear what theory or whose theory denies “that humanity came from another animal”.

Regarding # 3, if a theory asserts that man came from a lower form of humanity, it reflects confusion in regards to man’s nature and what sets him apart from the anthropoid apes and higher animals. Not all evolution theories exhibit this confusion.

Regarding # 4, I misread you to mean that man has evolved only subsequent to his appearance on the planet, but has not evolved previously from lower forms.

 

[JReducation]

I realized you verbally acknowledged multiple evolution theories, but your statement did not seem obviously consistent and gave the impression that you are not overly familiar with evolution theories. Perhaps this is all just a matter of mis-communication.

Here are your statements:

1. the theory that man has evolved from an ape has been debunked.
2. most disagree that humanity came from another animal
3. but rather a lower form of human life
4. we have evolved.

In regard to # 1, evolutionary theory maintains that apes and humans have a common ancestry. Hence, there is no theory to be debunked that says man evolved from ape.

Concerning # 2, it is unclear what theory or whose theory denies “that humanity came from another animal”.

Regarding # 3, if a theory asserts that man came from a lower form of humanity, it reflects confusion in regards to man’s nature and what sets him apart from the anthropoid apes and higher animals. Not all evolution theories exhibit this confusion.

Regarding # 4, I misread you to mean that man has evolved only subsequent to his appearance on the planet, but has not evolved previously from lower forms.

As I said here, I’m not a biologist, I’m a expert on Mystical Theology. I deal in the matters of the mind and soul. Therefore, it is very likely that I’m not using the correct wording, for that I’m sorry.

That being said, what I’m trying to say is that there are too many theories out there on human evolution and do not always agree with each other.

My second point is that the conclusion, not the theory, the conclusion on human evolution and development must be consistent with what has been revealed in Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition does not lie.

A safety net that Jews, Christians and Muslims have is that we know the truth about human origins, even though we don’t know about human evolution. So whatever conclusion the natural sciences arrive at, it is only valid, if it is consistent with what God has revealed. If it is inconsistent, then you have to send them back to try again. Because we can’t tell God to try again and reveal something to us that fits scientific conclusion. It does not work that way.

This is why Pope Benedict has repeatedly said that faith must enlighten reason. His referring to this type of problem. This is alwo the message that Pope John Paul gave to us who were then studying theology. Our mission was not to rewrite the faith, as many theologians formed from 1930 to 1960 tried to do after Vatican II. Our mission (students of theology and theologians) is to explain the faith, using reason and enlighten reason, using the faith. But the primacy always belongs to the faith, because the faith is the deposit of truth.

In conclusion, whatever these scientists conclude, is only true if it is consistent with Revelation. God has revealed his nature, man’s nature and the relationship between the human and the divine. Mystical theology can explain tis with the use of history, psychology, anthropology, scripture, Sacred Tradition and art. We have not questions about this nature and this relationship.

The questions that scientists have to answer is how it happened, always remembering that the veracity of scritpure may never be called into question. It’s a tough assignement for any Catholic scientist.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[itinerant1]

As I said here, I’m not a biologist, I’m a expert on Mystical Theology. I deal in the matters of the mind and soul. Therefore, it is very likely that I’m not using the correct wording, for that I’m sorry.

That being said, what I’m trying to say is that there are too many theories out there on human evolution and do not always agree with each other.

My second point is that the conclusion, not the theory, the conclusion on human evolution and development must be consistent with what has been revealed in Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition does not lie.

A safety net that Jews, Christians and Muslims have is that we know the truth about human origins, even though we don’t know about human evolution. So whatever conclusion the natural sciences arrive at, it is only valid, if it is consistent with what God has revealed. If it is inconsistent, then you have to send them back to try again. Because we can’t tell God to try again and reveal something to us that fits scientific conclusion. It does not work that way.

This is why Pope Benedict has repeatedly said that faith must enlighten reason. His referring to this type of problem. This is alwo the message that Pope John Paul gave to us who were then studying theology. Our mission was not to rewrite the faith, as many theologians formed from 1930 to 1960 tried to do after Vatican II. Our mission (students of theology and theologians) is to explain the faith, using reason and enlighten reason, using the faith. But the primacy always belongs to the faith, because the faith is the deposit of truth.

In conclusion, whatever these scientists conclude, is only true if it is consistent with Revelation. God has revealed his nature, man’s nature and the relationship between the human and the divine. Mystical theology can explain tis with the use of history, psychology, anthropology, scripture, Sacred Tradition and art. We have not questions about this nature and this relationship.

The questions that scientists have to answer is how it happened, always remembering that the veracity of scritpure may never be called into question. It’s a tough assignement for any Catholic scientist.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Okay on the evolution stuff. We agree on the status of the official teachings of the Church on matters of faith and morals. That is what is most important.

Unfortunately, there are Catholics who pick and choose what they want to believe. And that misses the whole point (and great advantage) of being Catholic.

 

[JReducation]

Okay on the evolution stuff. We agree on the status of the official teachings of the Church on matters of faith and morals. That is what is most important.

Unfortunately, there are Catholics who pick and choose what they want to believe. And that misses the whole point (and great advantage) of being Catholic.

This became very clear on this whole question about the sould of an animal. No matter how many times it was said that this discussion was closed by the Church in the 13th century, some people want to re-open it, as if you can change truth.

Even the question, from a purely academic perspective, it is very interesting. But from the perspective of salvation, it is irrelevant. The Church answered the question to get the argument out of the way so that men and women can focus on the real important matter, the soul’s journey into God.

Bonaventure explained this very clearly. All of these questions are insignificant, if the soul is not on the right path.

A better question would be, what is our obligation to other animals? Because the answer to that question is important in the moral decisions that we make. Those decisions affect our journey into God.

The same with the question of evolution. The Church’s interest in the answer has twofold… First, the Church has a moral obligation to engage in scientific research so that she may guide the scientific community to act in an ethical manner. That’s the Church’s first interest in the subject. The second interest in the subject is that if we ever find out how God did all of this, the answer affirms what we already believe concerning God’s power, intelligence, goodness, freedom and his love for humanity.

This last point is key in the soul’s journey. The more that we understand how much God loves us, the more that we are driven to love in return.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[itinerant1]

This became very clear on this whole question about the sould of an animal. No matter how many times it was said that this discussion was closed by the Church in the 13th century, some people want to re-open it, as if you can change truth.

Even the question, from a purely academic perspective, it is very interesting. But from the perspective of salvation, it is irrelevant. The Church answered the question to get the argument out of the way so that men and women can focus on the real important matter, the soul’s journey into God.

Bonaventure explained this very clearly. All of these questions are insignificant, if the soul is not on the right path.

A better question would be, what is our obligation to other animals? Because the answer to that question is important in the moral decisions that we make. Those decisions affect our journey into God.

The same with the question of evolution. The Church’s interest in the answer has twofold… First, the Church has a moral obligation to engage in scientific research so that she may guide the scientific community to act in an ethical manner. That’s the Church’s first interest in the subject. The second interest in the subject is that if we ever find out how God did all of this, the answer affirms what we already believe concerning God’s power, intelligence, goodness, freedom and his love for humanity.

This last point is key in the soul’s journey. The more that we understand how much God loves us, the more that we are driven to love in return.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Well stated!

 

[itinerant1]

If anyone had a Pet Rock in the 70’s, you may be disappointed to learn that most Pet Rocks do not go to Heaven. Only a remnant of Catholic Pet Rocks are saved.

 

[RobbyS]

The theory that man evolved from an ape has been debunked. Very few subscribe to it. We do believe that man has evolved in all respects: physical, intellectual, social, etc. But almost all the theories of evolution suggest that there was not transition from a non-human speceis to a human one.

That does not have anything to do with this topic. It’s just interesting stuff. As far as I’m concerned, this question about pets and souls was settled by the Church and that’s good enough for me. It has to be. Either I accept what the Church includes in her body of truth or I have to leave the Church, because I can’t ask the Church to change her faith for me.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

The speculation now centers on he evolution from anthropoids in the remote past. They assume what cannot be proved or falsified, like a lot of historical events that cannot be recreated. What Darwin never guessed and what seems to be the case, isthe difficulty of changing a complex species with relatively small populations and long periods of generation.

 

[JReducation]

The speculation now centers on he evolution from anthropoids in the remote past. They assume what cannot be proved or falsified, like a lot of historical events that cannot be recreated. What Darwin never guessed and what seems to be the case, isthe difficulty of changing a complex species with relatively small populations and long periods of generation.

And the Church’s interest in this is because it reveals something about God.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[itinerant1]

The speculation now centers on he evolution from anthropoids in the remote past. They assume what cannot be proved or falsified, like a lot of historical events that cannot be recreated. What Darwin never guessed and what seems to be the case, isthe difficulty of changing a complex species with relatively small populations and long periods of generation.

There is much more that is not known about evolution than there is that we do know. It is such as vast theory and all encompassing theory that tries to connect facts over long distances and very long periods of time that the theory will constantly change with new facts and new ways of interpreting facts. Evolutionary theory should look very different in three or five hundred years from now.

There really isn’t much that was new about evolution with Darwin. Evolutionary ideas were already circulating in his time. Darwin explained five theories of evolution (or five main aspects of the theory) and he amassed as much evidence as he could for those theories. The problem with Darwin and neo-Darwinism is not the evolutionary science but the materialist ideology that was grafted onto the scientific theory. Charles Darwin himself interpreted all of nature and the mind of man through a materialist (and basically atheistic) ideology.

The Church has interest in evolution theory because it concerns the definition of man, what man is. The question “What is man?” is a mixed question, since we are both spiritual and physical beings, and so that question must receive its answers from theology, philosophy, and the natural sciences.

 

[JReducation]

There is much more that is not known about evolution than there is that we do know. It is such as vast theory and all encompassing theory that tries to connect facts over long distances and very long periods of time that the theory will constantly change with new facts and new ways of interpreting facts. Evolutionary theory should look very different in three or five hundred years from now.

There really isn’t much that was new about evolution with Darwin. Evolutionary ideas were already circulating in his time. Darwin explained five theories of evolution (or five main aspects of the theory) and he amassed as much evidence as he could for those theories. The problem with Darwin and neo-Darwinism is not the evolutionary science but the materialist ideology that was grafted onto the scientific theory. Charles Darwin himself interpreted all of nature and the mind of man through a materialist (and basically atheistic) ideology.

The Church has interest in evolution theory because it concerns the definition of man, what man is. The question “What is man?” is a mixed question, since we are both spiritual and physical beings, and so that question must receive its answers from theology, philosophy, and the natural sciences.

This is a very good response. And as theologians say, the more deeply that we understand man, the more deeply that we understand God. One of the ways through which God makes himself comprehensible to us is through our own humanity.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF