Do plants have souls?

  • Thread starter Thread starter John_Zimmer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

John_Zimmer

Guest
Had a discussion with a friend the other day about what makes something living. I said that all living things have souls - that’s what makes it living.

“What about plants?” he asked.
I said “Yes even plants have souls”.

I understand that plants, animals and, of course, humans have souls. All living things have souls - even plants. Is this correct?
 
John_Zimmer said:
Had a discussion with a friend the other day about what makes something living. I said that all living things have souls - that’s what makes it living.

“What about plants?” he asked.
I said “Yes even plants have souls”.

I understand that plants, animals and, of course, humans have souls. All living things have souls - even plants. Is this correct?
Click to expand...
Yes they have souls. The word “soul” is synonymous with the Latin word anima which refers to the animating principle in all living things. It is this principle which makes these things “alive.”

God Bless!
 
According to Catholic thought, both animals/plants and humans have souls, though of different types. Animals and plants possess a purely “material soul” (which simply ceases to exist at physical death), while humans have a “spiritual soul” made in God’s image and likeness, and which can exist apart from the physical body (at least temporarily, prior to the general resurrection). So, the term “soul” is understood in two different senses.

Blessings,

Don
+T+
 
Yes. Just read Gustav Fechner’s The Soul-Life of Plants! (First edition, 1848.)
 
John_Zimmer said:
Had a discussion with a friend the other day about what makes something living. I said that all living things have souls - that’s what makes it living.

“What about plants?” he asked.
I said “Yes even plants have souls”.

I understand that plants, animals and, of course, humans have souls. All living things have souls - even plants. Is this correct?
Click to expand...
Gerald Joyce defined life as a self-sustaining system that undergoes Darwinian evolution.

astrobio.net/news/article344.html

Darwinian evolution is a iterative process of mutation, amplification, and selection. Souls are not necessary.
 
Souls encapsulate the essence of an organism. A plant’s essence is plant, just as a human’s essence is human.
 
Thanks for your replies. Sheed’s “Theology for Beginners” also has a good section on this topic that I found last night. Reference the chapter on the “The Nature of Man”.

Speaking of souls - let’s remember the souls in Purgatory this month!

God bless you all!
 
agangbern said:
I don’t think plants have souls similar to man’s soul.
Click to expand...
I agree (see Post #3 above). The Catholic faith teaches that the soul of a plant and that of a human being differ not merely in degree, but also in kind. They are qualitatively different. The “soul” in plants is simply the animating principle of life that ceases at physical death. Indeed, in the Old Testament, the Hebrew word used to describe the “death” of human beings is also used to describe the “death” of plants and animals. So plants are clearly “alive,” biblically speaking. Plants and animals are also described as possesing “souls,” though not in the same sense as human beings.

Blessings,

Don
+T+
 
ribozyme said:
Gerald Joyce defined life as a self-sustaining system that undergoes Darwinian evolution.
Click to expand...
This is a reasonable definition of biological life, though whether or not there exists a God who providentially sustains the natural world is a question which science is ill-equipped to address.
Darwinian evolution is a iterative process of mutation, amplification, and selection.
Click to expand...
Yes, which operates upon life that is already present, as Darwin observed in the final paragraph of the Origin.
Souls are not necessary.
Click to expand...
Again, this is a conclusion that science is ill-equipped to make. Given that the proper object of scientific inquiry is the natural world, any questions regarding the supernatural order are necessarily outside the boundaries of scientific investigation. Whether or not there are souls (or whether or not they are “necessary”) is a decidedly non-scientific issue, and one that science simply cannot pronounce upon, neither for nor against.

I highly recommend this excellent text:

Kenneth R. Miller, Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God & Evolution (HarperCollins, 1999)

Blessings,

Don
+T+
 
It depends on what you mean by ‘soul.’ What did your friend mean by ‘soul?’
 
ribozyme said:
Gerald Joyce defined life as a self-sustaining system that undergoes Darwinian evolution.

astrobio.net/news/article344.html

Darwinian evolution is a iterative process of mutation, amplification, and selection. Souls are not necessary.
Click to expand...
then we must define ourselves as not alive… since our technology has overcome natural selection. It is held may many scientists that humans are no longer evolving do to things like medicine and eye glasses…😃
 
Wollie said:
then we must define ourselves as not alive… since our technology has overcome natural selection. It is held may many scientists that humans are no longer evolving do to things like medicine and eye glasses…😃
Click to expand...
I think Ray Kurzweil is indeed correct; the epoch of biological evolution will eventually end. The product of evolution, intelligence, has allowed us to overpower Darwinian evolution. But Kurzweil believes that everything is on a continuum related to the law of accelerating returns.

We are in epoch 4: the dominance of technology and we might be experiencing the transition to epoch 5 now.

The epochs are:
  1. Physics and chemistry
  2. Biology
  3. Neurological development
  4. Technology
  5. Merger of technology and biology
  6. The universe wakes up (do not ask about this one)
These are described in the book, The Singularity is Near. Returning to Darwinian evolution, biology is (Darwinian evolution), and neurological development is a product of Darwinian evolution.(Examples of this include the trend of cephalization in metazoan animals. For example an early progenitor of nervous systems is cnidarians and for cephalization, platyhelminthes). The products of nervous systems allowed the intelligent manipulation of environmental objects that made it conducive to thrive in rather demanding niches. An early example are the olduwan tools used by Homo habilis. One might argue that epoch 4 is in a very mature stage and I tend to agree.

We still practice eugenics, however. See this:
psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20070920-000002.html

Natural selection is still active in humanity now.
 
John_Zimmer said:
Thanks for your replies. Sheed’s “Theology for Beginners” also has a good section on this topic that I found last night. Reference the chapter on the “The Nature of Man”.

Speaking of souls - let’s remember the souls in Purgatory this month!

God bless you all!
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reference. I have Sheed’s book and have read it, but will reread. I teach Rel Ed to youngsters, and this topic seems to pop up frequently. I always respond that animals do NOT have a soul, at least not like ours. I can’t for the life of me understand why that would be important to someone who’s in heaven. That said, I’m looking for a more charitable way to frame my response.
Thanks again.👍
 
If you mean by soul, “the rational and immortal part of man,” then no.

If you mean, “formal part, that which makes it what it is,” then yes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top