Evolution and the soul

[Theophorus]

This from Reginators thread on the soul in Apologetics:

"…the soul is a substance, but an incomplete substance, i.e. it has a natural aptitude and exigency for existence in the body, in conjunction with which it makes up the substantial unity of human nature;

though connaturally related to the body, it is itself absolutely simple, i.e. of an unextended and spiritual nature. It is not wholly immersed in matter, its higher operations being intrinsically independent of the organism; …"

See, I knew my intuition was right… a substance.

Wasn’t the problem more to do with it being alive and dead, God and not God at the same time rather than the substantiality of the Soul? The Soul as form of the body which together(body and soul) are the substance of the human person was a seperate issue was it not?

 

[pig]

No, even if we accept this, then your intuition was dead wrong.
If the soul is an incomplete substance and yet, according to your own intuition, the very same substance as its creator, then it follows logically that God is also incomplete.

You are a materialist, yes? If so, you believe matter appeared out of nowhere.
If you were a christian, lets say, you might believe matter appeared out of somewhere.
A human soul, made of a spiritual substance shares its spiritual substance with Gods spiritual substance. A human soul is not God but still shares Gods Spiritual substance.

In the same way that you are not an alcohol or methane based life-form, but a carbon based life-form, you still share a material based existence.

 

[Peter_Plato]

No, even if we accept this, then your intuition was dead wrong.
If the soul is an incomplete substance and yet, according to your own intuition, the very same substance as its creator, then it follows logically that God is also incomplete.

I am not clear how this follows.

If God is Pure Actuality, Existence itself, then the soul only becomes complete to the extent that it exists which is to say it participates or shares in actuality or existence. The substance and existence of God are identical and complete. The substance of a human being is only actualized when it participates in existence, but its non-existence does not take away from or make God less complete. Existence itself does not become lessened because a particular, contingent thing does not happen to exist, existence would still be completely existent.

By analogy, my mind does not become less a mind merely because a particular thought is no longer being considered by it. Thoughts come into and go out of “conception” in the mind without making the mind itself less complete, even though each thought depends upon the “substance” of the mind to become actualized as thoughts.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You are a materialist, yes? If so, you believe matter appeared out of nowhere.
If you were a christian, lets say, you might believe matter appeared out of somewhere.
A human soul, made of a spiritual substance shares its spiritual substance with Gods spiritual substance. A human soul is not God but still shares Gods Spiritual substance.

In the same way that you are not an alcohol or methane based life-form, but a carbon based life-form, you still share a material based existence.

Which means the matter in any materially based being does not disappear when that form goes out of existence. The amount of matter is not lessened, nor is the matter “incomplete” if any particular form of it does not exist.

 

[pig]

Wasn’t the problem more to do with it being alive and dead, God and not God at the same time rather than the substantiality of the Soul? The Soul as form of the body which together(body and soul) are the substance of the human person was a seperate issue was it not?

Certainly was. Even less was it to do with being alive and dead at the same time, as belorg self-confessedly said that that was not illogical.
The question is, as you say, being God and not God at the same time. But as God is spirit and as we are created to live in God, really and actually, then we will and must live in Him substantially as spirit. And, as in the material world there is a certain order established regarding continuity of substance, there likewise should also be a similar continuity of order in a spiritual realm. Though, with this proviso, that the spiritual realm is not in any way analogous with the material realm, because, not least of all, it is without our immediate experiential realm of being.
We can only assume that order proceeds, and originates, from the source of order and that order in the spiritual realm does exist but it [the spiritual] likewise cannot be equal or the same nor equatable or comparable in like to anything we have ever known before, i.e. the material order of being, if not for the least of reasons - we did not create this ‘reality’ realm ourselves. We do not know know…

 

[pig]

Which means the matter in any materially based being does not disappear when that form goes out of existence. The amount of matter is not lessened, nor is the matter “incomplete” if any particular form of it does not exist.

Just so, the form of the soul shares the substance.

 

[NeoScotist]

I really want to try to avoid an evolution debate, but at the same time, would like to address a video that I saw while watching a youtube video earlier tonight.

It was from a youtube channel called ‘Discovering Religion’ and one of the episodes was basically a venting episode. In this case, the narrator was venting on what grinds his gears-- and one of them included the concept of the soul and evolution…If my interpretation is correct, he questions why human beings proclaim to have a ‘soul’ when animals do not have one-- being that, in his case, human beings are products of the evolutionary process, which we have traits derived from animals. He wants to know how do we know a soul exists?

The link is right here:
What Grinds My ( I mean ‘His’) Gears

I will point out that perhaps this source seems kind of biased, due to his vent against concepts like conversion experiences, thanking God, etc. (then again, I could be wrong).

Does he have an inkling of what a soul is or could possibly mean? how would you complain about something if you don’t have a clue of what it means?

if by soul we mean reason and intellect (as medieval scholars understood) then it ought to be clear that reason is qualitatively different from any physical process.
The intellect can grasp meaning and universals, while brute matter cannot. Matter cannot cause the immaterial, which is what a mental process is.
I don’t see how evolution would even begin to explain any of the above.

 

[NeoScotist]

How would the fact that we posses a “non-physical computer” such as the sould or the mind in any way give us free will?

Well, free-will cannot be product of matter since this is determined (or works under regularities, if you wish) and it cannot be identical to the mind. so it must be something that is distinct yet inseparable (and hence immaterial) to the mind.

 

[NeoScotist]

No, even if we accept this, then your intuition was dead wrong.
If the soul is an incomplete substance and yet, according to your own intuition, the very same substance as its creator, then it follows logically that God is also incomplete.

Wait, how can having a body add to an infinite being?

 

[Theophorus]

Wait, how can having a body add to an infinite being?

That is the problem pig presents.
Univocity of being between finite and infinite immaterial substances seems to be implied in pigs arguments. The substance of the soul of man and the substance of God have been presented as the same (spiritual) substance yet one is finite the other infinite. If one is incomplete without matter(the human soul) where does that leave the spiritual substanc of God without matter? It does follow logically that God without a body would be incomplete on such a view. Thats why I would distinguish between God and the Soul of man.

 

[Peter_Plato]

That is the problem pig presents.
Univocity of being between finite and infinite immaterial substances seems to be implied in pigs arguments. The substance of the soul of man and the substance of God have been presented as the same (spiritual) substance yet one is finite the other infinite. If one is incomplete without matter(the human soul) where does that leave the spiritual substanc of God without matter? It does follow logically that God without a body would be incomplete on such a view. Thats why I would distinguish between God and the Soul of man.

I am not clear that it does.

If God has the power to create matter ex nihilo, then the existence or non-existence of matter does not make God more or less complete, because matter, too, comes to be and therefore participates in existence or “act.” Since God is “existence itself” then anything that comes to be participates in some way in God because God is “existence.” At the Big Bang, God did not become more complete because all the matter of the universe participated in existence, i.e., came to be.

So his forming or informing matter into various particular entities does not make him more complete in the same way that having different ideas does not make a mind more complete. The mind is complete, which is precisely why ideas can be formed.

If, by analogy, all of creation, including the souls and bodies of human beings are like “thoughts” in the mind of God, then having or not having these thoughts do not make God more or less complete. His completeness allows the thoughts.

The difference is that when God “thinks,” the objects of his thought can be made more or less actual, more or less existing in reality, which would be the substance (existence) of God.

Isn’t this what Aquinas meant when he claimed that God is the cause of the being of all things because He is Subsistent Being Itself (ipsum esse subsistens)?

Now, since God is being itself by His own essence, created being must be his proper effect…Therefore, as long as a thing has being, so long must God be present to it, according to its mode of being. But being is innermost in each thing and most fundamentally present within all things… Hence it must be that God is in all things and innermostly. (S.T. Ia, 8, 1)

The reason why things are what they are is because each participates in the Being of God, in its own way, or as Aquinas says, “…according to its mode of being.”

 

[Bradski]

if by soul we mean reason and intellect (as medieval scholars understood) then it ought to be clear that reason is qualitatively different from any physical process.
The intellect can grasp meaning and universals, while brute matter cannot. Matter cannot cause the immaterial, which is what a mental process is. I don’t see how evolution would even begin to explain any of the above.

If it’s too hard to look at it the usual way, then look at it from the other direction.

People have reason. We can understand concepts. We can ask why. Now take it back a few million years. Your direct ancestor wasn’t as good at it as you are. He would have been less intellectually able.

Go back further. Your direct ancestor is now pretty dumb. It’s doubtful whether you could say he had an intellect at all.

Still further, and we reach a point where your direct ancestor was just acting on impulse. There is no sign of an intellect. No sign of any greater understanding of the world around him other than the need to eat and mate.

Back again, and there is barely anything you could call intelligence. Back again and your direct ancestor had no intelligence at all. He was just something that reacted to his environment. No conscious thought process. Back again and there is no thought at all. Back again and your direct ancestor didn’t possess what we’d call a brain.

Take it back, step by step and it’s quite easy to see how you can lose your ability to reason. All the way back to a direct ancestor of yours which at some distant point was barely fulfilling the criteria for life itself.

Now reverse the whole process and voila! From a small speck of something living in the mud at the bottom of a dirty pool of water, through countless stages, step by small step, generation after generation, in a literally unbroken lineage, we reach you reading this. You are literally directly related.

If you don’t think that is just the coolest thing, then you’re missing out.

 

[pig]

http://www.expatica.com/upload/neandERTHALchildHead.jpg

Neanderthal Girl

http://www.s8int.com/images/cavemensuit.jpg

Cro-Magnon man

 

[belorg]

Well, free-will cannot be product of matter since this is determined (or works under regularities, if you wish) and it cannot be identical to the mind. so it must be something that is distinct yet inseparable (and hence immaterial) to the mind.

Who says that matter is determined? And what does the fact that something immaterial does not work under regularities (I can only understand this as ‘completely chaotic’) contribute to the will being free?

 

[belorg]

I am not clear that it does.

If God has the power to create matter ex nihilo, then the existence or non-existence of matter does not make God more or less complete, because matter, too, comes to be and therefore participates in existence or “act.” Since God is “existence itself” then anything that comes to be participates in some way in God because God is “existence.” At the Big Bang, God did not become more complete because all the matter of the universe participated in existence, i.e., came to be.

So his forming or informing matter into various particular entities does not make him more complete in the same way that having different ideas does not make a mind more complete. The mind is complete, which is precisely why ideas can be formed.

If, by analogy, all of creation, including the souls and bodies of human beings are like “thoughts” in the mind of God, then having or not having these thoughts do not make God more or less complete. His completeness allows the thoughts.

The difference is that when God “thinks,” the objects of his thought can be made more or less actual, more or less existing in reality, which would be the substance (existence) of God.

Isn’t this what Aquinas meant when he claimed that God is the cause of the being of all things because He is Subsistent Being Itself (ipsum esse subsistens)?

Now, since God is being itself by His own essence, created being must be his proper effect…Therefore, as long as a thing has being, so long must God be present to it, according to its mode of being. But being is innermost in each thing and most fundamentally present within all things… Hence it must be that God is in all things and innermostly. (S.T. Ia, 8, 1)

The reason why things are what they are is because each participates in the Being of God, in its own way, or as Aquinas says, “…according to its mode of being.”

That is not what I am discussing with pig, Peter.Pig is positing a complete univocity of being between God’s substance (which under Thomsim is ultimately simple and immutable and complete) and the subtsnace of our souls. Hence, the subtsance of our sould must also be simple,immutable and complete.

 

[Jaaanosik]

That is not what I am discussing with pig, Peter.Pig is positing a complete univocity of being between God’s substance (which under Thomsim is ultimately simple and immutable and complete) and the subtsnace of our souls. Hence, the subtsance of our sould must also be simple,immutable and complete.

That’s not the case. Our soul’s substance is an essential nature, an essence which is a capability to think, to reason. This capability is limited to us - “an incomplete substance”.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If it’s too hard to look at it the usual way, then look at it from the other direction.

People have reason. We can understand concepts. We can ask why. Now take it back a few million years. Your direct ancestor wasn’t as good at it as you are. He would have been less intellectually able.

Go back further. Your direct ancestor is now pretty dumb. It’s doubtful whether you could say he had an intellect at all.

Still further, and we reach a point where your direct ancestor was just acting on impulse. There is no sign of an intellect. No sign of any greater understanding of the world around him other than the need to eat and mate.

Back again, and there is barely anything you could call intelligence. Back again and your direct ancestor had no intelligence at all. He was just something that reacted to his environment. No conscious thought process. Back again and there is no thought at all. Back again and your direct ancestor didn’t possess what we’d call a brain.

Take it back, step by step and it’s quite easy to see how you can lose your ability to reason. All the way back to a direct ancestor of yours which at some distant point was barely fulfilling the criteria for life itself.

Now reverse the whole process and voila! From a small speck of something living in the mud at the bottom of a dirty pool of water, through countless stages, step by small step, generation after generation, in a literally unbroken lineage, we reach you reading this. You are literally directly related.

If you don’t think that is just the coolest thing, then you’re missing out.

Yes, a very touching myth. It allows you to believe in your own superiority over the “ancestors” that have preceded you. A pleasant exercise in ego boosting.

 

[pig]

"Theophorus:

Univocity of being between finite and infinite immaterial substances seems to be implied in pigs arguments.

…pig is positing a complete univocity of being between God’s substance …

I’m afraid that pig never mentioned univocity, a term and idea proposed by someone who is dead now.

The human substance is in every facet spiritual, even the material aspect is but the spirit of Gods idea coiled and woven into a dimensional form. This created spiritual form is extended by the spiritual human soul which gives the form life and personality. Both are intimately connected together, the soul living through the heavenly realm and the body living through the dimensional realm. The human soul does not lose part of its substance but only sets down for a time an expression of its spirit when the body dies. It is not less of a soul.

 

[NeoScotist]

If it’s too hard to look at it the usual way, then look at it from the other direction.

People have reason. We can understand concepts. We can ask why. Now take it back a few million years. Your direct ancestor wasn’t as good at it as you are. He would have been less intellectually able.

Go back further. Your direct ancestor is now pretty dumb. It’s doubtful whether you could say he had an intellect at all.

Still further, and we reach a point where your direct ancestor was just acting on impulse. There is no sign of an intellect. No sign of any greater understanding of the world around him other than the need to eat and mate.

Back again, and there is barely anything you could call intelligence. Back again and your direct ancestor had no intelligence at all. He was just something that reacted to his environment. No conscious thought process. Back again and there is no thought at all. Back again and your direct ancestor didn’t possess what we’d call a brain.

Take it back, step by step and it’s quite easy to see how you can lose your ability to reason. All the way back to a direct ancestor of yours which at some distant point was barely fulfilling the criteria for life itself.

Now reverse the whole process and voila! From a small speck of something living in the mud at the bottom of a dirty pool of water, through countless stages, step by small step, generation after generation, in a literally unbroken lineage, we reach you reading this. You are literally directly related.

If you don’t think that is just the coolest thing, then you’re missing out.

Well, there’s no evidence of animals having “proto-concepts.” And there’s no evidence of animals of having “diminished” abstractive powers or some “primitive” ability to grasp universals. And this is to be expected if only humans beings have rational souls.

But let me concede, for sake of the argument, all what you want. Let us suppose there was a time where organisms had no reason, and a period where they had the most primitive form of reason. I think the problem is obvious if you think about it: there was an organism with no reason and a descendant with reason. This is not small gradual difference like longer fingers or better eyesight, this is completely new: the ability to reason, even if primitive. Now, this doesn’t make sense in an evolutionary context since
evolution is a only material process and can only give material results. You cannot get from a material process to an immaterial one.

Of course, you can try to convince us that immaterial processes are caused by material ones, but, then evolution itself wouldn’t be immediately relevant to mental causation, would it?

I’m not missing out much, I have many books on evolution and your exercise is used over and over in many contexts, but it still entertaining.

 

[NeoScotist]

Well, there’s no evidence of animals having “proto-concepts.” And there’s no evidence of animals of having “diminished” abstractive powers or some “primitive” ability to grasp universals. And this is to be expected if only humans beings have rational souls.

But let me concede, for sake of the argument, all what you want. Let us suppose there was a time where organisms had no reason, and a period where they had the most primitive form of reason. I think the problem is obvious if you think about it: there was an organism with no reason and a descendant with reason. This is not small gradual difference like longer fingers or better eyesight, this is completely new: the ability to reason, even if primitive. Now, this doesn’t make sense in an evolutionary context since evolution is a material process and it can only result in new rearrangements of matter. You cannot get from a material process to an immaterial one.

Of course, you can try to convince us that immaterial processes are caused by material
ones, but, then evolution itself wouldn’t be immediately relevant to mental causation, would it?

I’m not missing out much, I have many books on evolution and your exercise is used over and over in many contexts, but it still entertaining.