If animals can attempt to understand human speech, then animals must have immortal souls

  • Thread starter Thread starter Melodeonist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Melodeonist

Guest
I was watching some videos on this dolphin called “Peter the Dolphin”. And basically this dolphin was able to try learning human language. It understood what the trainers were saying.

If animals have mortal souls with no free will and such, then this proves that wrong. Attempting to understand another creature’s language requires free will to discern what the language means. If one “animal” (we’re animals ourselves if this is true) type can use free will to understand something then all “animals” have free will and have immortal souls which makes them more people than "animals.

thoughts?

Heres a video of peter the dolphin

 
Last edited:
Mortality/immorality of a soul seems disjoint from intelligence. Can you prove that an intelligent being must have an immortal soul?

(Aquinas and others have long taught that animals have souls. That’s nothing new.)
 
Last edited:
Not necessarily—it might just be a survival strategy, or adapting to its environment. There are lots of humans in this dolphin’s environment, so it makes sense for it to want to communicate its needs.

We have a bunny at home and it communicates with us on a primitive level.
 
IIRC in order to have free will you must have an immortal soul. You need free will to try to understand abstract things, like a dolphin trying to make sense of human language, which to them is an abstract. By mimicking this abstract, they’re trying to understand and comprehend what it means. Since they can use their free will, they gotta have an immortal soul.
 
Then what happens to all the creative energy of the soul when it passes?
 
I don’t see what this has to do with free will. The Will is what allows us to discern (and choose) between right and wrong, not “what do I want to do in this moment?”, and animals don’t have this capacity any more than infants do.
 
No, language ability is not evidence of an immortal soul. An immortal soul is a gift that isn’t earned by capacity nor lost by incapacity.

So the next morning when Balaam arose, he saddled his donkey, and went off with the princes of Moab. But now God’s anger flared up at him for going, and the angel of the LORD took up a position on the road as his adversary. As Balaam was riding along on his donkey, accompanied by two of his servants, the donkey saw the angel of the LORD standing in the road with sword drawn. The donkey turned off the road and went into the field, and Balaam beat the donkey to bring her back on the road. Then the angel of the LORD stood in a narrow lane between vineyards with a stone wall on each side. When the donkey saw the angel of the LORD there, she pressed against the wall; and since she squeezed Balaam’s leg against the wall, he beat her again. Then the angel of the LORD again went ahead, and stood next in a passage so narrow that there was no room to move either to the right or to the left. When the donkey saw the angel of the LORD there, she lay down under Balaam. Balaam’s anger flared up and he beat the donkey with his stick.

Then the LORD opened the mouth of the donkey, and she asked Balaam, “What have I done to you that you beat me these three times?” “You have acted so willfully against me,” said Balaam to the donkey, “that if I only had a sword at hand, I would kill you here and now.” But the donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your donkey, on which you have always ridden until now? Have I been in the habit of treating you this way before?” “No,” he replied.

Then the LORD opened Balaam’s eyes, so that he saw the angel of the LORD standing on the road with sword drawn; and he knelt and bowed down to the ground. But the angel of the LORD said to him: “Why have you beaten your donkey these three times? I have come as an adversary because this rash journey of yours is against my will. When the donkey saw me, she turned away from me these three times. If she had not turned away from me, you are the one I would have killed, though I would have spared her.” Num. 22:21-33
Melodeonist said:
Then what happens to all the creative energy of the soul when it passes?
Click to expand...
Why should creative energy be immortal even though other aspects (or energies or dimensions of awareness or uniqueness) of a living thing aren’t?
 
Last edited:
Oh…Peter the dolphin…For anyone wanting to do Google research on this guy, be warned that the story is rather twisted.
 
Natural intelligence doesn’t necessitate an immortal soul or the ability to make moral choices. Also, parrots don’t have immortal souls either, but they are better at talking.
 
Last edited:
I am not sure if free will requires an immortal soul. Social animals show behavior that suggests planning, intention, and free will. It helps with survival, and that is surely why it is so common in nature.

If not vocal communication or free will, what human trait do you think makes us unique among social animals?
 
Last edited:
Beryllos said:
If not vocal communication or free will, what human trait do you think makes us unique among social animals?
Click to expand...
The trait is that we were chosen, just as the trait of the Jews is that they were chosen. The angels are more intelligent and more powerful than humans; the Lord simply had a different plan for them.
 
Very carefully crafted - with an agenda. Dogs obey numerous commands, but there is no indication their souls are immortal.

Strange, isn’t it that atheists want to prove that lower primates have “immortal souls”

For what purpose? All filled up with soul, and nowhere to go.
 
Beryllos said:
I am not sure if free will requires an immortal soul.
Click to expand...
That depends on how you define ‘free will’, doesn’t it? If you merely define it as “the ability to make a choice”, then any living creature does, doesn’t it?

If, on the other hand, you define it as “the ability to make a rational choice”, well… then you have a distinction!
 
The only immortal being is God.
Humans are not immortal, we are eternal because God gave us eternal life.
The first thing is to learn the difference between immortal and eternal.
 
Last edited:
GiftofMercy said:
Humans are not immortal, we are eternal because God gave us eternal life.
The first thing is to learn the difference between immortal and eternal.
Click to expand...
CCC #1022: “Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death.”

Hmm… I guess the Catholic Church needs to learn the difference between ‘immortal’ and ‘eternal’, then… 🤔 😉

(I think you have it backward. ‘Immortal’ means “not mortal” – that is, not suffering from ‘mortality’ (death). The human soul does not die – it is immortal. ‘Eternal’ means “always in existence”, which applies to God, not us.)
 
Last edited:
I guess so! I will find the link to this and put it here, when I have time. A catholic teaching that is adamant only God is immortal, we are eternal because of the gift of life from God.

I think it is Bishop Barron that discusses this.

Also can you please provide the link to the web page you got that quote from of the CCC
 
Last edited:
GiftofMercy said:
Also can you please provide the link to the web page you got that quote from of the CCC
Click to expand...
Umm… I went to Google and typed “CCC 1022”. 😉

(You could also go to the USCCB’s web site; they have the full text of the CCC and the USCCA there.)
 
From a Thomist perspective, it can be known from natural reason alone that man has an immortal soul due to his intellective capacities. Language, a true language, is indicative of such faculties. Is this topic perhaps inspired by my reply elsewhere about language?

The issue may be my fault for not being precise enough. Certainly Aquinas and other Thomists recognize that animals are conscious and even that they communicate with each other. Casually we refer to such communication as “language,” but what humans do isn’t just more complex than associating “Polly want a cracker” with getting fed a cracker.

What humans do includes a whole other faculty beyond that insofar as when we know things the form of an object has been impressed upon our intellects such that the potency of the intellect is actualized to being the form of the object existing in an intelligible manner. We take on the form of what we know, not as our own formal cause but in the manner of having the form of another.

I’m diving too deep here. Sorry. I’ve been doing some reading on the topic and have run on ahead.

Suffice it to say that in addition to pattern associations, humans understand the abstract and in a universal way. We understand concepts such as goodness, justness, etc… in addition to universal forms. Our type of language, true language, is evidence of this, and is not seen in other animals. The parrot is mimicking and understands the phrases it knows as triggers. The same with the dolphin in the video. Even given a dolphin’s great capacity for communicating beyond other animals, we don’t see human abstraction in their communications or behavior. Dolphins don’t debate philosophy, for example.

Then again, maybe that just means they’re smarter than we are. Just joking! 😅
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top