If two souls exist symbiotically, are they really separate souls since they cannot be living without each other?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 1Lord1Faith
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
1

1Lord1Faith

Guest
As many as half of the cells that make up a human body are microorganisms. Some of those are bacteria which are symbiotic to humans, meaning we cannot live without them.

Since the human body is designed to work with the bacteria actively living and reproducing in our body, and we would die without their life, is our soul in a symbiotic relationship with the soul of the bacteria? Or is our soul dependent on the bacteria’s soul without their’s necessary being dependent on ours?

Or, more to the point, does the soul of the bacteria cease to exist, or simply exists as part of the human soul? Can two souls combine to form one?
 
Last edited:
Bacteria don’t have a soul in the way we do. They don’t make choices.
 
Last edited:
Ive heard it posited that animals have a “natural soul”, ie a life force, but not like people.
 
That God is in everything alive,that it would cease to exist if He forgot for an instant ?
 
Everything that is living has a soul. But people have an immortal soul.

I’m asking - if two souls exist symbiotically, are they really separate souls since they cannot be living without each other.
 
Hmmm. May need to slightly alter your original posit.

Bacteria are there in large numbers. Birth, life and death of an individual bacterium is essentially independent of birth, life and death of the symbiote.

Now, maybe a modified hypothesis might be conjoined twins who are inseparable for some medical reason.
 
StephieNorthCo said:
Now, maybe a modified hypothesis might be conjoined twins who are inseparable for some medical reason
Click to expand...
My hypothesis was based on the fact that the symbiotic relationship is part and parcel of being human. That is part of my question. Does the form of a human contain bacteria…if the bacteria are necessary for our life, like our brain. If our brain is taken out of our body, we die and our soul separates from our body. If all of our beneficial gut bacteria was removed from our body, we would eventually die. But conjoined twins are an abnormality, not essential for human existence.
StephieNorthCo said:
Bacteria are there in large numbers. Birth, life and death of an individual bacterium is essentially independent of birth, life and death of the symbiote.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand what you’re saying. The bacteria live inside us. They may be able to live outside of us, but we cannot live unless they are living inside of us. So I don’t know how the two life cycles are independent of one another.
 
1Lord1Faith said:
They may be able to live outside of us, but we cannot live unless they are living inside of us. So I don’t know how the two life cycles are independent of one another.
Click to expand...
You can live without these bacteria. It’s not healthy but it’s possible. People with no immune system have lived in sterile environments and even lacked intestinal flora.

en.m.wikipedia.org

David Vetter - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
 
Last edited:
It’s an N:1 relationship with the beginning to end of life skewed. Yes, we depend on the bacteria. And they depend on us. Yet take one bacterium out of the mix. Nothing happens. Take a second one out. Nothing happens. Yet each of those individuals have a life principle. Take them all away. Bad things happen to the (one) human.

Does being a human require symbiosis? Yes. Could future science eliminate the need for bacteria? Maybe.

Our relationship with other humans is in some sense symbiosis. Take enough away and the human race doesn’t survive.
 
Greenfields said:
Hmm, I thought only people have souls.
Click to expand...
Some animals such as dogs or cats have consciousness and respond to commands given by their owners. What is the relationship between consciousness and a soul ? What exactly is meant by the soul of an animal? Also, some theologians say that there will be cats in heaven. At least that is what Cardinal Mahony has said and some posters here on CAF have also said so. And the infallible Roman Catholic Pope Paul VI has been quoted as saying: “Paradise is open to all God’s creatures.” And the Bible says that there are horses in heaven. If there are cats or dogs in heaven, would that mean that they had an immortal soul or would they die in heaven?
Anyway, what is meant by the soul of a creature and how is it related to consciousness.
 
Cruciferi said:
You can live without these bacteria. It’s not healthy but it’s possible. People with no immune system have lived in sterile environments and even lacked intestinal flora
Click to expand...
The story of David Vetter is very interesting. More so than I would have thought. There is an article called Bursting the Bubble that was interesting.

As far as I could tell only a couple people, or maybe just David, have ever lived in a completely sterile environment since birth. Although I couldn’t find any specific reference to a sterile gut, I would assume that was the case in at least David’s case. There were ethical issues associated with the bubble, as well as it being a tremendous undertaking involving NASA.

So it’s possible to live without the bacteria, but it’s unnatural. Since David undoubtedly had a soul, and so had a human form, I am left wondering if the Thomistic definition of form is very precise.

If the soul is the substantial form of the body, and the body has to be living for the soul to be with it, and it’s natural for bacteria to be part of an essential life support system, then I’m still left with the thought that a human soul is dependent on bacteria. But a human soul is also dependent on it’s mother’s soul during pregnancy.

So the human soul is never independent of another soul outside of means so extraordinary that it’s only happened once and that was probably unethical anyway.
 
Last edited:
I think that the Thomistic “form” is the requirement for a living thing to have a soul. That was the basis for my thinking in this thread. Are the bacteria’s contribution to our life substantial enough for them to be included in the human form?

But your statement could be worth a philosophical discussion. Such as - what is the form of a soul. If that’s not been answered before, or if it’s even applicable.
 
Last edited:
1Lord1Faith said:
Are the bacteria’s contribution to our life substantial enough for them to be included in the human form?
Click to expand...
No, they’re separate and distinct. They’re are like robots. If they have individual souls, they’re quite simple, primitive, and are very different from the Human Immortal Soul.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top