How do you distinguish between spiritual and non-spiritual souls? In fact, what is a non-spiritual soul?
As a Catholic theology professor I would think this is something you are familiar with; it’s covered extensively by St. Thomas Aquinas. I don’t mean to sound snarky, I’m just unsure of your reason for asking because I assume it’s something you’re already familiar with. In short, the material soul is the living principle that arises from the natural potencies of the animal or vegetable body. You can determine the difference between a material and spiritual (rational) soul by the capabilities exhibited by the subject: those with spiritual souls are capable of metaphor and other combinations of ideas that don’t relate to direct sensory experience, while material souls operate with the direct sensory experience they have without recombining concepts. Material souls are capable of problem solving and forward thinking, but don’t exhibit a rational understanding of concepts.
Of course not all rational/spiritual souls are able to process information in their unique way, as I mentioned in my previous post.
I did not say “human DNA bears a soul.” I said “human DNA does seem to be closely associated with it, if the claim is made that all human DNA and only human DNA is capable of bearing a soul.” I often hear the claim made that all humans and only humans carry a soul. If we discount outward physical appearance, DNA testing is the best way to tell whether an organism is human.
I don’t make that claim and don’t support it. The farthest I’ll go is to say that the only animal we know of with a spiritual soul is the human. I do agree that DNA testing is a good way to tell whether an organism is human.
Perhaps, but I assume you would argue that a human embryo in a test tube does indeed bear a soul.
I would argue that a human embryo in a test tube is a living human body, and therefore would bear a spiritual soul by definition. DNA in a test tube is not the same thing as a living human body in a test tube.
Some cancerous tumors then bear souls, as they began as the twin of the host person. If “ensoulment” begins “at the moment of conception” (which actually is not a moment, but a number of hours), even embryos that fail to develop as independent persons contain souls.
Only if the tumors have their own independent life functions and aren’t merely leeching nutrients from the human host. In that case they would be part of the body (and therefore would be covered by the soul) of the human host, even if they have distinct DNA, much like a transplanted liver or kidney.
As a matter of fact it is rather consequential, if we are interested in the point during the last 300,000 years of human development when our ancestors became human.
It’s not detectable by science, and human DNA and body don’t automatically indicate a spiritual soul. It is perfectly feasible to have a human body that entirely lacks a soul, we call it a corpse, and it it’s perfectly feasible to have a living human body that only has a material soul and works on the level of a highly intelligent ape. We don’t see that today, but it could have existed in the past and science would not be able to detect the difference between the spiritual and material humans.
At most science could tell us when the modern human DNA developed, but that wouldn’t tell us anything about the presence of a spiritual soul.
Science is very interested in this point; there is a huge amount of research going on into the question of how and when we became human.
And on a material level it may provide some answers, but it will not be able to touch on the spiritual soul. Human DNA doesn’t directly demonstrate a spiritual soul.
Peace and God bless!
