Interbreeding

  • Thread starter Thread starter Faith1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Faith1960

Guest
I was wondering if anyone knows for sure, if Catholics are allowed to believe the theory that
there were hominids who weren’t fully human because they didn’t have human souls, but Adam and Eve, as well as their offspring were ensouled and interbred with these other hominids, and started the human population?

This is a theory that Edward Feser discusses in his blog, titled Monkey in Your Soul.

I asked my priest and he said he “thinks” it’s ok to believe that, but I’d like a more definitive answer.
 
As the events in the text occurred in a time before legalism and scientific reasoning, I doubt you’ll ever find anything “authoritative” that doesn’t rely heavily on some assumption or another.
 
It is my understanding that DNA analysis has shown that most Europeans and Asians today contain a small amount (1% to 2%) of Neanderthal DNA due to the interbreeding of modern humans and Neanderthals after modern humans began migrating from Africa. (source)
 
Faith1960 said:
I asked my priest and he said he “thinks” it’s ok to believe that, but I’d like a more definitive answer.
Click to expand...
I don’t know where you will get a more definitive answer. Not being contrary here but the story of Genesis, Adam and Eve, and their offspring doesn’t stand up to logic and reason (i.e. Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel, Cain slew Abel, God banished Cain - next chapter, Cain and his wife…? where did this wife come from??). You can believe in the theory of evolution, but evolution is only a theory and a theory by definition is not a fact. And you can believe that mankind was “seeded” by aliens from another planet, but that is only conjecture supported by little evidence.

If you choose evolution, as I do, I think the scenario you paint is acceptable. That God selected two members of Homo Erectus, instilled in them his image and likeness, thus becoming Homo Sapiens, and humanity was born. I am open to that possibility. Then again, I’m open to the possibility of the other two being true. I think that is what your priest is also saying.

I think the answer to your question will be revealed to you, just not quite yet and not quite here and now. (if you get my drift)

It is an interesting question that you raise, though. And sorry my answer isn’t more definitive as I’m not either a scientist or an ethicist.

Shalom
 
It’s all speculation, since we can never really know at this point, but that theory (breeding with “unensouled hominids”) makes no sense to me. If these theoretical hominds didn’t have a soul, then they were animals, so breeding with them would have been bestiality.

On the other hand, if they were humans of some kind and capable of reason, speech, etc., then they had a soul.
 
Neither one is a great option. 🙂 But I think the “unensouled hominids” theory is much weirder and less plausible. What are the characteristics of these theoretical creatures? Are they basically like advanced apes, but not advanced enough to be human? If they are not advanced enough to be human, then they are animals. It doesn’t make any sense.
 
This is what the Church had to say about the topic in 2004:
While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.
Click to expand...
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

I think that statement at least acknowledges that the “interbreeding” hypothesis in the OP is compatible with Catholic teaching.
 
Todd977 said:
It is my understanding that DNA analysis has shown that most Europeans and Asians today contain a small amount (1% to 2%) of Neanderthal DNA due to the interbreeding of modern humans and Neanderthals after modern humans began migrating from Africa. (source)
Click to expand...
That is true. But are we arguing that Neanderthals were not human, or did not have a soul? If so, why not? They did not look like apes, they looked basically like other people with larger noses and foreheads, etc… Their DNA is about 99.8% the same as ours. They were not any less intelligent than we are. (See this article from The Guardian: **Neanderthals were not less intelligent than modern humans, scientists find **)
 
Likewise this would have occurred long before biblical time and possibly before the determination of souls being a part of our nature.
 
How would anyone know if a “hominid” had a soul or not?

Apparently they were smart enough to discover fire. They lived in caves with their wives and kids. I don’t know if they were aware of God.

I wonder if they ever had a school of sorts, where people could learn survival skills.
 
Nice to see a deacon’s reply.

And if you’re willing, do you know wbether or not an idea saying Adam and Eve were prior to the Neanderthal-Homo Sapiens split would be permissible within Catholic theology? I’ve wondered for a few months now whether or not we need to believe they were homo sapiens in addition to being the first true humans.
 
At the start, there wouldn’t have been any crook genes, so for a certain period, incest would have been harmless. 🤷

Unensouled homonids wouldn’t have had an intellect and will.
 
EnglishTeacher said:
It’s all speculation, since we can never really know at this point, but that theory (breeding with “unensouled hominids”) makes no sense to me. If these theoretical hominds didn’t have a soul, then they were animals, so breeding with them would have been bestiality.
Click to expand...
Bestiality cannot in general produce offspring. Since those unsouled hominids would have had compatible DNA, then viable offspring would be possible, even likely.

The alternative to bestiality is incest within Adam and Eve’s family. Either way there are problems.
On the other hand, if they were humans of some kind and capable of reason, speech, etc., then they had a soul.
Click to expand...
Many animals use sounds to communicate and some can reason. See Chimp vs Human.

rossum
 
rossum said:
Bestiality cannot in general produce offspring. Since those unsouled hominids would have had compatible DNA, then viable offspring would be possible, even likely.
Click to expand...
If they had “compatible DNA,” then they were humans. Humans, simply by virtue of being human, are both body and soul. So I am skeptical that there could have been any such thing as an “unensouled hominid.”
rossum said:
The alternative to bestiality is incest within Adam and Eve’s family. Either way there are problems.
Click to expand...
See Fiasco’s post above.
rossum said:
Many animals use sounds to communicate and some can reason. See Chimp vs Human.
Click to expand...
Not the same thing. There is a huge gulf between humans and animals, even the smartest of animals.

I think I am bowing out of the discussion now; perhaps it is pointless to discuss since the whole thing is purely speculative.
 
EnglishTeacher said:
If they had “compatible DNA,” then they were humans. Humans, simply by virtue of being human, are both body and soul. So I am skeptical that there could have been any such thing as an “unensouled hominid.”
Click to expand...
They had physical human bodies, including human DNA. So much is physical/material. Since God had not yet given them immaterial souls, they were ‘huma’ if you like – almost but not quite human. They had all the material components of a human, but not the last immaterial soul. With souls coming directly from God, not from DNA, then God could give souls to the offspring of a human and a ‘huma’.

rossum
 
If only you could develop a “soul-o-meter”, a gadget, which could show if the target has a “soul” of some kind (and “which kind”), you would be in much better position to argue about it. As is, you are akin to blind people, who keep arguing about the color of a picture which has not been painted. 😉
 
Vera_Ljuba said:
If only you could develop a “soul-o-meter”, a gadget, which could show if the target has a “soul” of some kind (and “which kind”), you would be in much better position to argue about it. As is, you are akin to blind people, who keep arguing about the color of a picture which has not been painted. 😉
Click to expand...
You have a good point, but sometimes throwing ideas around can rid the mind of some cobwebs, and maybe unearth a scrap of truth. 🤷

As long as we don’t reject any of the Church’s infallible teachings.:eek:
 
Fiasco said:
You have a good point, but sometimes throwing ideas around can rid the mind of some cobwebs, and maybe unearth a scrap of truth. 🤷

As long as we don’t reject any of the Church’s infallible teachings.:eek:
Click to expand...
What separates the church’s infallible teachings from the rest? Is there an infallibility-meter to separate them?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top