T
theCardinalbird
Guest
Is it true or no? If so, what does that mean for them once they die?
- Status
A
Augustinian
Guest
No.
“souls” aren’t a scientific concept at all, and have never been proven scientifically.
There is no implication at all for them, as not all truth is scientific.
“souls” aren’t a scientific concept at all, and have never been proven scientifically.
There is no implication at all for them, as not all truth is scientific.
Last edited:
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
I don’t know. I always thought that it was proven crows have a soul 
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
I’m sure it is false
A
angel12
Guest
There is no scientific proof that anything has a soul. Including humans. There are some things that are outside the realm of science.
U
Usagi
Guest
Some animals (including crows) have more in the way of self-awareness and reasoning ability (as measured by various tests) than we previously thought. In some cases their results are comparable to those of human children of pre-school or early school age.
Those attributes have classically been attributed solely to humans as signs of our rational soul. That may be what the OP means by “animals proven to have souls.” Of course the scientists don’t say “soul” and the Church has made no proclamations, but it does appear that there is more of a continuum than a strict line when it comes to certain traits once thought uniquely human.
Those attributes have classically been attributed solely to humans as signs of our rational soul. That may be what the OP means by “animals proven to have souls.” Of course the scientists don’t say “soul” and the Church has made no proclamations, but it does appear that there is more of a continuum than a strict line when it comes to certain traits once thought uniquely human.
P
pianistclare
Guest
Sorry, But my first thought was:
Wonder what part of the soul I’m eating at Longhorn Steaks?
Intelligence is not measure of the soul though.
Wonder what part of the soul I’m eating at Longhorn Steaks?
Intelligence is not measure of the soul though.
Last edited:
P
PJM
Guest
Is it scientifically proven that some animals have souls?
Father Hardon’s Catholic Dictionary:
SOUL. "The spiritual immortal part in human beings that animates their body. Though a substance in itself, the soul is naturally ordained toward a body; separated, it is an “incomplete” substance. The soul has no parts, it is therefore simple, but it is not without accidents. The faculties are its proper accidents. Every experience adds to its accidental form. It is individually created for each person by God and infused into the body at the time of human insemination. It is moreover created in respect to the body it will inform, so that the substance of bodily features and of mental characteristics insofar as they depend on organic functions is safeguarded. As a simple and spiritual substance, the soul cannot die. Yet it is not the total human nature, since a human person is composed of body animated by the soul. In philosophy, animals and plants are also said to have souls, which operate as sensitive and vegetative principles of life. Unlike the human spirit, these souls are perishable. The rational soul contains all the powers of the two other souls and is the origin of the sensitive and vegetative functions in the human being."
Hence a “Soul” is the source of LIFE in all living things; BUT just as their is a hierarchy in the animal kingdom with humanity being the summit {top} of it because in all of the universe only humanity is rational; with a eternal Souls that retains the “rational” attributes even after the body dies.
ALL other souls cease to exist with the demise {death} of that object.
PJM
WHAT is a soul?
Father Hardon’s Catholic Dictionary:
SOUL. "The spiritual immortal part in human beings that animates their body. Though a substance in itself, the soul is naturally ordained toward a body; separated, it is an “incomplete” substance. The soul has no parts, it is therefore simple, but it is not without accidents. The faculties are its proper accidents. Every experience adds to its accidental form. It is individually created for each person by God and infused into the body at the time of human insemination. It is moreover created in respect to the body it will inform, so that the substance of bodily features and of mental characteristics insofar as they depend on organic functions is safeguarded. As a simple and spiritual substance, the soul cannot die. Yet it is not the total human nature, since a human person is composed of body animated by the soul. In philosophy, animals and plants are also said to have souls, which operate as sensitive and vegetative principles of life. Unlike the human spirit, these souls are perishable. The rational soul contains all the powers of the two other souls and is the origin of the sensitive and vegetative functions in the human being."
Hence a “Soul” is the source of LIFE in all living things; BUT just as their is a hierarchy in the animal kingdom with humanity being the summit {top} of it because in all of the universe only humanity is rational; with a eternal Souls that retains the “rational” attributes even after the body dies.
ALL other souls cease to exist with the demise {death} of that object.
PJM
S
Shakuhachi
Guest
Of course that is all speculation.
B
BlackFriar
Guest
Yes, it was proven by science 2600 years ago.
Do you know the word for animal comes from “animus” which is Latin for soul.
Anything living has a soul.
But animals and plants have material souls.
Only human’s have spiritual souls which are immortal.
The word itself comes from Aristotle, the premiere scientist of his day.
Science back than was more about natural philosophy, which like science today, is based on reason.
So the word “soul” is in fact a scientific word not a religious word.
However it has served very well for Christian apologetics until the Enlightenment when that ancient science died (along with geo-centrism and belief in a hell, heaven, etc that was placed in our physical cosmos).
Should we kill off soul talk as well because it is no longer considered “science” at all?
Do you know the word for animal comes from “animus” which is Latin for soul.
Anything living has a soul.
But animals and plants have material souls.
Only human’s have spiritual souls which are immortal.
The word itself comes from Aristotle, the premiere scientist of his day.
Science back than was more about natural philosophy, which like science today, is based on reason.
So the word “soul” is in fact a scientific word not a religious word.
However it has served very well for Christian apologetics until the Enlightenment when that ancient science died (along with geo-centrism and belief in a hell, heaven, etc that was placed in our physical cosmos).
Should we kill off soul talk as well because it is no longer considered “science” at all?
Last edited:
1
1ke
Guest
Souls are not physical, there is nothing for science to prove. Science is the realm of the physical world. Not sure what you are referring to, but if you are referring to proof of the spiritual realm, no.
Animals have what are called material souls, as opposed to spiritual souls that humans have. They do not persist beyond death and do not have the capacity for the beatific vision.
Last edited:
S
Shakuhachi
Guest
And the term “material soul” makes no sense since souls are not physical.
D
Dan123
Guest
I think the original poster might have meant “sentience” ?
N
neophyte
Guest
I have no clue what you mean by “scientifically”, but by definition the soul is the principle that animates a living body. All animals have souls.
S
Struggling1
Guest
There is absolutely 0 proof or empirical evidence of any animal having a soul.
S
Shakuhachi
Guest
Yes, thank you but:
“The material soul is called material not because it is made of matter but because it is dependent upon matter for its be and for its do. The material soul is the principle of life of a creature which will cease to exist at death, namely, the plant or the brute animal. While the body depends for its life upon its soul, the material soul depends upon a suitable organization of the body for it to be able to maintain its own existence and its vivifying influence. For the material soul is not created i.e. made out of nothing, but is educed from the potency of the matter and returns to the potency of matter when the body through age or disease or injury is no longer able to support the soul.”
It is a contradiction and one that materialist atheists love because it makes life (soul) dependent on matter. Atheists point to “emergent properties”. To them life begins and ands with matter. But all life comes from God and it seems to me, soul is that connection between matter and God’s spirit. Why make a distinction between types of souls? Simply to help us feel better, superior and unique. But it really makes no sense at all.
But we are better, superior and unique independent of whatever the truth is about animal souls.
“The material soul is called material not because it is made of matter but because it is dependent upon matter for its be and for its do. The material soul is the principle of life of a creature which will cease to exist at death, namely, the plant or the brute animal. While the body depends for its life upon its soul, the material soul depends upon a suitable organization of the body for it to be able to maintain its own existence and its vivifying influence. For the material soul is not created i.e. made out of nothing, but is educed from the potency of the matter and returns to the potency of matter when the body through age or disease or injury is no longer able to support the soul.”
It is a contradiction and one that materialist atheists love because it makes life (soul) dependent on matter. Atheists point to “emergent properties”. To them life begins and ands with matter. But all life comes from God and it seems to me, soul is that connection between matter and God’s spirit. Why make a distinction between types of souls? Simply to help us feel better, superior and unique. But it really makes no sense at all.
But we are better, superior and unique independent of whatever the truth is about animal souls.
Last edited:
B
BlackFriar
Guest
This is not really correct 1ke, or at least confusing.
It depends what you mean by “science” I suppose.
Proof involves the realm of reason (as opposed to faith).
Both philosophy and science belong to reason.
In pre-Enlightenment times any discipline that relied on reason was called a “science”.
That used to include Philosophy.
Just because the physical sciences may not be able to prove the existence of the soul that does not mean philosophy hasn’t - because in fact ancient science allegedly did.
The Church teaches that the existence of God can be proven (by the ancient science of natural philosophy) and the proof of the soul is of exactly of the same order. It really is a “scientific truth” in the mind of the Church.
The confusion is perhaps that we have been seduced by the secular Enlightenment which overthrew both Faith and Natural Philosophy which the Church continued to use from ancient times.
Modern science alone then became favoured as the only discipline capable of delivering helpful “proof”.
That is why the Church and the world today are at such odds. It was not always so, the educated world was once far more favourable to religion than it is today.
So has it been scientifically proven that animals have souls?
Yes it has, by the ancient science of natural philosophy.
(While souls are not themselves physical they influence the physical - therefore by these physical effects reason is able to make conclusions re their existence. The Physical sciences do not have the methodology or tools of reason needed to make this enquiry. They were discarded at the Enlightenment as unhelpful).
Do modern scientists accept this? No they don’t, because at the Enlightenment (when modern science arose) they rejected Natural Philosophy, thinking it was a form of Faith rather than true reason.
We Christians are still reeling intellectually from that divorce of our parents (the Church and our European Culture) that started around 400 years ago. It is still unwinding.
Last edited:
S
semper_catholicus
Guest
I know that St. Thomas Aquinas taught that animals had mortal souls distinctly different from the immortal souls of humans. I don’t know if there is any scientific proof of that though.
B
BlackFriar
Guest
The technical phrase you are looking for is “material souls” (not mortal souls).
- Status