Is it scientifically proven that some animals have souls?

[AlNg]

Let me get this right.

Not only do you believe that animals exists in heaven (and God has a body because he sits on a throne in heaven) because of an imaginative allegorical scene in Revelation…but you believe the above sentence from Nicea further proves this as well?

I am not sure, but it appears that you might be rejecting the Nicene Creed about Jesus sitting at the right hand of the Father. Whether or not animals exist in heaven is something I have no knowledge of. However, there are those who interpret the Bible as mentioning it, as I pointed out.

 

[AlNg]

Animals do not have souls.

There was a discussion in another thread, about whether or not there are animals in heaven. Some Catholics said yes, others said no. Life in heaven is eternal. Supposing that there are animals in heaven (and I don’t know if there are or not) would that imply that animals have souls because they are there for all eternity?

 

[BridgetN]

Supposing that there are animals in heaven (and I don’t know if there are or not) would that imply that animals have souls because they are there for all eternity?

No, I think if animals are in heaven, God brings them there just to make us happy.

 

[Benadam]

Unless my pet poo’s on my perfect Happiness

Edit God’s perfect happiness. The dog poos on my perfect happiness all the time.

 

[Benadam]

You must find your happiness in God. If it’s God and your pet, you aren’t ready for heaven. Im

 

[Shakuhachi]

You dont think that God delights in them more than we do?

 

[Benadam]

I do think that. I think He delights in the purpose He has given to His creatures. He created all creation for man, and man is the pinnacle of creation. Sounds a bit arrogant but not through the lens of Christ.

Edit I think the New Earth is the heaven for animals. In heaven perhaps we’ll know time and history like God and in that way we can be with our pets.

 

[BridgetN]

You must find your happiness in God. If it’s God and your pet, you aren’t ready for heaven. Im

yes, but you can also have your pet, and that won’t detract from your time with God. Remember, you will always be face to face with God, even if your doing something else…Beatific vision.
Also your Guardian Angel has to take care of you, but he still can enjoy God.

 

[Shakuhachi]

It does sound very arrogant even through the lens of Christ. Were distant stars and galaxies also created just for “man”? All the billions of insects?

The point I am trying to make is that while we may benefit from other creatures in the grand and wonderful harmony of things, it is self centered to believe that they were all created just for us and serving our needs is their only purpose…

 

[Benadam]

It does sound very arrogant even through the lens of Christ. Were distant stars and galaxies also created just for “man”? All the billions of insects?

The point I am trying to make is that while we may benefit from other creatures in the grand and wonderful harmony of things, it is self centered to believe that they were all created just for us and serving our needs is their only purpose…

What do you think it means that creation groans waiting for God to reveal His Sons?
Or as the Church teaches man is the summt of creation. God made man steward of the earth.
Commanded to subdue the earth. Told Noah he can eat meat.
I see animals as my lesser brethren. God demands their bllood if they suffer unnecessarily.

 

[neophyte]

Proof involves the realm of reason (as opposed to faith).

Faith, by definition, involves the realm of reason as well.

 

[thistle]

I’d be very sad if my dog won’t greet me in heaven, when the time comes True story. I truly believe that our dog is a blessing from above!

I don’t understand anyone who says they want their pet in Heaven with them. In essence that means being in the presence of God is not sufficient for them!

 

[AndrewAxland]

I don’t understand anyone who says they want their wife in Heaven with them. In essence that means being in the presence of God is not sufficient for them!

How is that any different?

 

[BlackFriar]

By all means provide your definition of faith then…

 

[neophyte]

By all means provide your definition of faith then…

I don’t have a personal definition that I made up. I only have the correct definition.

Any definition of the word needs to make sense of the way it’s always been used. Many people think the word “faith” means something like “to believe in something without evidence”, but that would render meaningless common and ancient usages such as “being faithful to your spouse” - what, I have no evidence that my spouse exists? Or is being faithful nothing more than knowing that she’s at home while I’m schtuping the babysitter at a cheap hotel? Of course not. Another obvious example is the U.S. Marine Corps motto: Semper Fidelis, which indicates loyalty and commitment to their Marine comrads-in-arms.

If faith is something like “believing in something that you know ain’t true”, then neither could it have been used of Abraham or Moses. Both of them knew for a fact that God existed, because they spoke to him! They knew that he existed, they had absolute proof that it was true and the word used for their response was faith.

So that definition is a distortion crafted during the enDarkenment by those who wished to discredit the word. What faith REALLY is, is “an act of the will by which one adheres to another who is known”.

The Hebrew word aman is translated as believe, trust, have faith, and also support, nourish, and make lasting. A derivative word is omenat, meaning pillars or supports of the door as in 2 Kings 18:16. Another cognate is emunah, which is faithfulness or trust, as in Exodus 17:12 where God brought victory to Israel as long as Moses would hold his hands up. Aaron and Hur held up his hands so that they remained emunah until sundown.

All of these illustrate that faith is an action that we take, it’s about both what you believe and what you do.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church expresses this by saying that faith is an act of the will in which one turns toward God and away from sin; in which we decide that we will cooperate, with our intellect and will, with the divine grace that God gives us to enable us to comply with the moral law; it is a free response of the human person to the initiative of God; it is a personal adherence of the whole man to the God who reveals himself. It is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself. By faith “man freely commits his entire self to God.” For this reason the believer seeks to know and do God’s will. “The righteous shall live by faith.” Living faith “work through charity.”

I suggest you read Fides et Ratio.

 

[BarreandBark]

Thank you!

 

[BlackFriar]

Noone disagrees that faith should involve reason in some way.
For if that were not true it should be called gullability instead.

But my statement that raised your concern was actually re 1ke’s comment that “proof” seemed to be the exclusive territory of “science”. This is not so - the Catholic Church believes “proof” is about arguments of reason - which is a tool of Philosophy as well as of Science.

Discipline’s based on “faith” rather than proof may well be called Theology or Religion but by definition these are different from Science and Philosophy.
Yes Theology and Religion must be in accord with reason, but their basic truths by definition are not discoverable by reason and therefore cannot be “proven”.

The question at issue in this thread is “scientific proof”. Theology and Faith do not provide such proof by definition.

 

[neophyte]

Noone disagrees that faith should involve reason in some way.
For if that were not true it should be called gullability instead.

But my statement that raised your concern was actually re 1ke’s comment that “proof” seemed to be the exclusive territory of “science”.

I’m certain that that’s not what he said.

When you said that “Proof involves the realm of reason (as opposed to faith)” I took it to mean that you thought that faith does not involve reason, and when you objected to my response that “Faith, by definition, involves the realm of reason as well” I took it as confirmation that you think it doesn’t. If I was mistaken on both counts, I apologize; I should have studied everything you said more closely.

 

[BlackFriar]

No worries.
The role of reason re faith is different from the role of reason re “scientific proof” that is all.
Reason does not rise to the level of “proof” in faith - but it does provide “motives of credibility”.

Yes faith is more an intellectual virtue than a volitional one - but the certainty of faith comes from the faculty of will not from the faculty of intellect (as with science). This is the classic distinction between “consent” and “assent” I suppose.

Most of us for example come to the certainty of the existence of God through faith not science.
Angels on the otherhand, by the force of their superior intellects, do not. Their certainty is through “sight” of reason. That is why they have no “faith” in this area - for even the fallen angels know with certainty that God exists.

 

[neophyte]

No worries.

The role of reason re faith is different from the role of reason re “scientific proof” that is all.

Reason does not rise to the level of “proof” in faith - but it does provide “motives of credibility”.

Yes faith is more an intellectual virtue than a volitional one - but the certainty of faith comes from the faculty of will not from the faculty of intellect (as with science).

I’m not seeing it. We make the act of faith based, in part, on evidence: we experience the other person and come to a reasoned decision. The fact that inanimate objects are not free moral agents and people are doesn’t at all mean that the conclusions we draw from observations of one derive from the intellect and those of the other do not. The difference in the certainty of future behavior lies entirely in the nature of the one observed, not in the nature of either the observer or observations already made.

In fact, it seems to me that faith involves a greater act of the intellect. God is pure Intellect, he is pure Love, Faith is an act that arises out of Charity, and Charity is the greatest of the theological virtues. So the act of Faith which comes from Charity must be a greater act of the intellect than a conclusion that derives merely from the inquiries of Natural Philosophy.