Is There a Soul?

[redhen]

Excellent links! I highly recommend Dr. Bonnette’s work, also.

Bonnette is a philosopher, not an ethologist. His ideological bias is front and center;

“Materialist explanations of animal and human behavior miss the crucial distinction between sense and intellect. Animals possess sense knowledge alone, whereas man possesses both sense and intellective knowledge. Intellective knowledge is the hallmark of the human spiritual soul, and is not shared with our animal friends”

drbonnette.com/Ape-Language_Studies_Part_I.html

Special pleading (immortal soul). True enough, we can never crawl inside a chimps brain to see what it subjectively knows and feels (Nagel’s “What’s it like to be a bat?” comes to mind). Still, what is more plausible, evolutionary psychology or God imparting an immortal soul to homo sapiens sapiens? amazon.com/Primates-Philosophers-Morality-Evolved-Princeton/dp/0691124477

Thanks for making me look up Morgan’s Canon, never heard of it before. It seems like an extension of Occam’s Razor. Which again refers me to the best explanation.

Anyways, let’s leave our ape cousins for the moment; what is the current Catholic theological status of the ensoulment of archaic hominids? I’m thinking about Neanderthal, which went extinct c. 24,000 ya, Homo floresiensis, which went extinct c. 13,000 ya. Both species made and used tools and more importantly fire.

Did God give these rational hominids immortal souls? It would be especially egregious if Neanderthal were denied this boon, since there is good evidence for grave burials with goods placed in them which strongly hints at a concept of an afterlife.

p.s. another new potential hominid was recently discovered in Siberia, which lived 30,000 ya. spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,685630,00.html

How many more extinct hominids that lived during the same time as our species have to be discovered before we can posit that homo sapiens sapiens is not the pinnacle of the material universe?

 

[StAnastasia]

Did God give these rational hominids immortal souls? It would be especially egregious if Neanderthal were denied this boon, since there is good evidence for grave burials with goods placed in them which strongly hints at a concept of an afterlife…
How many more extinct hominids that lived during the same time as our species have to be discovered before we can posit that homo sapiens sapiens is not the pinnacle of the material universe?

Redhen, I’m still trying to make sense of the claim that “all Homo sapiens and only Homo sapiens have immortal souls.” I don’t know whether this is based on DNA, cranial capacity, or some other characteristic. Clearly, not all Homo sapiens have the same cranial capcity, and not all humans have brains (e.g., anancephaly), so maybe it is based on possessing human DNA. But where in human evolutionary history we can be sure we have crossed the threshhold into human DNA is an intriguing question.

 

[grannymh]

Redhen, I’m still trying to make sense of the claim that “all Homo sapiens and only Homo sapiens have immortal souls.” I don’t know whether this is based on DNA, cranial capacity, or some other characteristic. Clearly, not all Homo sapiens have the same cranial capcity, and not all humans have brains (e.g., anancephaly), so maybe it is based on possessing human DNA. But where in human evolutionary history we can be sure we have crossed the threshhold into human DNA is an intriguing question.

To help readers make sense of the claim that only human beings have immortal souls.

First, one needs to understand that the immortal soul is also immaterial and spiritual. Thus, there is no need to measure cranial capacity or examine DNA which are part of the material aspects of anatomy. As wonderful as it is, evolutionary history can only account for the material/physical anatomy which eventually decomposes. The material/physical earth cannot bring forth the immaterial, immortal spiritual soul.

Catholic theology teaches that God, Himself, brought forth human beings. Unfortunately, God neglected to give us His recipe for human nature. However human anatomy came to be, the human person is not solely matter. The human person is an unique, intimate unification of rational/corporeal, soul/body, spirit/matter.

God created the human person to share, through knowledge and love, in His own life. This is what is meant by the fact that we are created in the image of God. In man’s own nature, God unites the spiritual and material worlds. Awesome!

Blessings,
granny

Link to Catechism of the Catholic Church – www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[itinerant1]

Bonnette is a philosopher, not an ethologist. His ideological bias is front and center;

“Materialist explanations of animal and human behavior miss the crucial distinction between sense and intellect. Animals possess sense knowledge alone, whereas man possesses both sense and intellective knowledge. Intellective knowledge is the hallmark of the human spiritual soul, and is not shared with our animal friends”

drbonnette.com/Ape-Language_Studies_Part_I.html

Your comment avoids the crucial question of the distinction between between sense and intellective knowledge and what is required for either to exist and manifest itself.

Special pleading (immortal soul). True enough, we can never crawl inside a chimps brain to see what it subjectively knows and feels (Nagel’s “What’s it like to be a bat?” comes to mind). Still, what is more plausible, evolutionary psychology or God imparting an immortal soul to homo sapiens sapiens? amazon.com/Primates-Philosophers-Morality-Evolved-Princeton/dp/0691124477

It is not necessary to get inside a chimp’s brain, since chimp behavior is observable and can be studied for what need be posited to adequately explain the observations.

Thanks for making me look up Morgan’s Canon, never heard of it before. It seems like an extension of Occam’s Razor. Which again refers me to the best explanation.

Close. Moran’s Canon works two ways, though.

Anyways, let’s leave our ape cousins for the moment; what is the current Catholic theological status of the ensoulment of archaic hominids? I’m thinking about Neanderthal, which went extinct c. 24,000 ya, Homo floresiensis, which went extinct c. 13,000 ya. Both species made and used tools and more importantly fire.

Did God give these rational hominids immortal souls? It would be especially egregious if Neanderthal were denied this boon, since there is good evidence for grave burials with goods placed in them which strongly hints at a concept of an afterlife.

p.s. another new potential hominid was recently discovered in Siberia, which lived 30,000 ya. spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,685630,00.html

The same principles apply. If archaelogical evidence clearly indicates for any Hominid species conceptual or true abstract thinking, then that species is not a “brute” animal but a “rational” animal. That which is necessary, then, to explain rationality is part of the species’ nature.

How many more extinct hominids that lived during the same time as our species have to be discovered before we can posit that homo sapiens sapiens is not the pinnacle of the material universe?

Rationality transcends what is merely physical. Just which species transcend time and place, and its immediate environment by its cognitive abilities remains a question to be determined largely, if possible, by archeological evidence.

 

[itinerant1]

Redhen, I’m still trying to make sense of the claim that “all Homo sapiens and only Homo sapiens have immortal souls.”

Did someone in this thread make that claim?

 

[StAnastasia]

Did someone in this thread make that claim?

It was in a previous thread.

 

[itinerant1]

Did someone in this thread make that claim?

Clarification: I certainly would say that all Homo sapiens are a composite of an immaterial intellectual soul and a physical body. And, this may hold true also of other Homo species.

 

[grannymh]

If archaelogical evidence clearly indicates for any Hominid species conceptual or true abstract thinking, then that species is not a “brute” animal but a “rational” animal. That which is necessary, then, to explain rationality is part of the species’ nature.

Rationality transcends what is merely physical. Just which species transcend time and place, and its immediate environment by its cognitive abilities remains a question to be determined largely, if possible, by archeological evidence.

Perhaps you would explain all the nuances of the various usages of the term rationality.

In the old days, intellect and will were considered powers or faculties of the spiritual, immortal, immaterial soul. The intellect included the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought. In other words, the spiritual soul created by God, the Supreme Spiritual Being, accounted for the rational human species.

Furthermore, the human species is the only extant “hominid”. (American Heritage College Dictionary) We can trace our uninterrupted origin to two sole, exclusive parents. That being the case, other extinct hominid pre-humans would not have human nature and thus could not be considered rational in the spiritual soul sense.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[StAnastasia]

Clarification: I certainly would say that all Homo sapiens are a composite of an immaterial intellectual soul and a physical body. And, this may hold true also of other Homo species.

So is DNA the key to identifying what is capable of receiving an “immaterial intellectual soul”?

 

[itinerant1]

Perhaps you would explain all the nuances of the various usages of the term rationality.

In the old days, intellect and will were considered powers or faculties of the spiritual, immortal, immaterial soul. The intellect included the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought. In other words, the spiritual soul created by God, the Supreme Spiritual Being, accounted for the rational human species.

Up to this point, I have not used “reason” with various meanings or nuances. I am using reason and rational knowledge to distinguish it from knowledge which the senses give us. These are two distinct orders of knowledge. Reason involves abstract thinking or concepts, which are universals, and sense knowledge is particular, involving apprehension of particular qualities of individual things and their re-presentation to the intellect by the imaginative faculty and memory.

So far, in this useage, intellect and reason are interchangeable terms. If I use reason in a different way, such as to refer to animal “reasoning” or its estimative sense, or some such alternative analogical use, then I will try to remember to explain the nuance.

Furthermore, the human species is the only extant “hominid”. (American Heritage College Dictionary) We can trace our uninterrupted origin to two sole, exclusive parents. That being the case, other extinct hominid pre-humans would not have human nature and thus could not be considered rational in the spiritual soul sense.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

Where does Bigfoot fit into your scheme of things?

Of course pre-humans, by definition, would not have human nature.

But where to draw that line in natural history between pre-human and human is the question. Do we draw it at the advent of Homo sapiens? Or Homo sapiens sapiens? Maybe not. Perhaps man has been around for a much longer period, and pre-dates Homo sapiens. It is not necessary to think of Adam and Eve as biological moderns. Perhaps man, defined as “rational animal”, has been around for 2 or 3 million rather than just 200,000 years. What say you?

The questions above pertain to the advent rationality in natural history, though nature itself cannot generate the intellectual soul. But we must consider further in this thread just what is the nature of the soul. Reflecting on our acts, powers and habits, with the necessary introspection, will tell us much.

 

[StAnastasia]

Where does Bigfoot fit into your scheme of things?

Cryptozoology

 

[ricmat]

So is DNA the key to identifying what is capable of receiving an “immaterial intellectual soul”?

I’m not sure if you posing this because you think it’s the answer, or it’s not the answer and you have a better one. Do you have a better answer?

I’m not sure there is a way to identify everything that has a “human” soul. But there are some categories where we can be sure, and then there are some gray areas.

One “sure thing” for me at least is that “If a human man and human woman conceived it, then it’s a human, and therefore has a soul.”

Another sure thing with a wider scope is “If it is conceived from a human egg and human sperm, then it has a soul.” Certainly, humans conceived via IVF have souls.

And certainly, the offspring of a male and female non-human do not have souls. They are not made in the image and likeness of God.

But what about human eggs and sperm that we have “diddled” with?

This isn’t the subject of the thread, but an issue with creating (as “in the lab” creating) hybrid forms of life, or chimeras which include human DNA, is that we probably can’t know if it actually has a soul or not. Ditto for clones. I suppose that if it looks like a human, walks like a human (etc.) then we would treat it as a human with a soul, and with the inherent rights that grants. But we would treat it as though it has a soul to be on the safe side, not because we’re sure it has a soul. IMO that’s a good reason not to tinker in those areas, no matter how much benefit we think it might bring to humanity.

Basing the soul on intellect is a problem because fetuses, young babies, folks in comas, and people who are sleeping don’t have much intellect, and I hope we’d all agree that they are still human and deserve basic human rights. There are some, such as progressive Peter Singer who disagree with that (except the sleeping part).

 

[grannymh]

Up to this point, I have not used “reason” with various meanings or nuances. I am using reason and rational knowledge to distinguish it from knowledge which the senses give us. These are two distinct orders of knowledge. Reason involves abstract thinking or concepts, which are universals, and sense knowledge is particular, involving apprehension of particular qualities of individual things and their re-presentation to the intellect by the imaginative faculty and memory.

I’m catching on to the vocabulary. Thank you.

So far, in this usage, intellect and reason are interchangeable terms. If I use reason in a different way, such as to refer to animal “reasoning” or its estimative sense, or some such alternative analogical use, then I will try to remember to explain the nuance.

Thank you.

Where does Bigfoot fit into your scheme of things?

Bigfoot My 13+ shoe size son updated my computer this Easter.

Of course pre-humans, by definition, would not have human nature.
But where to draw that line in natural history between pre-human and human is the question.

Are you talking about a date or range of dates? Practically speaking, Adam, as the first person to have a fully complete human nature, is the line.

Of course pre-humans, by definition, would not have human nature.

But where to draw that line in natural history between pre-human and human is the question. Do we draw it at the advent of Homo sapiens? Or Homo sapiens sapiens? Maybe not. Perhaps man has been around for a much longer period, and pre-dates Homo sapiens.

Or perhaps the pre-history of man goes all the way back to the first living organisms.
Close to a year ago, I was considering that the human species could possibly be a separate lineage dating back to the major domains. The work of Dr. Carl R. Woese, Professor of Microbiology, University of Illinois, fascinated me, especially his defining the Archaea as a separate domain. Could the unique human species also be separate?.

It is not necessary to think of Adam and Eve as biological moderns. Perhaps man, defined as “rational animal”, has been around for 2 or 3 million rather than just 200,000 years. What say you?

Common sense would say that two or three million years would not be needed between Adam and Eve and us.

The questions above pertain to the advent rationality in natural history, though nature itself cannot generate the intellectual soul. But we must consider further in this thread just what is the nature of the soul. Reflecting on our acts, powers and habits, with the necessary introspection, will tell us much.

What you are saying here is very important. Once the true nature of the spiritual soul is determined and thus the true human nature specified as an intimate union of spirit/matter – once that endeavor is accomplished – it would be possible to defend the proposed thesis:
"The possibility of two sole parents of the human species lies within the nature of the human being.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for knowledge is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[itinerant1]

Bigfoot My 13+ shoe size son updated my computer this Easter.

Is your son one of those mysterious Bigfoot creatures?

Common sense would say that two or three million years would not be needed between Adam and Eve and us.

Not needed for what? I don’t know what you are trying to say.

The only question here, and for the topic of this thread, is what, if any, ancestral species of Homo sapiens may be defined as “rational animal”. If this question can be answered it must take into account the scant archeological evidence such as the making and using of tools; how they were made and for what purpose were they used; the use of fire; the types of shelters built; burial practices, and so on.

 

[StAnastasia]

Basing the soul on intellect is a problem because fetuses, young babies, folks in comas, and people who are sleeping don’t have much intellect, and I hope we’d all agree that they are still human and deserve basic human rights. There are some, such as progressive Peter Singer who disagree with that (except the sleeping part).

So if the soul is not based on the intellect, on what is it based? On DNA? If so, then a clone would have an ontological status no different than an identical twin, and surely you would agree that identical twins both have souls.

 

[itinerant1]

Practically speaking, Adam, as the first person to have a fully complete human nature, is the line.

I am not sure what you mean.

Adam is the name given to whomever it is that represents the first human being, Homo sapien or not.

And this is a line: ------------------------------------------------------------

 

[itinerant1]

So if the soul is not based on the intellect, on what is it based? On DNA? If so, then a clone would have an ontological status no different than an identical twin, and surely you would agree that identical twins both have souls.

Ricmat may be a bit confused on this matter. It is the intellectual soul intimately united to and animating a physical body that defines “man” as a “rational animal.” However, for a manifestation or use of the intellectual powers, there is the requirement for a relative integrity of the brain. Genetic abnormalities and injuries can inhibit cognitive development. A Down Syndrome person is still comprised of the same intellectual soul as everyone else even though the genetic problem precludes him from attaining much at all in the area of education.

 

[grannymh]

I am not sure what you mean.

Adam is the name given to whomever it is that represents the first human being, Homo sapien or not.

And this is a line: ------------------------------------------------------------

Adam is the name given to the first human being.

To make a time line, one places perpendicular lines on a horizontal line to indicate events.
I_______I_______I________I

From post 50. Of course pre-humans, by definition, would not have human nature. But where to draw that line in natural history between pre-human and human is the question.

One could give an estimate of time by putting a date at the top of a perpendicular line. Or one could put the name of an historical figure at the top of a perpendicular line. I have no clue about historical dates, but I do know that Adam was the historical first true, fully complete human being who would be the “watershed” between pre-human and the human species. So I made him the drawn line between the pre-human and human which you wanted.

Adam
pre-human I human species
************ I *************

Blessings,
granny

Spring is God’s message of faith in the future.

 

[itinerant1]

Adam is the name given to the first human being.

To make a time line, one places perpendicular lines on a horizontal line to indicate events.
I_______I_______I________I

One could give an estimate of time by putting a date at the top of a perpendicular line. Or one could put the name of an historical figure at the top of a perpendicular line. Since I have no clue about historical dates, but I do know that Adam was the historical first true, fully complete human being who would be the “watershed” between pre-human and the human species. So I made him the drawn line between the pre-human and human which you wanted.

Adam
pre-human I human species
************ I *************

Blessings,
granny

Spring is God’s message of faith in the future.

Fine job. You have been nominated to be the official drawer of lines in this thread.

 

[grannymh]

Fine job. You have been nominated to be the official drawer of lines in this thread.

:kiss4you: