Is There a Soul?

[StAnastasia]

Wdam was the historical first true, fully complete human being who would be the “watershed” between pre-human and the human species.

Is Adam the only one whose daddy was not a human being? Was his mommy also not a human being? How did he feel about his parents and grandparents not being human beings, no matter how kind and nice and brilliant they might have been? I know I would feel terrible fer sure if my pa and ma were judged by Grannymh to be inhuman. I would think they was decent God-fearin’ human bein’s even if Grannymh – sittin’ up thar in her high-back chair wearin’ her black judge robe – declared that they was not human bein’s!

StAnastasia

 

[itinerant1]

Is Adam the only one whose daddy was not a human being? Was his mommy also not a human being? How did he feel about his parents and grandparents not being human beings, no matter how kind and nice and brilliant they might have been? I know I would feel terrible fer sure if my pa and ma were judged by Grannymh to be inhuman. I would think they was decent God-fearin’ human bein’s even if Grannymh – sittin’ up thar in her high-back chair wearin’ her black judge robe – declared that they was not human bein’s!

StAnastasia

Bishop “Soapy Sam” Wilberforce might look favorably on yer reasonin’!

 

[grannymh]

Is Adam the only one whose daddy was not a human being? Was his mommy also not a human being? How did he feel about his parents and grandparents not being human beings, no matter how kind and nice and brilliant they might have been? I know I would feel terrible fer sure if my pa and ma were judged by Grannymh to be inhuman. I would think they was decent God-fearin’ human bein’s even if Grannymh – sittin’ up thar in her high-back chair wearin’ her black judge robe – declared that they was not human bein’s!

StAnastasia

Personal note to StAnastasia.

Grannymh is just waking up and needs her Pepsi before tackling your valid questions. In the meantime, if your pa and ma are still living, write or call them and tell them how much you love them. Thank them for bringing you into this wonderful, marvelous world.

Hope you don’t mind, but I don’t wear black robes on Saturday. Also, being a fan of the very early “Law and Order” TV shows, I will take your concerns under advisement.

Blessings,
granny

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

 

[ricmat]

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.

I asked you if you had a better solution. You didn’t respond, so I’ll assume that your answer is “no”.

I gave you some examples of “sure things” in which we know the being has a human/immortal soul.

I gave an example of “sure things” in which we know that the being does not have a human/immortal soul.

And I said that there are gray areas, one of which was a clone.

To your point above, identical twins (normally conceived) fit my categories of sure-thing that they have human souls. Clones, not being normally conceived, but apparently human in all visible respects should be treated as human. Whether or not they have souls, I don’t know. But God told us to go forth and multiply, and I doubt that he meant “clones.”

It seems that you’re pushing for the “intellect defines human/soul” point of view. I pointed out some issues with that in my post above.

 

[ricmat]

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.

I agree with all that you said above. So I guess that means that you’re confused too.

Perhaps you read only part of my post above (the part StA quoted).

I also said this “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).”

I also said that any normally conceived human has a soul. Certainly a down syndrome person fits this category.

BTW - I’m not sure what you’re getting at with the education comment. I certainly wasn’t suggesting that education be a prerequisite for having a soul. StA might think that, but I’m at the other end of the spectrum.

 

[grannymh]

Is Adam the only one whose daddy was not a human being? Was his mommy also not a human being? How did he feel about his parents and grandparents not being human beings, no matter how kind and nice and brilliant they might have been? I know I would feel terrible fer sure if my pa and ma were judged by Grannymh to be inhuman. I would think they was decent God-fearin’ human bein’s even if Grannymh – sittin’ up thar in her high-back chair wearin’ her black judge robe – declared that they was not human bein’s!

StAnastasia

Greetings, StAnastasia and others who are interested in this thread’s topic.

It’s grannymh here, sitting on my ergonomic chair, wearing my Saturday clothes, ready to reply to
post 61 above. – Please read above post very carefully. Thank you.

To begin. Is Adam the only one whose daddy was not a human being?
Yes, StAnastasia, the daddy of Adam was not a true, real human being. Neither was his mommy. Otherwise, Adam would not be the first, true, fully complete human person as taught by the Catholic Church. I will explain.

Our human nature is an unique unification of spirit/matter, rational/corporeal, soul/body. Created in the image of God, we alone are called to share, through knowledge and love, in God’s own life. This is the fundamental reason for our dignity.
It is why the human species is different in kind from all other species.

Catholicism teaches that in his own nature, the human person unites the spiritual and material realms. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 355 - 373)

Doesn’t our own material anatomy come from our real human daddy and mommy? Of course it does. Ah, one asks. If Adam’s daddy was not a real human being, where did Adam’s anatomy come from? The first answer is that God is the Creator of all. We know that our spiritual, immortal soul comes directly from God as the Supreme Spiritual Being.

Unfortunately, God did not share all the particulars or details of His recipe for creating the material aspects of our human nature. Therefore, we can look at *Genesis 2: 7 *as an instant creation of Adam which it could very well be. Or we can consider that God formed Adam from existing matter.

Either way, the key is that God formed a living organism with a spiritual, immortal soul. It is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body. Spirit and matter are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature. (*Catechism of the Catholic Church, *paragraphs 362-366) This creative act of God forever separates humans from any kind of pre-humans.

The underlying question which StAnastasia raises is did Adam know where his material anatomy came from. Catholicism teaches that Adam was not only created good, but was also established in friendship with his Creator and in harmony with himself and with creation around him. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 374-384) Because of his friendship with his Creator, Adam understood his own nature and his purpose for living.

Genesis 2:20 relates how Adam named all the animals realizing that none of them had his human nature. In other words, since none of the living beings around Adam had a spiritual, immortal soul, none of them would be capable of knowing God let alone be “decent God-fearin’” as described by StAnastasia in post 61.

Even if some scientific research showed similarities between Adam and the pre-humans, the similarities would only be material ones. Material similarities do not make a fully complete human being. Regardless of how matter became human anatomy, it is still in the material realm and cannot account for the presence of the spiritual soul.

As said above, Adam was in harmony with himself and with creation around him. He understood the difference between non-humans and himself. Because all was created in accord with God’s plan, there would be no reason for Adam to feel bad about any creature. Being in friendship with God, Adam could look at everything God had made and find it very good.

Blessings,
granny

Catholic teaching regarding Adam and Eve is found in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Paragraphs 355-421. One can put paragraph numbers and topics such as Adam, etc. in the Catechism’s search bar in link www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[itinerant1]

I agree with all that you said above. So I guess that means that you’re confused too.

Perhaps you read only part of my post above (the part StA quoted).

I also said this “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).”

I also said that any normally conceived human has a soul. Certainly a down syndrome person fits this category.

BTW - I’m not sure what you’re getting at with the education comment. I certainly wasn’t suggesting that education be a prerequisite for having a soul. StA might think that, but I’m at the other end of the spectrum.

From what you say here, it looks like I misinterpreted one of your statements (twenty lashes for me), and that you were correct. Mea culpa.

My comment about education does not pertain to what you said.

Now consider Peter Singer…there is one strangley muted duck…and the darling of the materialist crowd.

 

[itinerant1]

Musings…Philosphical psychology, as distinquished from scientific psychology, concerns itself with the nature of the soul. The doctrines of traditional philosophical psychology were developed long before the advent of modern science.

Since knowledge of the soul was not and cannot be derived from the scientific method, science can neither prove or disprove anything about the existence and nature of the soul. The most that science can do, since its knowledge is perinoetic rather than dianoetic, the latter which is characteristic of philosophy, is provide useful details to said doctrines.
Again, evolution science can neither prove or disprove the existence of the soul. Biological science, because of its emperiological nature, cannot address the subject of soul. Archaeology, genetics, and so on can provide useful information for philosophical considerations, but the assumption that science can or has disproved the existence of or spiritual nature of the soul is but mere fantasy.

Methodological naturalism, the proper method for science, precludes science from making obviously metaphysical statements.

Since man is unity of soul and a material substrate, some of his acts are strictly of the the soul, while other involve acts or powers that involve the body as well as the soul.
Those acts or powers that are of the soul alone are “psychic”, while acts involving the body are “psycho-somatic”. For example, conceptualization is an act of the intellectual soul alone, while various passions such as anger are psycho-somatic, involving both the intellect and corresponding changes in the body. The intensity of the anger can even dominate the person so that reason no longer functions adequately.

Returning to the subject of evolution, I think one of the problems evolutionists have with my views is derived from the fact, a fact that they have not cognized, is that I take evolution seriously.

We cannot, though, legitimately argue from data of evolution theory to anything about the soul. We must study the soul by means that are properly philosophical. And since philosophy is a higher science than natural science, it can stand as a guide or “external” judge of evolutionary claims. What evolution science lacks is a grounding in sound philosophical concepts. Sound philosophy is needed now more than ever.

 

[itinerant1]

From what you say here, it looks like I misinterpreted one of your statements (twenty lashes for me), and that you were correct. Mea culpa.

My comment about education does not pertain to what you said.

Now consider Peter Singer…there is one strangley muted duck…and the darling of the materialist crowd.

Correction: that would be a “strangely mutated duck” (or some other aberrant life form).

 

[grannymh]

Sound philosophy is needed now more than ever.

Yes, sound philosopohy is absolutely needed now more than ever. Which is why I spent time on a post giving suggestions about what Thomists can do.

 

[StAnastasia]

It seems that you’re pushing for the “intellect defines human/soul” point of view. I pointed out some issues with that in my post above.

Not at all, as you would have seen had you read my post. I asked what we base capability of possessing soul on if not on intellect. If it’s not on intellect – which of course would rule out or severely limit the ensoulment of anancephalic infants, developmentally disabled persons, PVS sufferes, etc. – then it must be on some other basis. Having human DNA would seem to be a prime candidate as a prerequisite for ensoulment.

 

[StAnastasia]

The underlying question which StAnastasia raises is did Adam know where his material anatomy came from. Catholicism teaches that Adam was not only created good, but was also established in friendship with his Creator and in harmony with himself and with creation around him. …Even if some scientific research showed similarities between Adam and the pre-humans, the similarities would only be material ones. Material similarities do not make a fully complete human being.

Granny, is it your contention that the only thing that distinguished Adam from all the other humans living at the time was “soul”? The others looked like him, talked like him, walked like him, hunted like him, made baskets like him, buried their dead like him, etc.?

 

[grannymh]

Granny, is it your contention that the only thing that distinguished Adam from all the other humans living at the time was “soul”? The others looked like him, talked like him, walked like him, hunted like him, made baskets like him, buried their dead like him, etc.?

It is the Catholic position that Adam was the first true, real, fully complete human person. In order for a living organism to be human, it has to have a human nature which is an unique unification of spirit/mater, rational/corporeal, soul/body.

One needs to be careful when using the term human. If you wish, you may rephrase you question above to take into consideration the definition of human according to Catholic teaching.

For now, Catholic teaching is that Adam was the original, first, true human person. There are not multiple firsts. Therefore other true, real humans living at the same time would be descendents of Adam and Eve. As descendents of the two sole parents of the human species, not only would these humans look and act like their parents, but because of their immaterial, spiritual soul, they could share through knowledge and love in God’s own life. Amazing!

Blessings,
granny

John 20: 24-31

 

[Benadam]

Granny, is it your contention that the only thing that distinguished Adam from all the other humans living at the time was “soul”? The others looked like him, talked like him, walked like him, hunted like him, made baskets like him, buried their dead like him, etc.?

Yet there was no helpmeet suitable for Adam found among the ‘animals’.
In order to name the animals Adam must have known what was essential to each. To know that is to be like what is known. Yet for Adam there was no suitable helpmeet. Maybe there was something more to Adam?

 

[grannymh]

Having human DNA would seem to be a prime candidate as a prerequisite for ensoulment.

A word of caution regarding this idea from post 71 – “Having human DNA would seem to be a prime candidate as a prerequisite for ensoulment.”
Currently, human DNA is stored in GenBank, National Center for Biotechnology Information.

Perhaps it is time to go back to the concept of God determining human nature, not science or material prerequisites.

Catholicism teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God. It is not “produced” by the parents. The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body. Spirit and matter are not two separate natures united [Cartesian extreme dualism], but rather their union forms a single nature known as the human person.

Blessings,
granny

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

 

[grannymh]

Yet there was no helpmeet suitable for Adam found among the ‘animals’.
In order to name the animals Adam must have known what was essential to each. To know that is to be like what is known. Yet for Adam there was no suitable helpmeet. Maybe there was something more to Adam?

Good points.

Not sure if this is irreverent, but I once read an interpretation of Adam’s words when he first saw Eve – Wow! She has the same nature as me.
Here is my soul mate

Blessings,
granny

Genesis 1: 28

 

[Just_Lurking]

It seems to me that one indication of having an immortal soul is evincing concern for the afterlife. Does anyone know which species (or human ancestors) bury their dead, or have funeral ceremonies?

 

[Just_Lurking]

Also, another indication of an immortal soul would be seeking God through religion. For example, Vatican II (e.g., Nostra Aetate) indicates that whatever truth exists in all religions comes from God. So which species or human ancestors had evidence of religious practices?

 

[Benadam]

It seems to me that one indication of having an immortal soul is evincing concern for the afterlife. Does anyone know which species (or human ancestors) bury their dead, or have funeral ceremonies?

There are neanderthal burial sites. They are somewhat shallow, and the grave included flowers and personal belongings sometimes families are buried together. The graves were at first enterpreted as conclusive evidence for neanderthal ceremonial burials and a belief in the afterlife. The evidence isn’t conclusive since there isn’t any other evidence to indicate that belief in an afterlife was integrated into their ordianry lives. It’s possible that the purpose of the burial was to keep the body from attracting scavengers.

Some have suggested that they considered their dead as asleep in some way to wake up to a rebirth of sorts. This seems unlikely to me since they were intimately familiar with the bodies of animals.

It’s possible that the bonds of family were powerfull eneogh to keep the body close by but not an attraction for scanvengers. That they were included for a time when meat was distributed after a successfull hunt and plants added periodically to cloak the smell.

 

[StAnastasia]

For now, Catholic teaching is that Adam was the original, first, true human person. There are not multiple firsts. Therefore other true, real humans living at the same time would be descendents of Adam and Eve. As descendents of the two sole parents of the human species, not only would these humans look and act like their parents, but because of their immaterial, spiritual soul, they could share through knowledge and love in God’s own life. Amazing!]

What about Adam’s parents and grandparents and other ancestors going back hundreds of thousands of years?