Is There a Soul?

[Benadam]

The will has or is the mind’s dynamic orientation toward the “good in general”. It is rational appetite. Under the dynamics of this orientation to the “good in general”, we choose individual goods presented by the intellect or reason.

The will is ordered to the good. I once asked , “what is good to you?”

The answer; " If I like it, it’s good"

This is the morality practiced by animals. " If it feels good do it"

Only decendents of Adam and Eve seek a good of a higher order.

I know about the dolphins…

 

[grannymh]

I find it more incoherent to believe there is a part of us that survives bodily death when that part is only an intrinsic part of our living body system. Our brains are part of that psychosomatic unity, too, but when we die it rots along with the rest of the body.

Why would the soul continue if it was only a part of that same system, unless it was somehow able to remain separate? If you believe that this soul continues to exist after the body dies, how is that NOT dualistic? If you could make that make sense to me, I will be grateful.

There are many, many things not easily addressed by a YEC account. I don’t have any idea how exactly they define or believe in soul. I am, however, very curious to know what you mean by "an evolutionary account of “soul’”.

When you say “Life on earth (and perhaps elsewhere) has evolved into increasing neurological complexity and the manifestation moral awareness, spiritual consciousness, and soul,” are you saying you think the soul is a part of the evolutionary makeup of a creature? We evolved souls as our brains became more and more complex? Is the soul just a neurological by-product that stops when our brains do?

If not, what part of that evolved soul continues? Is your version of soul immortal ? And if so, what, then, is the basis for that belief?

Do you believe we are not “ensouled” by God but that each of has a soul that has become part of our other inherited characteristics, and that develops along with us throughout our lives?

The flow of your conversation with StAnastasia is excellent and I hope I am not breaking it. However, since my soul recently converted from Cartesian [extreme] dualism, I would like to answer your question “If you believe that this soul continues to exist after the body dies, how is that NOT dualistic?”

First we should look at the unity of soul and body in human nature. This unity is so profound that the soul is considered to be the “form” of the body. It is because of the spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body. The huge difference between Descartes and Catholicism is that spirit and matter are not two natures united in one person, but rather the union of spirit and matter forms a single human nature. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 362-368)

This unification of corporeal and spiritual is so intimate that if in any way it is separated, the body decomposes and the soul is in the hands of God. The reason this is something other than dualistic in the sense of Descartes is that the union itself which became human was not extreme dualistic. There never were two natures, only the one human nature. When God draws the soul back to Himself, all that is left is decomposing matter.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the difficulties.

 

[grannymh]

The will has or is the mind’s dynamic orientation toward the “good in general”. It is rational appetite. Under the dynamics of this orientation to the “good in general”, we choose individual goods presented by the intellect or reason.

In my humble opinion, it is confusing to interchange mind and soul. For example if by mind one is talking about the rational appetite seeking good in general, this does not sound like a spiritual soul which is called to share through knowledge and love in God’s own life. Since man is made in the image of God because he has a spiritual soul, wouldn’t that soul or more properly the will seek God?

 

[grannymh]

And that, granny, is the million dollar question?

To properly understand “soul” one must first understand the Aristotelian-Thomistic doctrine hylomorphism, which involves the determinations of being in regard to all natural things. All things from trees to atoms are composed of two metaphysical constituents, substantial form (morphe, but more correctly eidos) and first matter (prima materia), and as “informed” is often referred to as “substantial matter”.

Form is non-physical or immaterial component of every physical thing. “Immaterial” in this context does not spiritual. It means not-physical and nothing substantially more. It is not exactly a “ratio”; it is the first determining principle and plan of structure.

Now that I have thoroughly confused you, we will take the hylomorphic doctrine and apply is consistently to living things. Living things possess self-motion while non-living matter is moved extrinsically by other forces. The principle of self-movement or life is the kind of form proper to organisms. We call this form or eidos, the psyche or “soul.”

The immaterial forms of living things are generated and corrupted through the natural processes of nature. In the case of man, we must posit a different grade of soul with a different grade of immateriality.

When substantial form is united to matter we have an individual substance, that which sub-stands, or stands under the appearances. In Kantian terminology, it is the noumenal reality which supports the phenomenal aspects of material being.

The form of man is an intellectual form. In-depth considerations of the nature of intellect and its activities, and its relation to the body, require us to posit the soul of man as not only immaterial, but as spiritual. (In general conversation, “immaterial” and “spiritual” are used interchangeably, and correctly so, and are they purely negative terms meaning not-material. The concepts are “negative” in nature since all knowledge begins with sense experience, and so we can have no direct knowledge of that which is not an object of sense perception. I am, however, stipulating in this post, a slightly different meaning for “spiritual”.)

The human soul, to continue, is an incomplete spiritual substance. It is incomplete because its nature is to be united and perfected by union with matter. In so far as it is a substance, it is unlike the souls or forms of non-intellectual organisms which are generated and corrupted along with the organism, but can subsist of itself. Accordingly, we say that the intellectual soul is spiritual and immortal.

This may be a lot to digest, but the key is understanding the philosophical terms, to which there is no easy road, only much intellectual effort. One cannot just read an explanation of the terms and think from that they got it. That is normal.

A great Arabian philosopher in the middle ages, I forget whether it was Averroes or Avicenna, said he had to read the Metaphysica of Aristotle 40 times before he understood it.

As I have mentioned before, for years I had a Cartesian view of my soul and body. Coincidentally, as I was trying to sort this out, I was directed to the hylomorphic principle and ended up on websites other than Wikipedia. My friend also pointed out the difficulty when going from Aristotle to Aquinas. As I recall, one of the solutions was to distinguish the spiritual soul from the animal soul.

The reason I keep looking for descriptions of the powers of the soul is that there is a vague memory of years ago learning that the soul was not the intellect but rather the intellect and will were faculties or powers or whatevers of the soul.

But I digress. Apparently, I need to find out how Aquinas handles the hylomorphic principle, etc. You have given me a well-written post. Thank you.

Blessings,
granny

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

 

[StAnastasia]

Okay, then. This means we must stop for some clarification. In post #173 you stated the following:

But I do see problems in claiming that “all humans and only humans have immortal souls.”

This seems to say, first, that you see problems with the claim that “all humans…have immortal souls.” I take it then, that rather then endeavoring to make a distinction among humans, you are denying the immortality of the human soul altogether, and without qualification. Is this correct?

No, that’s not correct. I don’t find the idea of an “immortal soul” particularly enlightening, but let’s leave that aside for the moment.

The point at issue is how we can make an accurate judgment that “A” is a human and “B” is not. If you reject biological evolution – which perhaps you do – the magical mystery tour is safe: God created the world and then popped souls into a clay Adam and Eve in a garden and breathed life into them and sent a talking snake and that was that. If this is your position, we can have no further constructive conversation.

If you do accept evolution – as I do and as thousands of my fellow theologians do – then you hold either (1) that the evolutionary history of hominids is a seamless process from our MRCA to Homo sapiens, with the incremental evolution of soulishness, or (2) that God nudged the process along directionallly and at some yet-to-be-determined point within the last 150,000 years God popped souls into a couple of hominids, or (3) that God allowed hominids to develop over hundreds of thousands of years and then wiped them out at some yet-to-be-determined point within the last 30,000 years and created a pair of humans but made their genome appear as if it reflected a much larger population.

Which of these best reflects your position?

StAnastasia

 

[grannymh]

If i make an aside to this question (actually i do vaguely recall engaging St.Anastasia about what people mean by Soul, but that’s for another time).

From a complete outsiders perspective, there seems to be a bit of a um… gap, between the well-read apologetic Catholic and the current crop of people who i would identify as professional theologians.

Group 1 reads their Plato, their Aristotle, their Augustine, their Thomas. Some might be a little more studious and look at the works of your Church’s Fathers or perhaps even raid the Orthodox Church’s cupboards.

Group 2 - the group you belong dear Anastasia, by definition is harder to pin down. That a theologian should be declared a heretic by the Group 1 is not surprising (In fact i believe Thomas was slapped around a bit by the Anti-Aristotlean theologians of his day), but i guess what i’m asking is:

What is the general trend(s) in modern Catholic theology? I see bits and pieces of ideas flying all over the place, but i don’t really see an overarching system or method. Its quite confusing about what propositions/premises are being asserted, and perhaps that might clear up where Group 1’s issues with “those heretical theologians”*** exactly lay.

***Although to be honest, an SJ theologian mentioned the curious case of Edward Schillebeeckx who, although a rather learned Dominican theologian, seems to have denied the very Resurrection that stands at the heart of your Church’s beliefs. :ehh:

Modern theology is truly a mysterious subject.

In addition to groups 1 and 2, there is the magical mystery tour group 3 - see post 182…

Regarding modern Catholic theology, believe me T. Atheist, there is nothing new under the sun except for name changes, the location of battles, fancier strategies, and better press coverage. The basic issues remain the same. I took a workshop some years ago where the presenter listed all the original heresies, Arianism etc…
Our task was to give them modern names and demonstrate how they influence today’s society. We were successful in this task.

Since the first Church Council recorded in Acts, there have always been heated discussions about the truths of Catholicism. The theologian’s job is to sort out fact from fiction and then explain the truth. Sometimes, the theologian expands on a basic truth to bring out deeper meanings. Sometimes, the theologian defends a doctrine from new attacks. Or sometimes, theologians like Martin Luther or the current Matthew Fox examine Church truths, choose to deny them, and leave the Church.

What I see happening in today’s church is that instead of leaving, dissident theologians and leading writers are staying within the Church to change it from the inside. One really needs a scorecard to tell the players.

From my observation, the trend is to change Catholic doctrine to fit scientific methods. Some theologians seem to be incorporating the philosophy of relativism which is the base for other isms such as American Humanism, Utilitarianism, Atheism and so on. Like you, I find it hard to p(name removed by moderator)oint the major propositions/premises. Of course there are the obvious issues surrounding Vatican II and the way the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is celebrated and other “modern” changes. Technically, I am no help to you except to say that you are not alone.

My observation of Church leadership is that the recent Popes and enough of the Cardinals are standing firm in defending the Catholic Deposit of Faith (fancy title for the basic teachings dating back to the time of the Apostles) In the last few centuries there have been better explanations and definitions regarding some of the teachings but this can be compared to a growth in understanding.

What is amazing to me, is that the Catholic Church stays standing in spite of being attacked. It continues to minister to us through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Seven Sacraments. It is loyal to its founder Jesus Christ. It has provided us with an excellent Catechism, difficult to read at times, yet it is the perfect source for finding the truths of our Faith. In the Catholic Church, Jesus Christ continues to be the way to eternal life, perfected in love.

Blessings,
granny

John 3:16 &17

 

[grannymh]

No, that’s not correct. I don’t find the idea of an “immortal soul” particularly enlightening, but let’s leave that aside for the moment.

The point at issue is how we can make an accurate judgment that “A” is a human and “B” is not. If you reject biological evolution – which perhaps you do – the magical mystery tour is safe: God created the world and then popped souls into a clay Adam and Eve in a garden and breathed life into them and sent a talking snake and that was that. If this is your position, we can have no further constructive conversation.

If you do accept evolution – as I do and as thousands of my fellow theologians do – then you hold either (1) that the evolutionary history of hominids is a seamless process from our MRCA to Homo sapiens, with the incremental evolution of soulishness, or (2) that God nudged the process along directionallly and at some yet-to-be-determined point within the last 150,000 years God popped souls into a couple of hominids, or (3) that God allowed hominids to develop over hundreds of thousands of years and then wiped them out at some yet-to-be-determined point within the last 30,000 years and created a pair of humans but made their genome appear as if it reflected a much larger population.

Which of these best reflects your position?

StAnastasia

If you are going to refer to the magical mystery tour, please get the facts straight. If in doubt, one can always refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Blessings,
granny

These two websites contain TV ads about Catholicism. The first is from one of the Dioceses which is using them. The second is general information.

 

[itinerant1]

In my humble opinion, it is confusing to interchange mind and soul. For example if by mind one is talking about the rational appetite seeking good in general, this does not sound like a spiritual soul which is called to share through knowledge and love in God’s own life. Since man is made in the image of God because he has a spiritual soul, wouldn’t that soul or more properly the will seek God?

The will is a faculty of the soul whose dynamism is oriented toward the “good in general.” The good is merely “being” considered as desirable (And God saw all that He had made, and it was good). Only God, who is the highest and infinite good fits the description of the good in general.

Since the intellect does not know God directly, in His essence, then the will is able to choose lesser or particular goods known by the intellect or reason. We choose particular goods under this dynamic orientation of the will toward the good in general. This is what free choice possible.

A consequence of this is that the will, or the soul, becomes absolutely free and confirmed in the good, only when the intellect is in union with the Divine essence. We cannot then turn away from the Highest Good, which is, and may sound paradoxical on the surface, the highest freedom of the individual.

By means of the intellect, we know. By means of the will, we love. To know God is to love Him. To know God directly, in His essence, is to love Him irresistibly.

The will is called rational appetite to distinguish it from sensitive appetite. The sensitive appetites are moved by what the senses perceive; while the rational will freely chooses in response to what reason conceives.

Our common experience of the freedom of the will, that we can make choices that are not constrained by antecedent conditions, is further evidence for the immateriality of the soul. Every “physical” thing is moved according to an antecedent cause or confluence of causes. The will, however, is self-moving or self-determining. Nowhere does physical matter and energy, which is limited by the constraints of materiality, exhibit this characteristic freedom.

 

[itinerant1]

No, that’s not correct. I don’t find the idea of an “immortal soul” particularly enlightening, but let’s leave that aside for the moment.

The point at issue is how we can make an accurate judgment that “A” is a human and “B” is not. If you reject biological evolution – which perhaps you do – the magical mystery tour is safe: God created the world and then popped souls into a clay Adam and Eve in a garden and breathed life into them and sent a talking snake and that was that. If this is your position, we can have no further constructive conversation.

If you do accept evolution – as I do and as thousands of my fellow theologians do – then you hold either (1) that the evolutionary history of hominids is a seamless process from our MRCA to Homo sapiens, with the incremental evolution of soulishness, or (2) that God nudged the process along directionallly and at some yet-to-be-determined point within the last 150,000 years God popped souls into a couple of hominids, or (3) that God allowed hominids to develop over hundreds of thousands of years and then wiped them out at some yet-to-be-determined point within the last 30,000 years and created a pair of humans but made their genome appear as if it reflected a much larger population.

Which of these best reflects your position?

StAnastasia

I pick option number four (4). But that option was not even mentioned. The list is incomplete.

 

[itinerant1]

“Soulishness” is a confused notion of no real value as far as I can see.

 

[itinerant1]

The real break with primitive Jewish and pagan ideas about the soul and life after death came with advent and enlightenment of Christianity.

Primitive Jews and many pagans did not have a real concept of the afterlife. For the early Jew, his soul, upon death was believed to go down to Sheol or Hades. There, the soul was not truly alive, and neither was it totally bereft of existence. In Sheol, a person was merely a shadowy replica of his former self, kings still sat on thrones in Sheol, and so on, but one could not even praise God from the depths of this shadowy realm.

The best forms of Jewish belief suggested peace for the souls of the just in the presence of God, regarding which the Book of Wisdom says, “no torment shall touch them (3:1).”

In the few centuries preceding Christ, some Jews began to believe in the final resurrection of the body. The sect of the Sadducees, as we know from the NT, refused to believe in the resurrection and many other reasonable things that were true. (I hardly see the point of even being a Sadducee.) However, John 11:24, for example, affirms the resurrection against the disbelievers.

There was, though, even in Christ’s day, an uncertainty among the Jews about the status of man’s existence between death and the resurrection. Fortunately, Christ specifically addressed that status when He turned to the Good Thief and promised that he would be with Him that very day in Paradise.

Paradise was blissful because Christ was there, and St. Paul expressed how he was torn between continuing his ministry in the body or being quitted of the body and united with Christ.

Also, Paul had a vision in which he said did not know whether he was in the body or out of it.

And the Apostle John speaks of his vision in which he see the soul’s of the martyr’s in Heaven. Hence, from the earliest times in the Church, Christians prayed for the intercessory prayers of the martyrs in Heaven, which would have made no sense if their souls were not immortal and joined immediately with God.

One can produce many examples from the New Testament and the early Church of the understanding that man immediately survives the death of the body. This is one of the major enlightenments Christianity brought to the world.

 

[grannymh]

No, I wanted you to produce the conclusive evidence that you claimed to have, but you won’t post it.

I’m done asking, as it’s abundantly clear that you haven’t any conclusive evidence to post.

It isn’t always necessary to have conclusive evidence to believe in the spiritual. Sometimes the so-called evidence can be just as spiritual as the objective. The beauty and power of the Alaskan mountains bring me to the spiritual. So what kind of evidence is beauty? Do mountains really have power? In other words, if you want to know the spiritual, try not to stipulate how. Try to be open and be ready for a surprise.

Blessings,
granny

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

 

[HelenaMT]

No, that’s not correct. I don’t find the idea of an “immortal soul” particularly enlightening, but let’s leave that aside for the moment.

If it’s not immortal, why is it any different from just referring to it as the mind? If it doesn’t survive bodily death to face judgment, get reincarnated, or haunt someone’s attic, why even waste an extra word on it?

The point at issue is how we can make an accurate judgment that “A” is a human and “B” is not. If you reject biological evolution – which perhaps you do – the magical mystery tour is safe: God created the world and then popped souls into a clay Adam and Eve in a garden and breathed life into them and sent a talking snake and that was that. If this is your position, we can have no further constructive conversation.

If you do accept evolution – as I do and as thousands of my fellow theologians do – then you hold either (1) that the evolutionary history of hominids is a seamless process from our MRCA to Homo sapiens, with the incremental evolution of soulishness, or (2) that God nudged the process along directionallly and at some yet-to-be-determined point within the last 150,000 years God popped souls into a couple of hominids, or (3) that God allowed hominids to develop over hundreds of thousands of years and then wiped them out at some yet-to-be-determined point within the last 30,000 years and created a pair of humans but made their genome appear as if it reflected a much larger population.

Which of these best reflects your position?

StAnastasia

I think I accept the part of number 1 about evolutionary processes, but I eagerly await a definition of “soulishness” and how you feel it incrementally evolved in early man. If you can make that concept intelligible, I would greatly appreciate it.

If it means souls just evolved along with higher brain function, how is that different from soul- as- mind and nothing more? Or is that actually your position?

 

[StAnastasia]

“Soulishness” is a confused notion of no real value as far as I can see.

I understand. We can agree to disagree!

 

[itinerant1]

If the human soul evolved, then it is being conceived materialistically, and becomes identical with biological processes. Under such an hypothesis, why even speak of soul or mind at all since it has been theoretically eliminated. Modern man has lost his soul and his mind. What next?

Any claim that eliminates the human soul or mind as distinct from brain states, is a position that remains outside the limits of methodological naturalism. The upshot is that there is no scientific means (or other means, since philosophical naturalism is not provable) for proving the hypothesis.

 

[StAnastasia]

If it’s not immortal, why is it any different from just referring to it as the mind? If it doesn’t survive bodily death to face judgment, get reincarnated, or haunt someone’s attic, why even waste an extra word on it? I think I accept the part of number 1 about evolutionary processes, but I eagerly await a definition of “soulishness” and how you feel it incrementally evolved in early man. If you can make that concept intelligible, I would greatly appreciate it. If it means souls just evolved along with higher brain function, how is that different from soul- as- mind and nothing more? Or is that actually your position?

I may have to get back to you on it. I’m preparing a lecture on evolutionary theology this week, and have to help conduct a funeral for a cousin on Friday. And I spend way too much time on these interesting discussions during the work day!

As a preliminary, let me say that I regard reincarnation as an incoherent idea. Just as I could not be “I” in a different body in this life, I see no compelling reason to believe that I could be “I” in the body of a cat, or a dolphin, or another human being in the “next life.” The “life of the world to come” which we affirm in the creed strikes me as being – through the gift of resurrection – as substantially continuous with this life (e.g., memories, relationships) and yet also significantly different.

But I must prepare for tomorrow. Until later,
StAnastasia

 

[HelenaMT]

I may have to get back to you on it. I’m preparing a lecture on evolutionary theology this week, and have to help conduct a funeral for a cousin on Friday. And I spend way too much time on these interesting discussions during the work day!

Yes, this forum certainly can be addictive ! And my sympathies and prayers for your cousin. I look forward to your further replies when you have time.

 

[itinerant1]

Since there have been no genuine arguments yet in this thread challenging the immateriality and immortality of the soul, I will continue with commenting on the nature of the soul.

First, for online references, I recommend Summa Theologica, I, Question 75: Man who is composed of a spiritual and a corporeal substance: and in the first place, concerning what belongs to the essence of the soul.

1. Is the soul a body?
2. Is the human soul a subsistence?
3. Are the souls of brute animals subsistent?
4. Is the soul man, or is man composed of soul and body?
5. Is the soul composed of matter and form?
6. Is the soul incorruptible?
7. Is the soul of the same species as an angel?

 

[itinerant1]

“The immortality of the soul is a matter which is of so great consequence to us and which touches us so profoundly that we must have lost all feeling to be indifferent about it.” ~ Blaise Pascal

I noted in a prior post (#215) that the Aristotelian-Thomistic doctrine of soul is a consistent application of hylomorphism to organic life. The forms of living things are what we call “souls”, of which there are different grades.

Now, St. Thomas argues that since the soul of man can know all material or corporeal things, it must in itself be immaterial and subsistent. By calling the soul subsistent, we mean that it exists in itself as a substance, though as I noted in a previous post (#215), the human soul is an “incomplete substance.” The soul does not inhere in the body as an accidental form, or as substantial form which is dependent upon the body and inseparable from its matter.

Again, by calling the human soul incorporeal and subsistent, St. Thomas means that it is a spiritual substance.

The argument is such that only what subsists in itself can operate by itself, and the soul operates by itself when it understands corporeal substances; and therefore the soul subsists. (Note that the soul’s dependence on the data provided by the external and internal senses is an extrinsic dependence only.)

The primary point of the argument is that the soul could not understand corporeal substances unless, in its act of understanding, it was free from corporeality and not intrinsically dependent on any corporeal instrument.

If there were any matter in the soul, or in an instrument used by the soul in its act of understanding (conceptually), such matter would have a determinate nature of its own and thereby prevent the soul from understanding the natures of other corporeal things.

We can understand this difficult concept by means of an analogy in which colored glasses would adversely affect the eyes ability to perceive various colors.

Here is St. Thomas’ argument:

"It must necessarily be allowed that the principle of intellectual operation which we call the soul, is a principle both incorporeal and subsistent. For it is clear that by means of the intellect man can have knowledge of all corporeal things. Now whatever knows certain things cannot have any of them in its own nature; because that which is in it naturally would impede the knowledge of anything else. Thus we observe that a sick man’s tongue being vitiated by a feverish and bitter humor, is insensible to anything sweet, and everything seems bitter to it. Therefore, if the intellectual principle contained the nature of a body it would be unable to know all bodies. Now every body has its own determinate nature. Therefore it is impossible for the intellectual principle to be a body. It is likewise impossible for it to understand by means of a bodily organ; since the determinate nature of that organ would impede knowledge of all bodies; as when a certain determinate color is not only in the pupil of the eye, but also in a glass vase, the liquid in the vase seems to be of that same color.

“Therefore the intellectual principle which we call the mind or the intellect has an operation “per se” apart from the body. Now only that which subsists can have an operation “per se.” For nothing can operate but what is actual: for which reason we do not say that heat imparts heat, but that what is hot gives heat. We must conclude, therefore, that the human soul, which is called the intellect or the mind, is something incorporeal and subsistent.”

 

[grannymh]

If it’s not immortal, why is it any different from just referring to it as the mind? If it doesn’t survive bodily death to face judgment, get reincarnated, or haunt someone’s attic, why even waste an extra word on it?

I think I accept the part of number 1 about evolutionary processes, but I eagerly await a definition of “soulishness” and how you feel it incrementally evolved in early man. If you can make that concept intelligible, I would greatly appreciate it.

If it means souls just evolved along with higher brain function, how is that different from soul- as- mind and nothing more? Or is that actually your position?

With due respect to the ban, one needs to recognize the philosophical distinction between the human species and all non-human living organisms including, for sake of discussion, extinct hominids. Science, by definition, cannot account for the fully complete human nature which is an unique unification of spiritual/corporeal.

One must be careful not to slip into the mode of
All grass is green; therefore, all green things are grass.

In other words – All chimps ( living organisms) have some form of matter; therefore all living organisms (such as humans) that have some form of matter are chimps.

When science views the world’s inhabitants, it can only deal with the material/physical aspects of living organisms, including humans. It can account for the bodyishness of the human as anatomy developed over time. And in a limited sense, it can account for soulishness as the animating life principle or as sentience and consciousness in non-human animals. But scientific theories in themselves cannot account for the spiritual soul in the human person.

Blessings,
granny

A new day means new kinds of thoughts.