Is There a Soul?

[itinerant1]

Understanding the soul:

“I began to think of the soul as if it were a castle made of a single diamond or of a very clear crystal, in which there are many rooms, just as in heaven there are many mansions.”
~ St. Teresa of Jesus: Interior Castle, I,1.

“Each soul is as great as the world, and in each soul there is room for all the tragedies of the world to be re-enacted, as every puddle is great enough to hold the sun.”
~ R.H. Benson: Christ in the Church

“For the flesh is not life to itself, but the soul is the life of the flesh. The soul is not life to itself, but God is the life of the soul…And if the soul live after God, then doth the flesh live rightly after the soul.”
~ St. Augustine: Sermons 156,6, 6.

“The soul is that through which we have communion with animals, spirit that through which we have intercourse with spiritual substances. Nevertheless it is one and the same substance which quickens body and which, by its power called mind, is able to understand.”
~ St. Thomas Aquinas: Commentary on Hebrews, 4, lect. 2.

“Let it be plainly understood that we cannot return to God unless we enter first into ourselves. God is everywhere, but not everywhere to us. There is but one point in the universe where God communicates with us, and that is the center of our soul.”
~ Archb. Ullathorne: Humility and Patience.

“What constitutes man is principally the soul, the substantial form of his nature. From it, ultimately, flows all the vital activity of man. In it are rooted all the psychic dynamisms with their own proper structure, and their organic law. It is the soul which nature charges with government of all man’s energies, in so far as these have not yet acquired their final determination.”
~ Pope Pius XII: Address to the 5th International Congress of Psychotherapy and Clinical Psychology. (April 13, 1953)

“He must have little spirit who thinks that a spirit is nothing.”
~ St. Bernard of Clairvaux

 

[redhen]

So scientists in the U.K. have created human embryos from two mothers, for the noble purpose of eradicating hereditary diseases.

nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2908000

Does that force God to step in (since it’s not part of God’s plan) and create a soul?

What about human cloning? It is technically feasible to create humans without any parental fertilization. The only thing preventing this technical development is the ethical and legal concerns. Would this also force God to act outside His plan?

What about monozygotic twins? That’s where one egg is fertilized to form one zygote, which then separates days later to form two embryos?

If life starts at conception, are there two souls in one zygote? Or is the zygote souless, until it splits into two embryos?

For answers, please also add the support for your premise.

 

[StAnastasia]

If life starts at conception, are there two souls in one zygote? Or is the zygote souless, until it splits into two embryos?

The soul is copied and pasted into the second embryo, like in PowerPoint.

But remember, 30-50% of humans pass into eternity without ever having been born, so I’m sure God can deal with copying and pasting.

 

[redhen]

The soul is copied and pasted into the second embryo, like in PowerPoint.

But remember, 30-50% of humans pass into eternity without ever having been born, so I’m sure God can deal with copying and pasting.

Is that your opinion, or are there any warrants for this claim?

 

[StAnastasia]

Is that your opinion, or are there any warrants for this claim?

Statement one is a joke – don’t take me seriously!

Statement two is a possible theological extrapolation from the fact that 30-50% of conceptions are flushed out within a short gestational time because they are genetically incompatible with life. One study testing hormones for ovulation and pregnancy found that 61.9% of conceptuses were lost prior to 12 weeks, and 91.7% of these losses occurred subclinically, without the knowledge of the once pregnant woman.[3] ^ Edmonds DK, Lindsay KS, Miller JF, Williamson E, Wood PJ (1982). “Early embryonic mortality in women,” Fertility and Sterility 38 (4): 447–53. PMID 7117572.

 

[redhen]

Statement one is a joke – don’t take me seriously!

I figured as much, but it’s hard to discern inflection, tone, etc. in electronic form.

Statement two is a possible theological extrapolation from the fact that 30-50% of conceptions are flushed out within a short gestational time because they are genetically incompatible with life. One study testing hormones for ovulation and pregnancy found that 61.9% of conceptuses were lost prior to 12 weeks, and 91.7% of these losses occurred subclinically, without the knowledge of the once pregnant woman.[3] ^ Edmonds DK, Lindsay KS, Miller JF, Williamson E, Wood PJ (1982). “Early embryonic mortality in women,” Fertility and Sterility 38 (4): 447–53. PMID 7117572.

Thanks for digging up that evidence for embryos that don’t make it, but I was expecting some theological support. But since you brought it up, it seems to me that this fact you mentioned is yet another example of modern scientific knowledge that our ancient ancestors didn’t have to grapple with, or devise more theories that reconcile it with the concept of an Abrahamic god.

 

[StAnastasia]

Thanks for digging up that evidence for embryos that don’t make it, but I was expecting some theological support. But since you brought it up, it seems to me that this fact you mentioned is yet another example of modern scientific knowledge that our ancient ancestors didn’t have to grapple with, or devise more theories that reconcile it with the concept of an Abrahamic god.

I know redhen – jokes are hard by email. But even in person in class I have students who write down something I’ve said, while the other students are laughing at it (e.g., “No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!”)

There’s a lot of stuff with which our ancient ancestors didn’t have to grapple, But I don’t think that invalidates Abrahamic religion. It just means that the Church has to come to grips with new scientific discoveries as they come along, and interpret theology accordingly.

In the case of the huge number of failed conceptions, perhaps we could conclude theologically that this life is a relatively insignificant factor in determining eternity. If more people die without ever having been born than vice versa, perhaps our eschatological state is not particularly dependent on how we have lived our lives.

It’s worth pondering, in any case. I’ve gotta get back to writing!

StAnastasia

 

[grannymh]

I know redhen – jokes are hard by email. But even in person in class I have students who write down something I’ve said, while the other students are laughing at it (e.g., “No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!”)

There’s a lot of stuff with which our ancient ancestors didn’t have to grapple, But I don’t think that invalidates Abrahamic religion. It just means that the Church has to come to grips with new scientific discoveries as they come along, and interpret theology accordingly.
StAnastasia

The idea that the Catholic Church has to come to grips with new scientific discoveries as they come along, and interpret theology according. – must be another one of your jokes.

For clarification, Catholic theology interprets Divine Revelation which closed around the Apostolic ages. New scientific discoveries from better toothpaste to whatever are 2,000 years too late.

 

[ricmat]

There’s a lot of stuff with which our ancient ancestors didn’t have to grapple, But I don’t think that invalidates Abrahamic religion. It just means that the Church has to come to grips with new scientific discoveries as they come along, and interpret theology accordingly.

I see comments here a lot which are similar to the above.

Firstly, I’m glad to see that you don’t think Abrahamic religion is invalidated. You certainly give that impression sometimes.

But, with regard to your second sentence…

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that God knows 100% of everything.
Let’s also assume that science knows 10X as much about “reality” as did the pre-scientific cultures you hold in so much contempt.
And let’s assume that with God at 100% knowledge, that scientific knowledge is at the .0000000001% level, so the pre-scientific cultures are at the .00000000001% knowledge level.

Because science knows 10X as much as the pre-scientific cultures, some here beat their chests and shout that some religious statement can only be true if Science has validated it (or if it is consistent with Scientific Truth). That point of view is absurd, given the vast difference between total knowledge (as God knows it), and any human knowledge - be it “scientific” or “pre-scientific.” And the fact that in the remaining 99+% that is unknown to science, that anything and everything we “know” might be overturned anyhow.

You have much too much faith in science IMHO. What an ironic statement coming from an electrical engineer and going to a theologian.

 

[StAnastasia]

For clarification, Catholic theology interprets Divine Revelation which closed around the Apostolic ages.

Precisely.

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
For clarification, Catholic theology interprets Divine Revelation which closed around the Apostolic ages.

Precisely.

Precisely! Precisely? Precisely…

Then Adam and Eve, in their fully complete human nature of spirit/matter, rational corporeal, soul/body, must be the two sole parents of the human species.

 

[StAnastasia]

Then Adam and Eve, in their fully complete human nature of spirit/matter, rational corporeal, soul/body, must be the two sole parents of the human species.

That’s an interpretation.

 

[ricmat]

For clarification, Catholic theology interprets Divine Revelation which closed around the Apostolic ages. New scientific discoveries from better toothpaste to whatever are 2,000 years too late.

Precisely.

Precisely! Precisely? Precisely…

Granny, what StA is apparently saying is that…because Divine Revelation was closed in the pre-scientific age is precisely the reason that this Divine Revelation is obsolete, and must be overturned by…well…StA, I guess.

 

[grannymh]

Then Adam and Eve, in their fully complete human nature of spirit/matter, rational corporeal, soul/body, must be the two sole parents of the human species.

That’s an interpretation.

When Adam and Eve’s nature is interpreted as being fully complete, then the question “Is there a Soul” is answered in the affirmative. Of course, the next question is – who is interpreting?

Because Catholicism places humanity at the pinnacle of creation, in my humble opinion, the Catholic Church has the answers regarding the human person’s spiritual soul. The experience of will, free choice, demonstrates the spiritual in human nature and as such is a faculty or power of the spiritual soul.

 

[grannymh]

Granny, what StA is apparently saying is that…because Divine Revelation was closed in the pre-scientific age is precisely the reason that this Divine Revelation is obsolete, and must be overturned by…well…StA, I guess.

I understand. I read something similar on the American Humanist Association website awhile back. Because science is modern, theology [Scripture] is obsolete.
A page or so later, this switched to God is obsolete.


On the other hand, as long as human nature exists, the spiritual soul will never be obsolete.

 

[grannymh]

So scientists in the U.K. have created human embryos from two mothers, for the noble purpose of eradicating hereditary diseases.

nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2908000

Interesting bit of media writing. Headline says altered and first paragraph says created.

Seriously, did you find an actual research citation? For the publication Nature? I don’t intend to discuss speculations; I’m just curious about the news writer’s conclusions.

 

[grannymh]

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.

“popped souls into a clay Adam and Eve” from post 224 in this thread. What kind of souls are these? What kind of body?

Catholicism says : The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”; In addition to other meanings, THE Soul refers to the innermost aspect of the human person, that by which he and she is most especially in God’s image. THE Soul signifies the spiritual principle in human nature.

This is awesome! Consider what reflects in one’s mirror.

 

[Detales]

Grannym, re your post #766: Good one!

The Abrahamic religions are clearly not obsolete as mental structures used to deal with things by those for whom direct experience is insufficient. But since they are ascending exoteric forms of thought and regard Soul as discreet bundles of savable/loseable individuality attached to bodies with eternity at stake, they are very misleading. They simply lead the possibility of aligning mental paradigms with Reality down a shadow trail. Some, such as Augustine in his last days, or Avila, or Eckhart, seem to discover themselves despite this, or because of struggling with it as do the Zenists with a koan.

 

[itinerant1]

So scientists in the U.K. have created human embryos from two mothers, for the noble purpose of eradicating hereditary diseases.

nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2908000

Does that force God to step in (since it’s not part of God’s plan) and create a soul?

What about human cloning? It is technically feasible to create humans without any parental fertilization. The only thing preventing this technical development is the ethical and legal concerns. Would this also force God to act outside His plan?

What about monozygotic twins? That’s where one egg is fertilized to form one zygote, which then separates days later to form two embryos?

If life starts at conception, are there two souls in one zygote? Or is the zygote souless, until it splits into two embryos?

For answers, please also add the support for your premise.

Any attempt to answer these questions would be a matter of applying, as best as possible, the Thomistic philosophical and theological doctrines of the soul to the particular situations.

Some questions about God and the soul, though, have that atheistic Bertrand Russell like cynicism about them. Russell did not think the idea that human soul was created at conception made much sense because in the case of adultery it would appear to make God a participant in the immoral act.

Very funny Russell…It’s not as though Russell himself wasn’t an active participant in promiscuity.

 

[itinerant1]

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=675&pictureid=6022

I created this diagram to illustrate the powers of the soul following the Aristotelian tradition for those who are unfamiliar with classical philosophical psychology. Some of the terminology will be unfamiliar to most folks.

Basically, the chart represents the various grades of soul, and the powers are only understood in relation to the acts they perform. The aesthetic or sensitive soul contains all the powers of the threptic. The dianoetic or intellectual soul contains all the powers of the threptic and aesthetic.

Plants are characterized by the powers of the threptic. The aesthetic soul of brute animals involves a limited consciousness, passions or feelings and sense knowledge, which distinguishes them from plants. Man, or “rational animal” uniquely possess intellectual abilities and will (though Aristotle did not say much about the rational will). Again, the dianoetic soul of man also comprises the powers peculiar to the threptic and aesthetic souls.

The grades of soul represent a hierarchy, one which is not compromised by Aristotle’s recognition that life grades almost imperceptibly from what appears almost lifeless, to organisms that are difficult to clearly classify as either plant or animal.

The aesthetic powers of man and animals include the external and internal senses, the passions or emotions, and the power of local movement. These powers, in man, involve the composite of psyche and soma.

The intellectual powers of man are not the act of any bodily organ. They are strictly psychic and depend on the body in an extrinsic manner only for the data furnished by the senses. The poietic and receptive intellects are the powers involved in conceptual thinking.