Is this Possible or Heresy?

[ThePuppyTurtle]

Alright, so this is a weird one, but I do think it is a legitimate question.

Thomas Aquinas defined a human as a Rational Animal. He does not make any reference to belonging to the species homo sapiens, merely to being rational, and an animal, ie something which is basically capable of moving about.

For instance, if a mad scientist were to take a human, and change every cell in their body until a scientist was utterly incapable of distinguishing them from a dolphin, cockroach, or T-Rex, but leave their rationality intact, they would still be a human.

Further, if one were to create a human in a lab, atom by atom, from scratch or from whatever he had lying around, they would be a rational animal, and thus a human, correct?

Further, even if the entity was not, in shape, a member of the species homo sapiens, they would still be human in a theological sense if they were rational and capable of motion, correct?

Further, if he were to do so from a dolphin, altering only his brain so as to grant him rationality, thus creating a dolphin shaped rational animal, this entity would also be a rational animal, and thus a human, correct?

However, if it is true if a scientist does it, it must also be true if nature does it, correct?

Hence, if the forces of random mutation and natural selection, assuming they are capable of such things, were to bring about rationality in a dolphin, which would then spread to the whole pod, and outside of it, such a creature would be a rational animal, and thus a human according to a theologian, even if not to a scientist, correct?

Note that I am assuming that God is cooperating with this process by supplying a rational soul. He does this when humans create a body naturally, unnaturally, through in vitro fertilization, and, presumably, unnaturally through cloning, so there is no reason to be certain that he would not in the cases I presented.

Please don’t just laugh me off and cite some teaching about only humans having rational spirits. If you are going to cite a document, make sure it is a binding teaching that only members of the species of homo sapiens count as rational animals. Also, don’t simply respond that you don’t believe this to have ever happened in fact. It is possible that it hasn’t actually occurred while still being something which could occur, or that will occur in the future.

 

[runningdude]

…
Note that I am assuming that God is cooperating with this process by ]supplying a rational soul. He does this when humans create a body naturally, unnaturally, through in vitro fertilization, and, presumably, unnaturally through cloning, so there is no reason to be certain that he would not in the cases I presented.
…

If God is providing the rational soul, then that is all that matters…

 

[tonyrey]

The flaw in your argument is the assumption that the forces of random mutation and natural selection can produce a rational being with the power of self-control, a conscience and the capacity for unselfish love. In other words undiluted Darwinism which dispenses with the need for a soul!

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Aquinas said that a human being is a rational animal; he did not say that all rational animals are human beings.

 

[crochet_lady]

tonyrey

 

[crochet_lady]

In sci-fi movies the ‘mad scientist’ can do ‘anything’. Also – during the Holocost – ‘scientists’ were using real people to do some horrible experimenting on. Shows how depraved the human mind can become.

However – a person canNot create – science has tried to Clone – with some success with a sheep. But that is Not the same thing as God’s creative ability.

A robot can be created in a lab – but they aren’t Human. Only God gives Life.

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

The flaw in your argument is the assumption that the forces of random mutation and natural selection can produce a rational being with the power of self-control, a conscience and the capacity for unselfish love. In other words undiluted Darwinism which dispenses with the need for a soul!

I am assuming no such thing. My assumption is that such forces can create a body suitable for a rational soul, and which could be part of a rational animal were God to supply a rational soul.

Now that I’ve issued this clarification, let’s remember that there’s a certain ban on the topic and agree to continue this thread assuming that that assumption is correct, okay? Or if you prefer, just pretend that the parts for a rational dolphin are inserted during some injury to the mother. It doesn’t matter that that’s impossible, just accept it for the sake of argument.

Besides, I’m less interested in knowing if my view is true and more looking to discover if it is heretical.

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

In sci-fi movies the ‘mad scientist’ can do ‘anything’. Also – during the Holocost – ‘scientists’ were using real people to do some horrible experimenting on. Shows how depraved the human mind can become.

However – a person canNot create – science has tried to Clone – with some success with a sheep. But that is Not the same thing as God’s creative ability.

A robot can be created in a lab – but they aren’t Human. Only God gives Life.

Just because cloning has not been done successfully yet does not mean that it is not likely to one day be not only possible, but trivial.

And, for the third time, I am assuming that God is providing a rational soul.

See, the crux of my argument is “all of the other times a body suitable for a rational animal comes about, no one really disputes that God inserts a rational soul, so why not when a dolphin or other animal’s body is altered by natural forces?”

But again, I’m not really looking for confirmation that this is true, but trying to find out if it is Orthodox.

 

[mdgspencer]

I noticed exactly what St. Thomas said some years ago myself, and saw that it means any rational animal would be human. My first thought about this would be that an alien, if aliens with rational intelligence were found, would be considered human. I presume this would mean too that they could know God and become Christians.
Nor does the definition of St. Thomas say that it is necessary to be born of humans to be human, only that it is necessary to be a rational animal. This could be very important in the future as new forms of intelligent life are created by scientists. Scientists are already working to create hybreds of human and animals. If these are not legally classified as human, though they would have human intelligence and consciousness, they could be treated as slaves. I expect that this issue will be decided in court within decades.

 

[tonyrey]

I am assuming no such thing. My assumption is that such forces can create a body suitable for a rational soul, and which could be part of a rational animal were God to supply a rational soul.

Now that I’ve issued this clarification, let’s remember that there’s a certain ban on the topic and agree to continue this thread assuming that that assumption is correct, okay? Or if you prefer, just pretend that the parts for a rational dolphin are inserted during some injury to the mother. It doesn’t matter that that’s impossible, just accept it for the sake of argument.

Besides, I’m less interested in knowing if my view is true and more looking to discover if it is heretical.

You quoted St Thomas:

Thomas Aquinas defined a human as a Rational Animal. He does not make any reference to belonging to the species homo sapiens, merely to being rational, and an animal, ie something which is basically capable of moving about.

This** extract** gives the impression that the soul plays no part in being rational. Yet the Catechism clearly states:

400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.282

How can the soul control the body if the soul is not rational? And how can the body be rational if it has no control over its thoughts, choices and decisions?

The simplest solution is given by the Catechism:

382 “Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity” (GS 14 § 1).

In other words a “rational body” is an illusion fostered by those neuroscientists who believe the mind will ultimately be explained as no more than the functioning of the brain - and the soul will become superfluous.

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

You quoted St Thomas:

This** extract** gives the impression that the soul plays no part in being rational.

Maybe to you personally, but that was no part of my intention nor can you infer it from anything I said, properly understood.

How can the soul control the body if the soul is not rational? And how can the body be rational if it has no control over its thoughts, choices and decisions?

If my soul were taken out of my body and put in that of an ant, I would not be able to express rational impulses. There is, so far as we know, a perfect correlation between entities with brains which have areas corresponding to any given function and organisms which can perform that function. This would seem to demonstrate two things:

1: At least while a soul is incarnate, it actually NEEDS those centers of the brain to express these capabilities properly, otherwise brain damage would have no effect whatsoever.

2: In every single case, when a body capable of being used by a rational soul exists, a rational soul has been created to do so.

If the second is true, than it must apply even when the body is formed naturally.

In other words a “rational body” is an illusion fostered by those neuroscientists who believe the mind will ultimately be explained as no more than the functioning of the brain - and the soul will become superfluous.

No, as I just explained, it refers to a body capable of being used by a rational soul to express its full potential. Unless you have some other plausible way to account for why brain damage has any effect at all, you must accept that, along with the soul being present, the body must be a certain way for an incarnate being to make use of their rationality while incarnate.

 

[tonyrey]

Maybe to you personally, but that was no part of my intention nor can you infer it from anything I said, properly understood.

If my soul were taken out of my body and put in that of an ant, I would not be able to express rational impulses. There is, so far as we know, a perfect correlation between entities with brains which have areas corresponding to any given function and organisms which can perform that function. This would seem to demonstrate two things:

1: At least while a soul is incarnate, it actually NEEDS those centers of the brain to express these capabilities properly, otherwise brain damage would have no effect whatsoever.

2: In every single case, when a body capable of being used by a rational soul exists, a rational soul has been created to do so.

If the second is true, than it must apply even when the body is formed naturally.

No, as I just explained, it refers to a body capable of being used by a rational soul to express its full potential. Unless you have some other plausible way to account for why brain damage has any effect at all, you must accept that, along with the soul being present, the body must be a certain way for an incarnate being to make use of their rationality while incarnate.

I agree with you that the body is needed to express ourselves while we are in this world but the body doesn’t have free will and isn’t morally responsible for what it does.