Modern Genetics and Adam & Eve

[razredge]

I get the impression that individuals believe that soul generation is a strictly bio-mechanical process related to DNA. Does then living tissue have a soul? If I give blood, does part of my soul get transferred? However, it’s my understanding the soul is an intrinsic nature (an aspect) of the entire organism, not its parts. A soul is the immaterial essence of a person. Tumours are simply clusters of DNA damaged cells. I would think God, as the source of souls, would know who or what should be allocated a soul.

The problem I have with this view is that is lends justification for abortions. The argument would be that if something has no consciousness, then it’s not fully a person and subject to discharge from the host body.

Well, I always thought the ‘it has a soul’ argument was a pretty poor one to be honest - it carries no weight at all with the non-religious.

I find it sufficient to argue on humanist grounds using the fact that an embryo will develop into a person and so by aborting you deny them a conscious existence and the chance to experience the life we all share and which would be naturally theirs if not for selfish intervention.

Richard Dawkin makes an excellent point on this:

We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here.

Moralists and theologians place great weight upon the moment of conception, seeing it as the instant at which the soul comes into existence. If, like me, you are unmoved by such talk, you still must regard a particular instant, nine months before your birth, as the most decisive event in your personal fortunes. It is the moment at which your consciousness suddenly became trillions of times more foreseeable than it was a split second before. To be sure, the embryonic you that came into existence still had plenty of hurdles to leap. Most conceptuses end in early abortion before their mother even knew they were there, and we are all lucky not to have done so. Also, there is more to personal identity than genes, as identical twins (who separate after the moment of fertilization) show us. Nevertheless, the instant at which a particular spermatozoon penetrated a particular egg was, in your private hindsight, a moment of dizzying singularity. It was then that the odds against your becoming a person dropped from astronomical to single figures.

So in my view it is quite a crime to cruelly snatch existence from beings who have won a lottery with such astronomic odds.

PS: He also alludes to identical twins sharing genetic identity, so I don’t know what you’re talking about Buffalo.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Well, I always thought the ‘it has a soul’ argument was a pretty poor one to be honest - it carries no weight at all with the non-religious.

Agreed, it will not carry any weight with the non-religious but I doubt they would be swayed by an embryo eventually developing into a person either, especially if they do not regard it to be a person to begin with. Other rationalizations can be brought to bear. For example, it can be argued that a fetus coopts the mother’s body to achieve a potential conscious existence, making this an unfair imposition to the already fully realized conscious person.

I find it sufficient to argue on humanist grounds using the fact that an embryo will develop into a person and so by aborting you deny them a conscious existence and the chance to experience the life we all share and which would be naturally theirs if not for selfish intervention.

The denying conscious existence argument is problematic as well. Embroys are non-conscious (and without brain activity) and non-persons until the late stages of pregnacy. What grants them any status? Mere potentiality? That doesn’t sound overly compelling to the person who undesirous of the child and is currently a fully realized human being with consciousness. If the embryo is not cognitive of anything, how is it cruel to end a pregnancy? Futhermore, would persons be obligated to have every ovulated egg fertilized as this would also deny also the possbility of another conscious human being? Are we not denying them a conscious existence as well? What would constitute selfish intervention for that matter?

Note: I’m not advocating this position but trying to see what can be brought up as counter arguments.

 

[buffalo]

This looks impressive until you discover that the Biologic Institute is ID driven and that the journal Bio-Complexity has ID members on its editorial board. No, thank you. Give me a real peer-reviewed journal.

So?? Consider the paper on its own merits. Typical, typical, typical.

 

[buffalo]

PS: He also alludes to identical twins sharing genetic identity, so I don’t know what you’re talking about Buffalo.

Identical Twins’ Genes Are Not Identical
Twins may appear to be cut from the same cloth, but their genes reveal a different pattern

 

[John_of_Woking]

John of Woking, if Harold camping is right, the rapture is coming to you in Woking, and in Guildford, and even in Bagshot!

Good local knowledge . Quite looking forward to it now - not long to go. I might have a lie in though - so hopefully it’ll be am afternoon event. 1400 GMT will do

 

[StAnastasia]

I get the impression that individuals believe that soul generation is a strictly bio-mechanical process related to DNA. Does then living tissue have a soul?

Aristotle held that all beings have soul, of differing levels. This seems reasonable to me. The quesion is what soet of being merits an immortal soul, level 3.

If I give blood, does part of my soul get transferred?

 

[StAnastasia]

Good local knowledge . Quite looking forward to it now - not long to go. I might have a lie in though - so hopefully it’ll be am afternoon event. 1400 GMT will do

Thanks. As a student at Oxford (1978-81) I spent a good deal of time in Guildford with family friends (the husband worked at Lloyds in Woking). Basingstoke, Newbury, Farnborough, Aldershot… What lovely countryside you inhabit!

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Aristotle held that all beings have soul, of differing levels. This seems reasonable to me. The quesion is what soet of being merits an immortal soul, level 3.

Yes, I should have clarified I was speaking of an immortal soul. If we think a soul is the animus of living matter, then all living creatures have a soul.

I don’t see why it should, If it does, I’ve got soul bits scattered on the lawn, as I trimmed my fingernails out there this morning.

My razor has a bit of mine from this morning.

A tumor can still be a person with a soul (on the Catholic account) if it was conceived of one of a pair of twins. God can handle this.

I still don’t see cancer tumours being the same league as twin growth. Are we speaking of teratomas?

 

[StAnastasia]

Yes, I should have clarified I was speaking of an immortal soul. If we think a soul is the animus of living matter, then all living creatures have a soul. My razor has a bit of mine from this morning. I still don’t see cancer tumours being the same league as twin growth. Are we speaking of teratomas?

Yes, but not all teratomas are the same (as you know). Some teratomas are parasitic twins who never developed along with their twin. They become enycsted tumors, which are sometimes benign, and sometimes become cancerous. If we remove the cancer, (1) are we killing an ensouled person, and (2) is such killing morally permissible?

 

[grannymh]

Granny, I posted links to scans of that quote a few pages ago, which you yourself commented on and said you had no problem with.

What I commented was on not in reference to the section I am looking for. Thank you.

 

[razredge]

What I commented was on not in reference to the section I am looking for. Thank you.

And what section was that?

Anyway I think after many years of discussion on CAF we finally have a resolution to the Genesis and polygenism question thanks to a model of Original Sin postulated by none other than the Pope himself

 

[grannymh]

This is a follow up to post 201 discussion on the emergence of the soul or “soulishness”

The Catholic Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God. This is Divine Revelation protected by the Holy Spirit and held sacred by the Catholic Church.

Therefore:
The soul is not produced by the parents. It does not emerge from some part of the anatomy. It is not part of group development over many years.

While there is no doubt that science has its benefits, Catholics need to be aware when a particular theory directly opposes Catholic doctrine. The current theory is based on the materialistic position that the human person only consists of matter. It is true that plants, bugs, kittens, apes, et cetera, consist of matter, but there is no logical reason to assume that human nature is likewise. Human nature is peerless.

Human nature in itself unites the spiritual and material worlds. This unity of spirit/matter; rational/corporeal; spiritual soul/material anatomy is so profound that the soul is considered to be the “form” of the body. It is because of its unique spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human person – you, me, and the rest of humanity. You and I are created in the Image of our Creator. This means that each person is called to share in God’s life through knowledge (intellect) and love (will).

Blessings,
granny

Divine Revelation trumps!

 

[grannymh]

And what section was that?

Anyway I think after many years of discussion on CAF we finally have a resolution to the Genesis and polygenism question thanks to a model of Original Sin postulated by none other than the Pope himself

It is the summary at the bottom of post 89 which contains the errors…

I am still interested in the missing sections listed on the link. Context is extremely important.

 

[razredge]

This is a follow up to post 201 discussion on the emergence of the soul or “soulishness”

The Catholic Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God. This is Divine Revelation protected by the Holy Spirit and held sacred by the Catholic Church.

Therefore:
The soul is not produced by the parents. It does not emerge from some part of the anatomy. It is not part of group development over many years.

Well obviously a soul would have to be created by the spiritual since what is not matter cannot arise from matter. So it cannot arise from biological reproduction or evolution.

That was not the point we were trying to make.

The point we were trying to make was that there exists a 50-100k year gap between the evolution of anatomically modern homo sapiens and the first evidence of modern human behaviours (such as painting, burying the dead etc.) which is somewhat of a mystery and allows us to suggest God granting a soul to our ancestors led to behavioral modernity

 

[edwest2]

Well obviously a soul would have to be created by the spiritual since what is not matter cannot arise from matter. So it cannot arise from biological reproduction or evolution.

That was not the point we were trying to make.

The point we were trying to make was that there exists a 50-100k year gap between the evolution of anatomically modern homo sapiens and the first evidence of modern human behaviours (such as painting, burying the dead etc.) which is somewhat of a mystery and allows us to suggest God granting a soul to our ancestors led to behavioral modernity

There are no peer reviewed scientific papers that can confirm that idea.

In Turkey, at Göbekli Tepe, archaeologists have uncovered a site that was assembled 11,600 years ago, complete with five ton pieces of limestone from a nearby quarry. It has upset a few ideas: “Discovering that hunter-gatherers had constructed Göbekli Tepe was like finding that someone had built a 747 in a basement with an X-acto knife.”

Source: The June 11 issue of National Geographic.

Peace,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

Well obviously a soul would have to be created by the spiritual since what is not matter cannot arise from matter. So it cannot arise from biological reproduction or evolution.

That was not the point we were trying to make.

The point we were trying to make was that there exists a 50-100k year gap between the evolution of anatomically modern homo sapiens and the first evidence of modern human behaviours (such as painting, burying the dead etc.) which is somewhat of a mystery and allows us to suggest God granting a soul to our ancestors led to behavioral modernity

Citations please.

 

[grannymh]

Well obviously a soul would have to be created by the spiritual since what is not matter cannot arise from matter. So it cannot arise from biological reproduction or evolution.

That was not the point we were trying to make.

The point to be made is that God is Who creates the spiritual soul. Citation is CCC 362-366.

 

[TMC]

Yes, but not all teratomas are the same (as you know). Some teratomas are parasitic twins who never developed along with their twin. They become enycsted tumors, which are sometimes benign, and sometimes become cancerous. If we remove the cancer, (1) are we killing an ensouled person, and (2) is such killing morally permissible?

Pardon my jumping (and probably quickly finding myself over my head) but this is a fascinating question. I would answer your question: (1) I have no idea, and I am not sure how anyone could answer definitively. I would note that I believe there is some support for the idea that a being cannot be ensouled if the matter present is not sufficient or proper to support the soul - which would auger against the ensoulment of a teratoma, I believe. I am not describing that well, but I am guessing you are familiar with the concept. (2) yes.

 

[StAnastasia]

Pardon my jumping (and probably quickly finding myself over my head) but this is a fascinating question. I would answer your question: (1) I have no idea, and I am not sure how anyone could answer definitively. I would note that I believe there is some support for the idea that a being cannot be ensouled if the matter present is not sufficient or proper to support the soul - which would auger against the ensoulment of a teratoma, I believe. I am not describing that well, but I am guessing you are familiar with the concept. (2) yes.

TMC, I assume we are talking about fraternal, rather than identical twins, since it would be hard to conceive of one of a pair of identical twins suddenly taking a genetic turn for the worse. If ensoulment happens at conception, would not both fertilized eggs be ensouled? One becomes a normal zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus/baby. The other has its genes for normal development switched off, and ends up as an ensouled cancerous teratoma to be removed. It’s an interesting case study.

 

[StAnastasia]

The point we were trying to make was that there exists a 50-100k year gap between the evolution of anatomically modern homo sapiens and the first evidence of modern human behaviours (such as painting, burying the dead etc.) which is somewhat of a mystery and allows us to suggest God granting a soul to our ancestors led to behavioral modernity

And a 50,000-80,000 year gap between Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam, who never mated or had children together.