Modern Genetics and Adam & Eve

[TMC]

He says this:

That being said, the moral teaching of the Church is that the human embryo must be treated as if** it were already ensouled, even if it might not yet be so. It must be treated* as if* it were a person from the moment of conception, even if there exists the theoretical possibility that it might not yet be so. Why this rather subtle, nuanced position, instead of simply declaring outright that zygotes are ensouled, and therefore are persons? First, because there has never been a unanimous tradition on this point; and second, because the precisetiming of ensoulment/personhood of the human embryo is irrelevant to the question of whether or not we may ever destroy such embryos for research or other purposes.

Yes, I read that, as I think should be obvious from my post. But I still think it odd to say that the timing of the ensoulment is irrelevant. It seems to me that there are times when it would be highly relevant.

 

[buffalo]

Yes, I read that, as I think should be obvious from my post. But I still think it odd to say that the timing of the ensoulment is irrelevant. It seems to me that there are times when it would be highly relevant.

I agree.

 

[StAnastasia]

Yes, I read that, as I think should be obvious from my post. But I still think it odd to say that the timing of the ensoulment is irrelevant. It seems to me that there are times when it would be highly relevant.

It is important, for if ensoulment is from the moment of conception, some cancerous tumors have immortal souls.

 

[razredge]

What gap? Anatomical behavior and anatomical modernity coincided. As soon as modern pelvic bones were in operating position, the pre-human’s walking upright behavior began. Running in the “Iron Man” may have come a bit later since that requires training.

That is not what is meant by behavioural modernity:

Modern human behavior is observed in cultural universals which are the key elements shared by all groups of people throughout the history of humanity. Examples of elements that may be considered cultural universals are language, religion, art, music, myth, cooking, games, and jokes. While some of these traits distinguish Homo sapiens from other species in their degree of articulation in language based culture, some have analogues in animal ethology. Since cultural universals are found in all cultures including some of the most isolated indigenous groups, scientists believe that these traits must have evolved or have been invented in Africa prior to the exodus.

Classic evidence of behavioral modernity includes:

* finely-made tools
* fishing
* evidence of long-distance exchange or barter among groups
* systematic use of pigment (such as ochre) and jewelry for decoration or self-ornamentation
* figurative art (cave paintings, petroglyphs, figurines)
* game playing and music
* burial

I was actually thinking of identical twins. I am certainly no expert, but I was under the impression that one identical twin could become a parasitic twin in the event of an imperfect rejoining of the twins. In the case of fraternal twins, if ensoulment occurs at conception then the parasitic twin must be ensoulled, certainly.

I think the soul has to be related to the mind and consciousness since that is the only thing that separates us from the animals - to suggest it is based on DNA is pure speciesm and leads to the problems you’ve brought up.

This is an odd but interesting document. The author makes at least one bizarre claim: “no other entity in the universe can receive this gift [of the immortal soul]”.

StAnastasia

The Church had some foresight to not definitively pronounce on this.

I disagree with a few things he says though. The ‘no other entity in the universe’ thing is indeed bizarre as it rules out extraterrestial intelligence from possessing souls.

The Church must also realise that these problems will become much more complex in the future with the possible advent of human cloning, bioengineered humanoids and strong AI and should also take these very real possibilites into account when discussing the question.

This argument he makes:

it would be more immoral to destroy an embryo that had not yet received an immortal soul than to destroy an ensouled embryo. Why? Because the immortal soul is the principle by which that person could come to an eternal destiny with God in heaven, so the one who destroyed the embryo, in this scenario, would preclude that young human from ever receiving an immortal soul (or becoming a person) and making his or her way to God

Is also rather poor as it suggests God is bound by the normal ensoulment process and is unable to create souls when the normal process is frustrated by human intervention.

 

[StAnastasia]

I think the soul has to be related to the mind and consciousness since that is the only thing that separates us from the animals - to suggest it is based on DNA is pure speciesm and leads to the problems you’ve brought up.

But it is also speciesism to pretend to base soul on mind and consciousness. We are learning a lot more about animal intelligence and behavior, and the line between Homo sapiens and our fellow species on earth is not as distinct as it once was. Moreover, it makes no sense to say that a genetically garbled human zygote which can never become anything but a cancerous tumor inside its twin host is “saved” whereas a brilliant bonobo who has learned sign language and interacted with members of Homo sapiens all its life can never become “saved.”

I disagree with a few things he says though. The ‘no other entity in the universe’ thing is indeed bizarre as it rules out extraterrestial intelligence from possessing souls.

 

[grannymh]

I think the soul has to be related to the mind and consciousness since that is the only thing that separates us from the animals - to suggest it is based on DNA is pure speciesm and leads to the problems you’ve brought up.

The Church had some foresight to not definitively pronounce on this.

I disagree with a few things he says though. The ‘no other entity in the universe’ thing is indeed bizarre as it rules out extraterrestial intelligence from possessing souls.

The Church must also realise that these problems will become much more complex in the future with the possible advent of human cloning, bioengineered humanoids and strong AI and should also take these very real possibilites into account when discussing the question.

This argument he makes:

Is also rather poor as it suggests God is bound by the normal ensoulment process and is unable to create souls when the normal process is frustrated by human intervention.

The stuff about souls and twins is not mine.

Thanks razredge for the behavioral updates.

 

[razredge]

But it is also speciesism to pretend to base soul on mind and consciousness. We are learning a lot more about animal intelligence and behavior, and the line between Homo sapiens

 

[grannymh]

Thanks razredge for the behavioral updates.

I noticed that there was no mention of a rational intellect. Also missing was the ability to comprehend one’s own nature. Being able to recognize the purpose of life in supernatural terms was omitted. Yet, all these human skills appear in ancient verbal and written histories. Something very dramatic must have happened to bring this about. It can’t be modern genetics because the time frame (millions of years going backwards) prevents systematic data gathering,.

 

[razredge]

I noticed that there was no mention of a rational intellect. Also missing was the ability to comprehend one’s own nature. Being able to recognize the purpose of life in supernatural terms was omitted. Yet, all these human skills appear in ancient verbal and written histories. Something very dramatic must have happened to bring this about. It can’t be modern genetics because the time frame (millions of years going backwards) prevents systematic data gathering,.

Well, how do you discern archaeological evidence for rational intellect or ability to comprehend one’s own nature?

Burial though does show indications of the supernatural purpose of life and belief in the afterlife, otherwise why would they bury their dead? None of the animals do.

Things like advanced tool making, art and music also suggest not only a rational intellect but a spiritual sense - art and music are by themsleves quite irrational behaviours for animals since they do not directly contribute to survival or reproduction