On the Nature of Non-Human Entities.

[Zabdi_Premjit]

Please tell me your religious affiliation, and then respond to the questions below. Be sure to point out whether your response is a personal opinion, or an official tradition of the Church.

Do animals have souls? Plants? Bacteria? Non-living entities?

If the don’t, are they conscious of God? And how is that possible without a soul?

Animals can clearly make choices, so do they have Reason? And can they obey and/or disobey God? And if so, does such a choice make them righteous or sinful?

 

[chrisb]

Please tell me your religious affiliation, and then respond to the questions below. Be sure to point out whether your response is a personal opinion, or an official tradition of the Church.

Do animals have souls? Plants? Bacteria? Non-living entities?

If the don’t, are they conscious of God? And how is that possible without a soul?

Animals can clearly make choices, so do they have Reason? And can they obey and/or disobey God? And if so, does such a choice make them righteous or sinful?

Grace and Peace,

I am an Eastern Orthodox Catechuman and don’t believe that animals are aware of the divine and so do not have souls or the divine spark within them. They are not, to my understanding, given the Breath of God nor do they share in His Image and Likeness.

That said I am simply a Catechuman not well versed in the deepest mysteries of the Faith by Theoria and so have no first-hand intellection of creation.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

Grace and Peace,

I am an Eastern Orthodox Catechuman and don’t believe that animals are aware of the divine and so do not have souls or the divine spark within them. They are not, to my understanding, given the Breath of God nor do they share in His Image and Likeness.

That said I am simply a Catechuman not well versed in the deepest mysteries of the Faith by Theoria and so have no first-hand intellection of creation.

Peace and God Bless.

Thank you for you response. I understand what you mean by being not well versed. I’m an Eastern Orthodox Cathecumen as well. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable will answer my questions.

 

[JesuXPIPassio]

Please tell me your religious affiliation, and then respond to the questions below. Be sure to point out whether your response is a personal opinion, or an official tradition of the Church.

Do animals have souls? Plants? Bacteria? Non-living entities?

If the don’t, are they conscious of God? And how is that possible without a soul?

Animals can clearly make choices, so do they have Reason? And can they obey and/or disobey God? And if so, does such a choice make them righteous or sinful?

I’m Catholic.

A religion teacher in high school told us that all living things have souls, including plants. Non-living things do not.

Animals do not have reason and are generally not aware of God, thus cannot obey or disobey Him. However, they are righteous in how they were created by God, and God pronounced His Creation to be good in Genesis.

There seems to be disagreement on whether or not animals and plants can have an afterlife; some say yes, others say no.

 

[Ghosty]

It really depends on which philosophical definition of “soul” you’re using. If soul just means the rational soul, then animals don’t have souls. If soul means the “life principle” within living things, then animals do have souls, but these souls are different than immortal souls that humans have.

So far as I know there has never been any definitive Church ruling by any of the Apostolic Churches on this matter, other than perhaps that humans definitely have immortal rational souls, while other living things in this world do not.

I’m a Melkite Catholic (still canonically Latin owing to my childhood Baptism, but an adult convert to the Catholic Faith).

Peace and God bless!

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

It really depends on which philosophical definition of “soul” you’re using. If soul just means the rational soul, then animals don’t have souls. If soul means the “life principle” within living things, then animals do have souls, but these souls are different than immortal souls that humans have.

So far as I know there has never been any definitive Church ruling by any of the Apostolic Churches on this matter, other than perhaps that humans definitely have immortal rational souls, while other living things in this world do not.

I’m a Melkite Catholic (still canonically Latin owing to my childhood Baptism, but an adult convert to the Catholic Faith).

Peace and God bless!

Thank you for your response.

Here’s how I was viewing things. The world has three earthly world has three classes of “awarenesses”:

1. “Simple Awareness” - Seeing as all creation was created by God, and is wholly dependent on him, everything (living and non-living) is, in some way, aware of God. Of course, I wouldn’t say that non-living things have understanding or are conscious, but I think they still have some basic awareness of the Divine.
2. “Mortal Soul” - Bacteria, fungi, plants, animals, etc. have more than simple awareness, they have souls. This gives them life, instinct and emotions. Judging from the fact that they can create tools, they must also be able to plan, conceptualise, speculate and think logically about concrete things.
3. “Immortal Soul” - Man is unique from other animals in that his sole is not earthy, but spiritual. It is similar to, but still lower than, the souls, of angels. Those it possesses all the attributes of Simple Awareness and Mortal Souls, but additionally possesses immortality and the capability to process abstract concepts such as love, truth, good, evil, etc.

How exactly are you defining “rational”? While agree the reason of animals and humans are not identical, I still think both can be called rational. Doesn’t rational mean logical?

 

[Ghosty]

Thank you for your response.

Here’s how I was viewing things. The world has three earthly world has three classes of “awarenesses”:

1. “Simple Awareness” - Seeing as all creation was created by God, and is wholly dependent on him, everything (living and non-living) is, in some way, aware of God. Of course, I wouldn’t say that non-living things have understanding or are conscious, but I think they still have some basic awareness of the Divine.
2. “Mortal Soul” - Bacteria, fungi, plants, animals, etc. have more than simple awareness, they have souls. This gives them life, instinct and emotions. Judging from the fact that they can create tools, they must also be able to plan, conceptualise, speculate and think logically about concrete things.
3. “Immortal Soul” - Man is unique from other animals in that his sole is not earthy, but spiritual. It is similar to, but still lower than, the souls, of angels. Those it possesses all the attributes of Simple Awareness and Mortal Souls, but additionally possesses immortality and the capability to process abstract concepts such as love, truth, good, evil, etc.

How exactly are you defining “rational”? While agree the reason of animals and humans are not identical, I still think both can be called rational. Doesn’t rational mean logical?

The division you make is pretty much consistent with Aristotle’s, which is the division I also prefer (the major difference would be that angels don’t have “souls” in Aristotle’s thought, because they don’t have bodies to animate; they represent a different kind of entity that IS its spiritual component, but I think that is mostly semantics insofar as this discussion is concerned). Also, when I say “rational”, I’m referring to the last portion of what you defined as “Immortal soul”, namely the capability to process abstract concepts. In modern terms rational often implies simply working something through with the brain, but historically it had more to do with the ability to think in abstracts, on the level of concepts.

Incidentally, this ability seems to be directly linked to the immateriality of a soul. That’s a topic for another thread, though.

Peace and God bless!

 

[LakaYaRabb]

I’m Melkite. This is just my opinion.

Though I am fond of Aristotle and Philosophy in general, I dislike the “rational”/“non-rational” model of souls.

All of creation was Created by God and all of creation will go back to Him. Most animals are aware of things around them. Some even display more than just instinct. Some who live very closely with mankind take up simple human mannerisms. Of course they don’t exactly understand these mannerisms. Still though, there is nothing that says that said animal will not live on after death.

Understand that what I am proposing is not an “immortal” soul for animals because of there own merit. I am merely proposing that animals might live on after death in some way when all of Creation goes back to God. That is, when Christ comes again.

In the tradition of the Eastern Church, all of Creation reveals God. In that sense, all of Creation, even the Cosmos in some way is a window through which Grace becomes. Surely, these things reveal the energies of the Trinity to us; Love, Power, Glory, Intelligence, etc.

How can Creation, then, not be transformed when Christ comes again? How can we say it will just pass away? It was transformed on Theophany. We sing of the transformation of the waters and commemorate it to this day.

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

The division you make is pretty much consistent with Aristotle’s, which is the division I also prefer (the major difference would be that angels don’t have “souls” in Aristotle’s thought, because they don’t have bodies to animate; they represent a different kind of entity that IS its spiritual component, but I think that is mostly semantics insofar as this discussion is concerned).

Yes, I suppose an angel is kind of like a being made of an “immortal soul” as they are both immaterial. (Though not exactly.)

Also, when I say “rational”, I’m referring to the last portion of what you defined as “Immortal soul”, namely the capability to process abstract concepts. In modern terms rational often implies simply working something through with the brain, but historically it had more to do with the ability to think in abstracts, on the level of concepts.

Thank you for the definition! I figured that there was a difference of definitions, but I wasn’t sure exactly what that difference was.

I’m a Melkite Catholic (still canonically Latin owing to my childhood Baptism, but an adult convert to the Catholic Faith).

Out of curiosity, why don’t you become a Melkite Catholic canonically? If my memory serves well, I recall reading that it’s just a matter of a letter or two to your Latin bishop and the Melkite bishop (or maybe it was priest? ). I could be wrong though, as I have little knowledge of the administrative mechanisms of the Catholic church.

 

[Ghosty]

Out of curiosity, why don’t you become a Melkite Catholic canonically? If my memory serves well, I recall reading that it’s just a matter of a letter or two to your Latin bishop and the Melkite bishop (or maybe it was priest? ). I could be wrong though, as I have little knowledge of the administrative mechanisms of the Catholic church.

I’m in the process now.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

In the tradition of the Eastern Church, all of Creation reveals God. In that sense, all of Creation, even the Cosmos in some way is a window through which Grace becomes. Surely, these things reveal the energies of the Trinity to us; Love, Power, Glory, Intelligence, etc.

Good point. I think the Bible even explicitly says that we gain knowledge of God through creation, though the verse’s location eludes me. About the Energies, seeing as they are present in all things, and existence itself is a result of God’s Grace, it makes sense that it is revealed in them. After all, God did look at his creation and call it “good”. That by itself testifies that all creation reflects God’s Goodness, and what better testimony than the testimony of God!

Though I am fond of Aristotle and Philosophy in general, I dislike the “rational”/“non-rational” model of souls.

All of creation was Created by God and all of creation will go back to Him. Most animals are aware of things around them. Some even display more than just instinct. Some who live very closely with mankind take up simple human mannerisms. Of course they don’t exactly understand these mannerisms. Still though, there is nothing that says that said animal will not live on after death.

I agree that there is more than instinct, and that as far as I know no one said animals will not live after death. I don’t, however. understand how the concept of a “non-rational soul” would imply that there is no life after death. Even if a creature cannot contemplate God and freely choose to accept his Grace, God can still grant it some form of life after death, if he so pleases. That’s just my opinion though, and since I’m just a catechumen, it’s probably not worth all that much.

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

I’m in the process now.

Peace and God bless!

Ah, I see. May God bless you with success!

 

[Dan-Man916]

Isn’t all of creation to be deified at the end of time?
This is my understanding. Therefore, if this is so, then somehow, all of creation, including the animals will somehow share in the divine nature?

I really don’t know how this is all to be worked out, and if i am misunderstanding me, someone please correct me. However, I would think that we will enjoy creation in eternity (because God created the universe for his glory and for us, according to Genesis), and si then i assume will also include plants and animals.

While I would love for my pets to live in eternity, somehow, I am not really thrilled about the prospect of all of those mosquitos.

 

[LakaYaRabb]

Dan,
I grew up in the South, not too thrilled about them either.

I think it’s a fascinating topic, but whether or not non-humans get to Heaven or enjoy eternal glory affects little for man. However harsh this seems, I think all of man would do well to remember that it was God who put man in charge as a steward of Creation. We shouldn’t mistreat it. In fact, I believe all Creation reveals God’s Glory.

 

[Ghosty]

Dan,
I grew up in the South, not too thrilled about them either.

I think it’s a fascinating topic, but whether or not non-humans get to Heaven or enjoy eternal glory affects little for man. However harsh this seems, I think all of man would do well to remember that it was God who put man in charge as a steward of Creation. We shouldn’t mistreat it. In fact, I believe all Creation reveals God’s Glory.

Personally I think this is actually a hint at the real key answer; physical creation was made to reflect God, and was also placed to serve humanity. Animals don’t need to experience God directly in order to fulfill their natures, but humans do. If animals and such are present in the World to Come, and I believe they will be, it will be to reflect God and serve man just like now.

Dogs don’t need prayer and theophanies, nor do they need to see God face to face like we do. Their experience of God is in existing, and in enjoying the physical things of the world in comfort. It is a more remote experience than we are destined for, but no less real. In fact, we also get this experience of God through the world in the “animal way”, we’re just made of more than just animal parts.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Thank you for you response. I understand what you mean by being not well versed. I’m an Eastern Orthodox Cathecumen as well. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable will answer my questions.

I don’t know about more knowledgeable, but yes, animals do have souls but they do not have a spirit, the difference between us and them. Inanimate objects have neither, angels only have spirit. Ghosts, if such a thing exists, I conjecture would only have soul.

 

[Aramis]

I don’t know about more knowledgeable, but yes, animals do have souls but they do not have a spirit, the difference between us and them. Inanimate objects have neither, angels only have spirit. Ghosts, if such a thing exists, I conjecture would only have soul.

Aside from my experience of the connotations of the terms soul and spirit being about the opposite of the way you used them…

In general, the use I’m used to:

All living things have a spirit, which animates them.
Only people have Immortal Souls.

Ghosts might be souls…
Angels are souls who have not bodies. (But might be able to manifest bodies when needed.)

In general, the idea that the soul is immortal is inherent in every use I’ve seen differentiating it.

 

[Writer]

I think it’s correct to say that animals and plants have souls, but they are not eternal souls as ours are. As to afterlife, C.S. Lewis said (and I believe Dr. Peter Kreeft agreed, but not sure) that pets and other animals associated with people perhaps could be “saved” or “redeemed” through their masters’ faith in Christ. That’s all speculation, though.

I believe Karl Keating discussed this issue in one of his e-letters, but it was a long time ago. I’d try a search…

 

[mardukm]

St. Basil wrote in the Hexaemeron that the soul of animals is earth. In other words, their souls do not survive the dissolution of their bodies in death. He also wrote that when Scripture states, “let the earth bring forth a living soul,” this again distinguishes between the soul of animal and the soul of man, for the soul of man is “a living soul” which can survive the dissolution of the body. Further, he wrote that the soul of man is rational, but the soul of animal is not.

…basically everything you guys have written. I just thought I’d give you guys some patristic back-up.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

St. Basil wrote in the Hexaemeron that the soul of animals is earth. In other words, their souls do not survive the dissolution of their bodies in death. He also wrote that when Scripture states, “let the earth bring forth a living soul,” this again distinguishes between the soul of animal and the soul of man, for the soul of man is “a living soul” which can survive the dissolution of the body. Further, he wrote that the soul of man is rational, but the soul of animal is not.

…basically everything you guys have written. I just thought I’d give you guys some patristic back-up.

Blessings,
Marduk

Thank you Marduk! I appreciate the patristic reference!