Question about the soul

[mellestad]

It is not merely assumed, but derives from faith and reason. Ancient Greek Philosophers used reason to draw conclusions regarding the existence of the soul. Christians do not merely rely upon philosophical arguments, but use also the testimony of Divine revelation to assist human reason in coming to our beliefs.

Well, I’m confused now. “Not merely assumed/Derives from faith” is not a compatible statement, since in my usage assumed and faith would be the same thing.

The idea that the Catholic idea of the soul is based on the Greek understanding is…well, I guess that’s something I would expect to hear from an atheist, not a theist. That surprises me. Is this really the argument from Catholic doctrine? If I asked the Pope about why Catholics believe in the soul, would he refer me to this plato.stanford.edu/entries/ancient-soul/#1 ?

Your last sentence might be a bit more helpful…is the argument then that Catholics/Christians would argue the soul is simply self-evident? If so, doesn’t that just mean consciousness? How would you tell the two apart?

Thanks for the response, by the way!

 

[mellestad]

I strongly suggest you read this article on the meanings of “soul” and how they relate to human beings.

It is not as simple a thing as your question seems to imply.

Well, I was trying to find out if the idea of the soul had some specific meaning in Catholicism. If the question just gets referred to the usual morass of dualism leading all the way back to Plato then that answers my question.

As I said to the other poster though, that just seems…odd, to me. Maybe it shouldn’t, I don’t know.

Thanks for the response.

 

[mellestad]

This is incorrect.

Firstly, no soul is naturally immortal. Human souls are made immortal by the power of God.

Secondly, the difference between a human soul and those of animals, etc. is that a human soul is “rational” (i.e can reason) while those of all other creatures (excepting angels) are “irrational.” There are other difference between a human soul and the sould of other creatures, according to St. Thomas Aquinas.

What, specifically, constitutes ‘reason’? I’m guessing it has some special meaning in this context, because by my usage plenty of non-humans can reason things out.

Sorry for all the questions.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Well, I’m confused now. “Not merely assumed/Derives from faith” is not a compatible statement, since in my usage assumed and faith would be the same thing.

“Assume” is not synonmous with “faith” in Catholic usage.

I can have “faith” in somebody because of the prior trustworthiness of that somebody. I need not merely “assume” in a sort of blind way that I should put my trust in someone. Nor am I called, according to faith, to simply accept without testing. Scripture says, “test everything. Hold fast to the good.” (2 Thess 5:21). It doesn’t say “assume everything.”

The idea that the Catholic idea of the soul is based on the Greek understanding is…

Go back and read it again. I said it is based on faith and reason. I did not say that it was based upon Greek philosophy. I then gave an example of non-Christian use of reason to conclude there was a soul (Greek philosophy). In other words, even non-Christians conclude that the soul exists, through use of reason, not Christian faith. That’s not the same as saying that Christians based their understanding of the soul on Greek philosophy.

Your last sentence might be a bit more helpful…is the argument then that Catholics/Christians would argue the soul is simply self-evident? If so, doesn’t that just mean consciousness? How would you tell the two apart?

I don’t know of any Catholic argument that the soul is self-evident. Our beliefs in general derive from reason, experience and testimony. With regard to the soul, I’ve only seen arguments from reason and testimony (Divine revelation).

Thanks for the response, by the way!

You’re welcome.

 

[mellestad]

“Assume” is not synonmous with “faith” in Catholic usage.

I can have “faith” in somebody because of the prior trustworthiness of that somebody. I need not merely “assume” in a sort of blind way that I should put my trust in someone. Nor am I called, according to faith, to simply accept without testing. Scripture says, “test everything. Hold fast to the good.” (2 Thess 5:21). It doesn’t say “assume everything.”

Well, naturally we disagree, but there isn’t a reason to argue about it here. Moving on.

itsjustdave1988:

Go back and read it again. I said it is based on faith and reason. I did not say that it was based upon Greek philosophy. I then gave an example of non-Christian use of reason to conclude there was a soul (Greek philosophy). In other words, even non-Christians conclude that the soul exists, through use of reason, not Christian faith. That’s not the same as saying that Christians based their understanding of the soul on Greek philosophy.

OK, great, what is the Catholic version?

itsjustdave1988:

I don’t know of any Catholic argument that the soul is self-evident. Our beliefs in general derive from reason, experience and testimony. With regard to the soul, I’ve only seen arguments from reason and testimony (Divine revelation).

You’re welcome.

Again, this is great! Can you elaborate then, or link to something where the particular Catholic argument is explained?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

What, specifically, constitutes ‘reason’? I’m guessing it has some special meaning in this context, because by my usage plenty of non-humans can reason things out.

Reasoning is a discursive and inferential faculty which human beings possess. Humans can infer from particular propositions, conclusions regarding things in general (inductive reasoning). For example, “All observed beginnings have a cause. Therefore all beginnings have a cause.” Humans can also infer from general propositions, conclusions regarding things in particular (deductive reasoning). For example, “If all beginnings have a cause, and the universe has a beginning, then the universe has a cause.” I don’t know of animals that can reason. My understanding is that all their behavior can be explained as instinctive, not discursive and inferential.

When I studied artificial intelligence in college, it was my understanding that only humans were known to be able to do this. We can program computers to replicate this process somewhat, but our ability to make computeres replicate this is somewhat limited.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…OK, great, what is the Catholic version?

Catholic version of what? Reason? It is a capacity of every human being. While there are various philosophical arguments from reason regarding the exist of the soul presented in the past couple thousand plus years the Church does not canonize any one particular philosophy.

According to John Paul II:

The Church has no philosophy of her own nor does she canonize any one particular philosophy in preference to others. The underlying reason for this reluctance is that, even when it engages theology, philosophy must remain faithful to its own principles and methods. Otherwise there would be no guarantee that it would remain oriented to truth and that it was moving towards truth by way of a process governed by reason. A philosophy which did not proceed in the light of reason according to its own principles and methods would serve little purpose. At the deepest level, the autonomy which philosophy enjoys is rooted in the fact that reason is by its nature oriented to truth and is equipped moreover with the means necessary to arrive at truth. A philosophy conscious of this as its “constitutive status” cannot but respect the demands and the data of revealed truth. (John Paul II, Fides et Ratio).

 

[mellestad]

Reasoning is a discursive and inferential faculty which human beings possess. Humans can infer from particular propositions, conclusions regarding things in general (inductive reasoning). For example, “All observed beginnings have a cause. Therefore all beginnings have a cause.” Humans can also infer from general propositions, conclusions regarding things in particular (deductive reasoning). For example, “If all beginnings have a cause, and the universe has a beginning, then the universe has a cause.” I don’t know of animals that can reason. My understanding is that all their behavior can be explained as instinctive, not discursive and inferential.

When I studied artificial intelligence in college, it was my understanding that only humans were known to be able to do this. We can program computers to replicate this process somewhat, but our ability to make computeres replicate this is somewhat limited.

So where is the exact line though? I know people who can feed themselves but would not be able to understand the basic argument you just made in your post. I also know people who can’t feed themselves, and people who are trapped with the reasoning ability of a two year old…your typical elephant, has more problem solving ability than they do so it can’t be that simple, can it?

Whether or not an animal can ‘reason’ depends on a very arbitrary line. A handful of animals are capable of novel tool use (using a tool in a new way to solve a problem, or deciding to use a tool in the first place), complex social interaction, self-identification, genuine problem solving (including inferential methods) and some level of language use.

So if you draw the ‘line’ in the wrong place you exclude anyone who can’t reason past the high toddler levels, or include quite a few non-humans.

I’m not quite sure how anyone could make the argument that a good chunk of even basic animal behavior is purely instinctive, but that isn’t really germane anyhow, I don’t want to poo on the thread.​

I feel like this is getting really side-tracked though. Do you just have a reference as to what the Catholic idea of the soul is? I’m just trying to understand what Catholics believe, and why, not debate whether or not they are right to believe whatever it is they believe.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Well, I was trying to find out if the idea of the soul had some specific meaning in Catholicism…

You can read about the meaning of the soul according to Catholicism, here: Catechism of the Catholic Church

Search on “soul.”

 

[mellestad]

You can read about the meaning of the soul according to Catholicism, here: Catechism of the Catholic Church

Search on “soul.”

Huh. OK. I guess that answers my question though.

It seems like soul=life, and the existence of the soul is assumed using typical dualistic philosophy…which is what you told me to start with, more or less.

Is that accurate?

 

[mellestad]

So the catechism is the summary of doctrine. Where can you go to find out what the details of a particular entry are?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

So where is the exact line though? I know people who can feed themselves but would not be able to understand the basic argument you just made in your post.

So true!

It seems that while humans have been given the capacity to reason as part of our nature, that is no guarantee that all humans endeavor to use that capacity, or have the equal ability to reason. The capacity to reason certainly takes development, formation, much like the ability to walk on two feet. The body may have defects (underdevelopment, abnormalities, injuries, etc.). The soul, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, is extrinsically dependent upon the body (uses the body to sense and process). Such defects of the body can impair the soul’s ability to abstract from sense data toward ideas.

Nonetheless, we don’t come to our beliefs by reason alone, nor experience alone, nor testimony alone, but all three. Beliefs vary from person to person because some are more skilled at reasoning, and some less skilled. Some have had more experiences than others. Some have received less testimony than others, or even perhaps less trustworthy testimony than others. I suspect that those who have less ability to reason, less experience, and less trustwothy testimony to draw from tend towards beliefs which may not be true.

A handful of animals are capable of novel tool use …

Yes, all of which can be explained apart from attributing to them discursive and inferential ability. When a monkey sends a human into outerspace, instead of the other way areound, then I will suspect them of having discursive and inferential abilities. We tend to characterize animal behavior in human terms. For example, I have a pet cat that when she rubs against me seems to “love me.” At least we like to think so. Nevermind that she also rubs up against the coffee table too or a muddy old boot.

Animals (e.g. dolphins) are very smart. They can do many amazing things. If we feed them fish. I see no evidence that they behavior is a result of discursive and inferential ability.

"…if you draw the ‘line’ in the wrong place you exclude anyone who can’t reason past the high toddler levels, or include quite a few non-humans.

Exactly. Society does draw this line. Those who through underdevelopment or abnormality, demonstrably lack the ability to reason are not held to the same standards in our society as those who have mature and normal reasoning ability.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

So where is the exact line though? I know people who can feed themselves but would not be able to understand the basic argument you just made in your post.

So true!

It seems that while humans have been given the capacity to reason as part of our nature, that is no guarantee that all humans endeavor to use that capacity, or have the equal ability to reason. The capacity to reason certainly takes development, formation, much like the ability to walk on two feet. The body may have defects (underdevelopment, abnormalities, injuries, etc.). The soul, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, is extrinsically dependent upon the body (uses the body to sense and process). Such defects of the body can impair the soul’s ability to abstract from sense data toward ideas.

Nonetheless, we don’t come to our beliefs by reason alone, nor experience alone, nor testimony alone, but all three. Beliefs vary from person to person because some are more skilled at reasoning, and some less skilled. Some have had more experiences than others. Some have received less testimony than others, or even perhaps less trustworthy testimony than others. I suspect that those who have less ability to reason, less experience, and less trustwothy testimony to draw from tend towards beliefs which may not be true.

A handful of animals are capable of novel tool use …

Yes, all of which can be explained apart from attributing to them discursive and inferential ability. When a monkey sends a human into outerspace, instead of the other way areound, then I will suspect them of having discursive and inferential abilities. We tend to characterize animal behavior in human terms. For example, I have a pet cat that when he rubs against me seems to “love me.” At least we like to think so. Nevermind that he also rubs up against the coffee table too or a muddy old boot.

Animals are very smart. They can do many amazing things. I see no evidence that their behavior is a result of discursive and inferential ability.

"…if you draw the ‘line’ in the wrong place you exclude anyone who can’t reason past the high toddler levels, or include quite a few non-humans.

Exactly. Society does draw this line. Those who through underdevelopment or abnormality, demonstrably lack the ability to reason are not held to the same standards in our society as those who have mature and normal reasoning ability.

 

[mellestad]

Like I said, I don’t want to debate whether or not your beliefs make sense, just understanding what you believe is fine. Thanks!

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Huh. OK. I guess that answers my question though.

It seems like soul=life, and the existence of the soul is assumed using typical dualistic philosophy…which is what you told me to start with, more or less.

Is that accurate?

As already stated “assumed” is not a synonym for faith, not even to a normal secular dictionary, your own peculiar use of this word notwithstanding.

Also, the Catholic Catechism is not a merely philosophical argument, but a summary of doctrine derived from (1) reason, (2) experience, and (3) testimony–which is exactly what all beliefs in every field of study derive from.

The Bible, being written in in the first century, is testimony. It necessarily expressed itself in terminology of the 1st century, which involved a Judeo-Hellenistic worldview. It did not indorse any particular human philosophy while doing so. Instead, it necessarily expressed itself in concepts the intended audience could grasp.

Similarly, the Church expresses these same beliefs today using a worldview necessarily tied to the worldview of the time when the Bible was written, but also expressing itself in terms the contemporary world might understand in every century since the life of Christ.

In other words, the philosophical expression of man changes with every century, yet the Church, rooted in the Judeo-Hellenistic expression of the 1st centurty AD, at the same time attempts to re-present that same truth in other ways understandible to contemporary society, using as many varied worldviews as there have been across the past 2000 years. Some of those worldviews are congruent with what the Church understands to be true, some are just nonsensical and cannot be reconciled with the truth.

Does the doctrine of the Church teach a dualistic view of humanity, insofar as man has a spiritual soul and a material body? Yes. But it rejects other historically-held dualistic views, such as “spirit good…body evil.” Also, the Church does not derive her beliefs from the expression of any single philosophical school, nor solely from reason alone, but derives her belief from reason and her experience, and most especially due to the trustworthy testimony she has received.

The soul is much more than “life”, according to the Catechism. For a more comprehensive understanding, look in the index under “soul.”

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Also, for a more in-depth explanation of the doctrine expressed in Catechism, see the more detailed theology of St. Thomas Aquinas in his *Summa Theologica, *which the Catechism frequently references.

 

[davidv]

Huh. OK. I guess that answers my question though.

It seems like soul=life, and the existence of the soul is assumed using typical dualistic philosophy…which is what you told me to start with, more or less.

Is that accurate?

I don’t think so. Here are some of the Catholic teaching on soul from the Catechism.

**382 **“Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity” (GS 14 § 1). The doctrine of the faith affirms that the spiritual and immortal soul is created immediately by God.

No “duality” here.

**797 **“What the soul is to the human body, the Holy Spirit is to the Body of Christ, which is the Church.” “To this Spirit of Christ, as an invisible principle, is to be ascribed the fact that all the parts of the body are joined one with the other and with their exalted head; for the whole Spirit of Christ is in the head, the whole Spirit is in the body, and the whole Spirit is in each of the members.” The Holy Spirit makes the Church “the temple of the living God”:

**1705 **By virtue of his soul and his spiritual powers of intellect and will, man is endowed with freedom, an “outstanding manifestation of the divine image.”

**1711 **Endowed with a spiritual soul, with intellect and with free will, the human person is from his very conception ordered to God and destined for eternal beatitude. He pursues his perfection in “seeking and loving what is true and good” (*GS *15 § 2).

 

[mellestad]

As already stated “assumed” is not a synonym for faith, not even to a normal secular dictionary, your own peculiar use of this word notwithstanding.

Also, the Catholic Catechism is not a merely philosophical argument, but a summary of doctrine derived from (1) reason, (2) experience, and (3) testimony–which is exactly what all beliefs in every field of study derive from.

The Bible, being written in in the first century, is testimony. It necessarily expressed itself in terminology of the 1st century, which involved a Judeo-Hellenistic worldview. It did not indorse any particular human philosophy while doing so. Instead, it necessarily expressed itself in concepts the intended audience could grasp.

Similarly, the Church expresses these same beliefs today using a worldview necessarily tied to the worldview of the time when the Bible was written, but also expressing itself in terms the contemporary world might understand in every century since the life of Christ.

In other words, the philosophical expression of man changes with every century, yet the Church, rooted in the Judeo-Hellenistic expression of the 1st centurty AD, at the same time attempts to re-present that same truth in other ways understandible to contemporary society, using as many varied worldviews as there have been across the past 2000 years. Some of those worldviews are congruent with what the Church understands to be true, some are just nonsensical and cannot be reconciled with the truth.

Does the doctrine of the Church teach a dualistic view of humanity, insofar as man has a spiritual soul and a material body? Yes. But it rejects other historically-held dualistic views, such as “spirit good…body evil.” Also, the Church does not derive her beliefs from the expression of any single philosophical school, nor solely from reason alone, but derives her belief from reason and her experience, and most especially due to the trustworthy testimony she has received.

The soul is much more than “life”, according to the Catechism. For a more comprehensive understanding, look in the index under “soul.”

Thanks. Actually, the summary I gave was in response to reading the Catechism. I agree that our language use is not matching up. You’ll have to take my word that I know what you mean. Thanks!

Edit: I just don’t want to get bogged down in a semantic argument when I understand what you mean.

 

[mellestad]

I don’t think so. Here are some of the Catholic teaching on soul from the Catechism.

No “duality” here.

Sorry, I meant dualism in a different sense. In philosophy dualism is the idea that something immaterial exists, and is usually tied to something like a soul.

So in my usage, dualism is, “382: Man, though made of body and soul…”.

Thanks!

 

[mellestad]

Also, for a more in-depth explanation of the doctrine expressed in Catechism, see the more detailed theology of St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica, which the Catechism frequently references.

newadvent.org/summa/1118.htm ?

Is the philosophy of Aquinas considered a primary source for dogma, or is it just supplemental?