Reconciling Humani Generis with the human genetic data showing that there never were just two first parents

[Gorgias]

The question then arises: did the soul evolve with that which evolved to be man or was there a specific point where we became human?

Souls are immaterial. The notion of “evolution” of a spiritual entity doesn’t make sense (nor does it fit with Catholic theology).

I think that if Aquinas had known that we were an evolved creature then his definition of soul would have been different.

Interestingly, 150 years of philosophers – since the genesis of the notion of evolution – haven’t changed the definition of the soul. Why would you think that Aquinas would be any different?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

The question then arises: did the soul evolve with that which evolved to be man or was there a specific point where we became human?

Souls are immaterial. The notion of “evolution” of a spiritual entity doesn’t make sense (nor does it fit with Catholic theology).

I think that if Aquinas had known that we were an evolved creature then his definition of soul would have been different.

Interestingly, 150 years of philosophers – since the genesis of the notion of evolution – haven’t changed the definition of the soul. Why would you think that Aquinas would be any different?

Do you agree that Aquinas defined the soul as I described? It is the form or essence of a rational animal (so yes, immaterial). Now we know that you believe that there are no rational animals other than man. Yet animals (and I’ll use this term to indicate all animals other than man) have souls as well. But only man has an immortal soul (and I’ve spent more time than I wanted to trying to work out his arguments for coming to that conclusion - but maybe not as much time as I should. Anyway…).

Now Aquinas didn’t know that man had evolved. So that man had been, using a term he would have used, ‘an animal’. That is, as you believe, a non rational creature. And to head you off at the pass, it wasn’t the case, even if he had known this, that he would have said ‘the animal’ was a potential human and therefore had an immortal soul. You probably know that this is how some people argue against abortion, because they claim that the few cells we get just after conception (obviously at this stage not rational) are a potential human, being the progeny of humans. But this particular animal, this pre-human, was not born of human parents. It wasn’t human. It was an animal (and you can go far back along our line of ancestory as you’d like until you have a mental picture of something that is definitley not human - but which is a direct ancestor).

So we have a great great etc grandfather of yours which didn’t have an immortal soul (as per Aquinas). But at some point along the evolutionary line, when it became human, it did (as per Aquinas).

Aquinas thought there was a nice bright line separating us from our animal cousins. So he wouldn’t have been aware of that problem. But now we know that there is no bright line. It’s a long continuum with no specific point when we became human.

So had he known, how do you think he would have circumvented this problem? Because as it stands it is simply ignored.

 

[rossum]

Souls are immaterial. The notion of “evolution” of a spiritual entity doesn’t make sense (nor does it fit with Catholic theology).

For evolution to happen there needs to be imperfect reproduction in a situation of resource constraint. As far as I can tell neither of those apply to souls: they do not reproduce and they do not consume resources. Hence evolution does not apply.

 

[Dovekin]

It’s a long continuum with no specific point when we became human.

The “specific point” is when an ancestor first received an immortal soul.

Souls are created directly by God. The immortality is not something that evolves, but is a property given to it.

The problem you describe is present in the story of Adam’s creation. At one point, Adam was just clay. Then God gave Adam life, in the form of an immortal soul. It was not the same kind of soul as he had given to plants. Nor was it just an animal soul. It was a rational immortal soul.

This is probably one element of the affirmation of original sin in HG, that true humans have rational souls and not true humans do not.

I suggested earlier that once God gave Adam a rational soul humanity began evolving to adapt to this change. Characteristics that enabled rational action like tools, memory, etc. were advantageous to growth and became part of the genome.

This would probably be indistinguishable from genetics changed so we developed a soul. The soul cannot be identified by physical qualities, so genetic changes could either cause the soul or be caused by the soul, but we cannot distinguish which. If we decide a particular brain structure is associated with rationality, we cannot know if it developed to accommodate our rationality, or if our rationality comes as a result of this structure.

This is why I disagree with @Allyson’s suggestion that “if the soul is having an effect on the evolution of the genome, that is a testable hypothesis.” We do not have a precise enough definition of the soul to tell if it is the soul affecting the genome or the genome affecting the soul.

 

[rossum]

We do not have a precise enough definition of the soul to tell if it is the soul affecting the genome or the genome affecting the soul.

Or both or neither. There are four possibilities here.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

We do not have a precise enough definition of the soul to tell if it is the soul affecting the genome or the genome affecting the soul.

Are we trying to decide (evolutionarily speaking) if the immortal soul came first, or if rationally came first? Isn’t an essential element of human rationality the knowledge of good and evil? And if we take Genesis into account, isn’t the answer that the immortal soul came first?

I think we also have to consider that human rationality isn’t a requirement for one to have an immortal soul. Babies have immortal souls and so do others who don’t have any knowledge of good and evil.

 

[Dovekin]

Are we trying to decide if the immortal soul came first, or if rationally came first?

No.

The choice is between the rational immortal soul and the physical makeup of our body and brain that supports or enables rational thought. My position is that the soul came first, genetics followed, but we have been discussing if the other position is possible. Could the soul be the result of evolutionary growth in our genes?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I’m sorry I don’t see a distinction in what you’ve said and what I said.

Could the soul be the result of evolutionary growth in our genes?

This evolutionary growth? - “the physical makeup of our body and brain that supports or enables rational thought”

That just doesn’t stand to reason because the physical makeup of our bodies do not necessarily enable rational thought. Babies do not have rational thought. Neither do some adults have rational thought because they have some kind of disorder.

So it just doesn’t follow that a brain capable of rationality is a requirement for an immortal soul. I think we have gotten too far away from the idea that an immortal soul is not merited by our physical makeup.

 

[Dovekin]

I am agreeing with your position.

Rationality is the property of the soul that makes it immortal. It does not strictly parallel rational thought though they are related. The soul of an infant is rational even though it is incapable of rational thought.

I was responding to a comment that said evolution “is a long continuum with no specific point when we became human.” There is a specific point, when we gained a rational soul. This does not mean when we started thinking rationally; it has more to do with free will and making choices, something I for one use pretty irrationally.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

This does not mean when we started thinking rationally; it has more to do with free will and making choices,

I don’t see a distinction here either. Free will is an essential element in human rationality, no?

something I for one use pretty irrationally.

Yes, but a bad judgment here or there doesn’t mean that you are irrational. It just means you’ve made an “error”.(scare quotes)

What am I missing?

 

[Neithan]

So it just doesn’t follow that a brain capable of rationality is a requirement for an immortal soul.

We’re discussing this from a hylemorphic view, that the soul is the form of the body, which is not the only possible philosophy for describing the relation between soul and body, but I think it’s the preferred one for the church through history, at least since Aquinas. The issue is how Adam, the first “true man” would fit into human evolution and be the first parent of all “true men” according to Pope Pius XII’s wording in paragraph 37 of Humani Generis.

It doesn’t make sense to me that an animal can have a rational form and not a rational body. You’re right that some human bodies have some disability or are not mature enough to express rationality, and that is obvious, but can we say the same about human evolution? Can earlier species of hominid be considered “true men” but immature and disabled? What makes the most sense to me is that Adam was the first man with a rational soul and body at the same time, otherwise we’d have a formal cause (soul) that could not possibly be expressed in the material cause (body) absolutely, rather than relatively due to some defect in the material.

 

[Gorgias]

Do you agree that Aquinas defined the soul as I described? It is the form or essence of a rational animal

Not precisely. I think I’d say that the nature of the human soul is to be the subsistent form of the human.

Now we know that you believe that there are no rational animals other than man. Yet animals (and I’ll use this term to indicate all animals other than man) have souls as well.

Thomas posited three parts of souls:

• vegetative (plants, animals, humans)
• sensitive (animals, humans)
• intellectual/rational (humans)

You probably know that this is how some people argue against abortion, because they claim that the few cells we get just after conception (obviously at this stage not rational) are a potential human, being the progeny of humans.

No. The argument is that they are human, period. They are potentially human children/adults. The argument is that, from a philosophical perspective, they already are what we are, and therefore, cannot be murdered.

So we have a great great etc grandfather of yours which didn’t have an immortal soul (as per Aquinas). But at some point along the evolutionary line, when it became human, it did (as per Aquinas).

That’s the direction of the argument (which is not the teaching of the Church at this point) that suggests that there were unensouled hominins prior to our first true human parents, yes.

But now we know that there is no bright line. It’s a long continuum with no specific point when we became human.

No: the construct being argued is that God creates souls, immediately. Therefore, there is a bright line: He imbued our first true human parents with immortal souls, and that’s what makes them (and their progeny, whom God also imbues with human souls, immediately) human.

There’s no “continuum” from the perspective of ensoulment, although there is from a purely physical sense.

That just doesn’t stand to reason because the physical makeup of our bodies do not necessarily enable rational thought. Babies do not have rational thought. Neither do some adults have rational thought

Apples and oranges, though, wouldn’t you say? At first, you mention “enabling” rational thought, and then you go to “having” rational thought. In fact, biologists do talk about physical attributes that enabled rational thought. Actually having it is a different matter, though.

Rationality is the property of the soul that makes it immortal.

Hmm… are you saying that this is what the Church or Catholic philosophers/theologians assert? I think I would call it “correlation” more than “causation”. The soul is immortal because God made it so. The soul is rational because God made it so. If you’re looking for causes, then the answer is “God” or “God’s design”.

 

[Neithan]

In fact, biologists do talk about physical attributes that enabled rational thought. Actually having it is a different matter, though.

Exactly. And actually “having” spiritual rationality (as opposed to artificial) involves an immaterial, substantial, active intellect with a body capable of potential intellect. I think the two must go together immediately in time for the first “true man.” Why would God create something with a form that its matter is absolutely incapable of realizing? The human being is a substantial composite person, and the spiritual soul is not “more” of who we are than the material body is.

 

[Dovekin]

I think the two must go together immediately in time for the first “true man.”

This is what I was really trying to address. There are a variety of characteristics that accompany being rational, but do not signify rationality. Toolmaking, ritual behavior, etc. The predecessors of true humans could have these in the same way that crows or bees have them.

Then when the first true human is ensouled, these characteristics become the way rationality is identified, and natural selection chooses to use them rather than mindlessly hit rocks. The soul is an environmental factor that influences the genome rather than being part of the genome, in a scientific lingo. The indications of a rational soul, like toolmaking, are reflected in the genome, but the preference for them is from the soul, the environment. The genome was sufficient for the rudimentary soul, but the soul then influenced the genome to serve rationality. That is one opinion, but I doubt that it can be verified empirically without a more precise definition of soul and body.

This was an attempt to answer @Freddy’s question about how Aquinas might have addressed the issues. There are other philosophical systems that would answer them differently, but the question was explicitly about Aquinas’ hylomorphic philosophy.

 

[Dovekin]

I think I would call it “correlation” more than “causation”.

Aquinas refers to Aristotle to say that powers of the soul that are not rooted in the senses are what distinguishes the human soul from the animal. This independence from sensing is what means the soul is subsistent, unlike animals where the body is the substance that the senses come from. This subsistence apart from the material is what makes it not mortal, even though it exists with a mortal body as a single substance.

And of course I am using “makes” not in the sense of creates, but as a property that identifies how something should be classified.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Apples and oranges, though, wouldn’t you say?

I wasn’t aware that we were trying to square a circle. But apparently it seems like that’s what’s going on here. Tell me if I’m wrong. I’ll try to explain why I think that.

Aristotle and Thomas has no concept of evolution, no? So why are we trying to apply a hylemorphic view to a human. Because at what moment in evolution do hominids not have a soul? According to hylemorphism never. So there is the question of how a regular soul turns into an immortal soul. Thomism doesn’t address that, no?

In my view it simply doesn’t matter what we think is a rational enough hominid to be granted immortal status to their soul. It was God’s decision to decide at what point we were rational enough to be granted the grace to reciprocate love back to God. Of course humans would need to have had the capacity for such reciprocation in their biology.

 

[Neithan]

That is one opinion, but I doubt that it can be verified empirically without a more precise definition of soul and body.

Can anything immaterial be empirically verifiable? Even skipping the inherent problems of verificationism and admitting the weaker falsification principle, it still begs the question that every cause of a material effect is empirically demonstrable. If every act of the intellect exists in the body (as per Aquinas*), then we should observe a continuous change of material movement in the brain, and the soul has no physical explanatory power. So physicalists either conclude that rationality has a material cause (emergentism) or it’s not real (eliminativism).

Of course, why something like speculative reasoning should ever have evolved is not answered by physicalists. They assert natural selection as a cause, but a cause and a reason are not the same thing. Prof. Thomas Nagel is an atheist aware of this problem (where most atheist scientists seem not to be) and has argued that matter is rational, or that nature has an intrinsic teleology. I think that’s pretty much the same thing as pantheism, really.

*from paragraph 28 of On the Uniqueness of Intellect against the Averroists, Chapter I.

 

[Freddy]

Neithan:

I think the two must go together immediately in time for the first “true man.”

This is what I was really trying to address. There are a variety of characteristics that accompany being rational, but do not signify rationality. Toolmaking, ritual behavior, etc. The predecessors of true humans could have these in the same way that crows or bees have them.

Then when the first true human is ensouled, these characteristics become the way rationality is identified…

Whoa. Back the truck up a little there. An immortal soul is only possesed by rational animals. You can’t therefore claim that characteristics that could have been evidence for rational behaviour can therefore claim that they are once the rational animal posesses one.

IF it’s a rational animal then it DOES have an immortal soul. It doesn’t BECOME rational when given an immortal soul as that it implies that it was given rationality at the same time.

And in any case, how on earth could characteristics be associated with rationality and not actually be rationality itself? The only argument would seem to be your claim that one generation could show all the characteristics of rationality but they wouldn’t really be rationality as they didn’t have an immortal soul. But the next generation, showing exactly the same behaviour could then have their behaviour defined as being rational.

It seems you can change the definitions of things depending on your viewpoint.

 

[Neithan]

The only argument would seem to be your claim that one generation could show all the characteristics of rationality but they wouldn’t really be rationality as they didn’t have an immortal soul.

I would agree that if an animal shows all the characteristics of rationality, including a speculative intellect, then that animal has a rational soul, which is immortal because of the incorruptible nature of intellect per se.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

It’s a long continuum with no specific point when we became human.

The “specific point” is when an ancestor first received an immortal soul.

So whatever received the soul couldn’t be defined as a rational animal prior to receiving it (as per Aquinas). Yet it must have had the potential to be a rational animal. In fact, that potential was actually realised.

Yet it is claimed that a zygote has a soul because it has the potential to be a rational animal (born of human parents who are rational animals). So the potential to be a rational animal is sufficient for the posession of a soul.

So we are replete with contradictions.

We have a non rational animal which by definition could not have had a soul. If it is given a soul then we can’t use rational or nonrational to determine if something has an immortal sould because it has become dependant on it having a rational soul. So the determining factor as to whether something has a soul or not becomes…whether it has a soul or not.

We grant that an embryo has a soul because it is potentially a rational animal but it’s only a rational animal if it has a soul. Make of that what you will.

Notwithstanding that if we accept that anything that has the potential to become a rational animal also bas a soul, then the first person to be given a soul obviously had that potential actualised. But if it had that potential (and it must have had it) then it already had a soul so there was no requirement to grant it one.