The thing is, if you’ve got an empirically-measurable definition of ‘rationality’, I’d love to hear it. On the other hand, when the Church discusses the human soul, it’s its quality of being in the imago Dei is what is most critical.
I’d prefer to make the definition look like this: the definition of a true human person is a person with a human body and immortal soul.
And what’s the definition of an immortal soul? It’s that form which is posessed by a human person. Literally.
Humani Generis is an encyclical in which the Pope is speaking ex cathedra on a matter of faith and morals - in this case: the doctrine of Original Sin. The only thing of equivalent presidential value would be the final documents of an ecumenical council.
Because, when you take as fact a scientific conclusion and take as fact a theological assertion on the same matter that on their face disagree, there is not way to resolve the conflict without holding two conflicting beliefs or doing damage to one or both disciplines doing mental contortions to make the puzzle pieces fit.
IndeedThat depends on what you mean by “science points to God”, doesn’t it?
and, in many case, the science does not mean what people think it means.Beyond the examples you gave, the main marker of what makes us human in scientific terms is the ability to use symbolic communication/art and the ability to pass along complex technology. Other apes use tools, but they do not fashion stones into spear points. This requires knowledge of how stones will fracture and how to pick out the best stones for that purpose. Homo Habilis has this level of tool making ability. Neanderthals, although their tools appear more primitive and they keep the same basic design over time, were master tool makers. The method needed to make their points were very complex and they would travel of trade far distances for the best flint. They also figured out how to make pitch long before homo sapiens did. It was used to glue spear points to the shaft. This is a process that requires an oxygen deprived environment to prevent spontaneous combustion. This level of technology requires knowledge that is communicated generationally. It is now believed that some of the earliest abstract cave painting were produced by Neanderthals.
It is the claim of religion that the natural sciences cannot, yet the religions that speak of a personal God also claim that he acts in/on the world. That is what the Incarnation was, God acting in the world. That is what miracles are supposed to be. If God has an effect on the natural world, then we should be able to measure it. The same is so with an immortal soul. If it is a thing that has relevance to our being, then we should be able to determine its validity. Otherwise, it is just wishful thinking.
Re: Hominins: I am not including Gorillas and Chimps in this discussion. I am just speaking of humans - roughly Homo Habilis/Homo Erectus to the present.
I am speaking of the credulity evoked by a truth claim, not when you can validate a truth claim. I am saying that the more literally you that the myth as fact, the easier it is to find the claim of Original Sin credulous/with merit/foundational to our being. On the other hand, when we consider the real natural history of the world, we cannot easily draw the line on at which point we became human in the archaeological record because - in part - we have no oral history of that time. What is recorded in the Bible probably an oral historical myth of human society transitioning from hunter gather to farming ~10kya. To the extent that any of the characters were based on real people, they were people living long after humanity arose on the earth.
Fortunately, encyclicals are not infallible, and are not issued “ex cathedra”, which means that although Catholics must take them seriously, they can be corrected. This one certainly will be, although whether the doctrine of original sin is a pressing concern at the moment I rather doubt, and, as usual, the Church will move with due consideration and caution.
This ^^^ ought to be a sticky at the top of every thread that wants to discuss evolution, followed by a check box:Allyson:
Those other genetic contributors with no descent from Adam would not have been true men as they would not have had rational souls. Only children with Adam as an ancestor would have had rational souls and be true men and women.
As for other homo species with language and religion, perhaps Adam predated them. He wouldn’t necessarily have to have been homo sapiens, just a true man.
Because people continually conflate science and theology, or read things like Humanii Generis through the eyes of material science, or read theology in fideistic ways that are ignorant of science.
Those attempts at reconciliation that I have seen refer to structures of sin that are unavoidable in people’s life. However, those explanations contradicted the definition of Trent: transfused into all by propagation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own.
No, I don’t. I suspect that the “problem” that you perceive is the lack of ability to empirically measure the soul. Since it’s a spiritual reality, not physical, we would predict that we’re fully unable to make empirical (i.e., physical) measurements of non-physical entities. So… is this the “problem” to which you refer, or is it a different sort of problem?
OK, I agree with this assessment. However, that still doesn’t explain why you insist on a particular interpretation which seems to be far too narrow. What I’m trying to ask is why you demand that your interpretation of the text is the correct one?
Allyson, that’s the whole point: they’re not “on the same matter”. Science is talking about physical realities, and theology is talking about spiritual ones. Very literally, in this case, science isn’t talking about souls and theology is.
…none of which are exclusive to humans, and therefore, cannot be descriptive of ‘rationality’ as such…
That’s a nice definition, and perhaps it has some merit. But, if your project is to conflate the goals of science and theology – and, you have to admit, that’s what you’re trying to assert here – then you have reached an interesting point. Namely, you now get to go to scientists and ask “ok… are you asserting that humans possessed immortal souls at that point in their development?” After all, that’s what’s at stake in the theological discussion. And, I’m sure you’ll agree, you won’t get a helpful answer to that question from scientists. Therefore, I respectfully suggest that this quest for an answer that’s an amalgam of science and theology is a fool’s errand – the two disciplines aren’t in conflict, but they’re certainly not seeking the same answers or goals.
Great. Do you have an empirical method that’s capable of predicting these interactions? Because, if you don’t, then you’re never going to be able to establish a null hypothesis.
That is, if you’re able to predict when these effects occur, such that you might hope to measure them. If you’re unable to predict them, then the hope to “determine [their] validity” is just “wishful thinking”.
You realize you’re doing it again, right? You’re conflating the two fields and invalidly extrapolating from one to the other. The Genesis story is not one of a “transition from hunter-gatherers to farmers”, but of God’s creation of humans from pre-existing materials and infusing in them immortal souls in His image and likeness.
We have this:Freddy:
No, I don’t.
You’re asking how we can define rationality (so we can determine what posseses it), suggest we can’t empirically measure it but then tell us that that which is a rational animal will have an immortal soul. So this is how we could determine it. If something has an immortal soul then it is a rational animal.
If this tight circle were to be true, rationality would have to be defined as being a characteristic of a particular group (species) which is essential to the group’s nature (essence).
I believe that Aquinas for example would argue that the only rational animal is Man. And that the form of a rational animal corresponds with its soul, therefore Man has a soul. But the soul in not JUST the form of Man because the form generally ceases to be when the material ceases to be. So a wooden statue has wood as its material and the form of whatever shape the staue takes but if you burn the material then the form no longer exists.Freddy:
If this tight circle were to be true, rationality would have to be defined as being a characteristic of a particular group (species) which is essential to the group’s nature (essence).
Because it doesn’t, and couldn’t, follow that if something has an immortal soul then it is a rational animal.
For example, we would say that a 6 month old baby has an immortal soul even though the baby is not rational, and may not ever become rational if he’s severely developmentally disabled.
So, in searching for a benchmark for an immortal soul, rationality per se doesn’t seem to be a reliable marker.
The only way around this problem is to claim that the whole human race is a whole body in which it’s parts (individuals) do not constitute the nature, or essence, of the whole; but the nature of the whole constitutes the nature, or essence, of the individual.
I’ll try. It might be helpful to use the word life instead of form when you’re talking about the form of the body. The body’s form is it’s soul because it’s soul is it’s “animating principal”. Man’s form is his soul because man is a living being.
I agree with pretty much everything you have posted including that even encyclicals can be corrected because not EVERY word is ex cathedra. However, when it is ex cathedra, it is because the pope is speaking about faith and morals and requiring that the church universal assent to that teaching. That is exactly what what Pius XII is doing in Paragraph 37. He is saying what Catholics are NOT at liberty to hold, even though he says elsewhere in the encylclical that they may study evolution, he is very clear on what conclusion could not be drawn.
This is the bit that jars with me.
From a theological perspective? Sure. But the question being asked is how we can define it scientifically – or, more to Allyson’s point, how we can define it as a combination of both disciplines. So, if you want to attempt that, have at it!
You’re free to break the circle and come up with your own definition that meets both disciplines’ requirements. Let’s see what you come up with…
No problems. Take your time. I’ll keep an eye out for your response!
So, his thesis is “we might posit theistic evolution if we’re afraid that scientific theories of evolution might one day be confirmed; but, since they can’t be confirmed, we don’t have to worry about that eventuality, so we can throw away the desire to hold to theistic evolution.” Umm…
The definition from a scientific viewpoint is simply the standard definition you’d find in any given dictionary: based on or in accordance with reason or logic. That animals other than Man exhibit reason is beyond doubt.Freddy:
From a theological perspective? Sure. But the question being asked is how we can define it scientifically – or, more to Allyson’s point, how we can define it as a combination of both disciplines. So, if you want to attempt that, have at it!