Religion and the Discomfort of Biology?

[Betterave]

The Catholic teaching (if I am not mistaken) is that the soul is “implanted” when conception occurs. Now consider maternal twins. At the beginning there is one “body” (a few cells, but still) - and of course one “soul”. Shortly afterwards, a physical split occurs and then there will be two (identical) “bodies”. What happens to the soul? Will one body be soulless? If so, which one? Will the two bodies “share” the soul? Will the “original” soul be kept by one, and brand new soul installed in the other one? Will the “original” soul “disappear” and two brand new souls installed at the time of the split? And please, don’t delude yourself that these are hard questions, best left to the Magistretium to answer. These questions show that the Catholic teaching (soul implanted at conception) is sheer nonsense, the concept of soul is meaningless.

I’m not sure why you think this is a difficult case. When the physical split occurs, there are produced two non-identical bodies. (We *call *them ‘identical’ only because they are very similar.) One would retain the already existing spiritual soul, the other would have a spiritual soul conferred on it by God as in normal cases of conception. Why should there be any kind of difficulty in principle here?

Unfortunately, when it comes God’s benevolence, we reach a fundamental difference. Of all the alleged attributes of God, the benevolence is the hardest one to swallow. If you look at the world as is, without the pink glasses of Catholicism, you will see a stark picture without divine love. The actual evidence shows indifference, if not worse.

It depends where you’re looking. What you fail to see may still exist and there are many possible explanations for your failure to see. I think you should try to be much less dogmatic about it - your dogmatism might be one of the causes of your blindness (supposing that’s what it is, of course).

 

[grannymh]

Obviously I find the concept of the “immaterial and immortal soul” unacceptable. But that is not the point, since you do - and that is what counts. But the question of the maternal twins, and their souls is important, from the Catholic point of view.

To be blunt, how can a physical splitting of a few cells (which does not have to happen “naturally”, it can happen as the result of microsurgery) affect something that is totally immaterial? Can a surgeon’s scalpel “split” a soul? Or does this scalpel “entice” or “force” God to create a brand new soul? If, as you say in your other post, you care, then why not share your thoughts about it?

First off, I am not familiar with the term “maternal twins.” Are Identical twins the split of one fertilized egg? Are fraternal twins, two or more fertilized eggs so each is an individual? Then what would be “maternal twins”?

Please bring me up to date about microsurgery splitting a few cells. I thought microsurgery was performed on a fetus.

A surgeon’s scalpel exists in the material realm and can only deal with the material. A soul is immaterial and therefore out of reach of the surgeon’s scalpel. If you are talking about surgery on a fetus, who is human, there would be no need for a new soul.

Hopefully, someone will correct me if I am saying this wrong. The spiritual soul is what makes material matter a human being right from the beginning.

Now, I can understand the concept of the “immaterial and immortal soul” as being unacceptable because I understand the limits of the biological sciences. However, even the most dedicated materialists still have to grapple with the human species which is different in kind from all other species.

May I make a suggestion so you don’t feel pressured to change your position on soul? How about discussing soul as a possibility? That way you are not committed to accepting it. In other words, you keep the discussion open to possibilities but in the end you make your own free choice.

Blessings
granny

The search for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[StAnastasia]

I’m not sure why you think this is a difficult case. When the physical split occurs, there are produced two non-identical bodies. (We *call *them ‘identical’ only because they are very similar.) One would retain the already existing spiritual soul, the other would have a spiritual soul conferred on it by God as in normal cases of conception. Why should there be any kind of difficulty in principle here?

Betterave, would you have a problem with the idea of “soulishness” emerging organically from the process of fertilization? That is, with fertilization the spiritual qualities of an individual emerge.

 

[TheAtheist]

Well, this thread took a very odd turn. Guess i should make the most of it.

Betterave, would you have a problem with the idea of “soulishness” emerging organically from the process of fertilization? That is, with fertilization the spiritual qualities of an individual emerge.

Let me attach a non-specific general addendum to St. Anastasia’s question. I’m sorry my dear, but i’m free-riding.

Is there an established viewpoint regarding clones or animal-human chimeras (scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=human-animal-chimeras)??)

Would they also be “ensouled” so to speak? I asked that question of a Fordham University theologian (yes yes, he’s an SJ if anyone was wondering. They and the Franciscans are the only ones who can put up with my incessant questioning - at least in terms of Catholicism. Probably talked one too many rabbis and buddhist monks ears off too. ) a rather long time ago, but i’m also rather curious about the opinion outside of the ivory tower.

As for this

There is nothing “nihilistic” about the picture, only factual. The universe definitely does not care. Maybe you missed my point, if you look at the universe rationally, only scrutinizing the “cold, hard” facts, there is no sign of divine love or benevolence.

It depends where you’re looking. What you fail to see may still exist and there are many possible explanations for your failure to see. I think you should try to be much less dogmatic about it - your dogmatism might be one of the causes of your blindness (supposing that’s what it is, of course).

Um. Gentlemen. Perhaps it would be wise of us to avoid discussions about whether the glass is half empty or half full. You’ll be chasing each others’ tails for a week with little to show for it besides the opinion that the other person is too dogmatic in their thinking or cannot objectively perceive the universe.

 

[StAnastasia]

Let me attach a non-specific general addendum to St. Anastasia’s question. I’m sorry my dear, but i’m free-riding. Is there an established viewpoint regarding clones or animal-human chimeras (scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=human-animal-chimeras)??)

TheAtheist, this is an excellent question that I have pondered a lot myself. In fact, I would add to it the problem of the almost infinite gradation of “souls” in the hominid lineage. Five million years elapsed between the divergence of hominids and the other great apes from their common ancestor. In that time, imperceptibly, generation by generation, hominids over twenty million generations increased in brain size and in the capacities that would in the end make us human, as Pope Benedict himself has said. Never at any point could one say that here we have definitely a human being who had non-human parents. Never at any point could one say that here we have an ensouled human being whose parents did not have “immortal souls.”

StAnastasia

 

[likuske]

By maternal twins did you mean identical or more appropriately monozygotic twins? If so, then yes, the when the sperm and egg come together to create a human being then that is when the soul is “implanted.” Now when the splitting of the egg occurrs to form a new embryo (a new person) then a new soul is “implanted” when there is a new person and the same would be for triplets and so forth just the same as with dizygotic twins. One body will not be souless and the “original one will not diappear.” With each new creation there will be a new soul. The same question was once brought up with cloning. Will the clone be considered a separate person even though she has the same DNA or will she be a subhuman with no soul? Since she occupies different space in this world then, yes, she is a separate human being with a soul. As for my comment on these questions being complex they are and I am not a theologian or a biologist so I have to do a little research into before I can pose an answer to your questions. Ultimately we Catholics believe that our church is infallible when it comes to dogmatic teachings and these kinds of questions are left to the magisterium to answer. The church always prudent does not rush to make dogmatic teachings about certain things that up until a few years ago was not possible like cloning, artificially creating a life one petri dish and so on.

To an atheist who only believes in the material or anyone who only believes in material things the concept of a soul would be meaningless because they do not believe in the spiritual. Your comment that is is “sheer nonsense” is a bit strong. Do you hold that all people of faith are wrong and believe in nonsense? If so, it won’t matter how much I answer your questions and how long we continue this discussion because in the end it will be mere nonsense to you. In the end for a 'believer no amount of evidence is necessary, for the unbeliever no amount of evidence will be enough."

Yes, this is the biggest argument that atheists have for the existence of God. I am curious to hear why you describle Catholicism as having rose colored glasses? What evidence and stark picture are you talking about? Are you referring that life isn’t fair and that bad things happen to good people? Yes, there is evil in this world but that on its own does not prove that there is no benevolent God. If fact the church may have a more somber and humbling view of reality that some may find hard to swallow. God is all good and deserving of all praise. We humans are not deserving of anything good. Our very nature tends toward evil and selfishness. God in his goodness gives us good things even though we are deserving of none. If we are deserving of anything it is death but God is good and merciful and like I said before it is a hard thing to accept might be hard for some to swallow.

Are the adroids both part machine and part human? The question whether I would have problems with them would be if they were just machines with some human like parts with no soul then no. But it gets tricky because what part would be human (the brain, the heart)? If they are to be considered as fully human like a clone then yes I would have problems with such creations because a human is a sacred thing to Catholics and to be treated with respect. I cannot disregard the soul because that is what makes humans different from all other creations and what makes calls for respect towards us. As I mentioned before I am not an apologist (I don’t do this for a living) but there are people out there who do and if I am not able to answer your questions satisfactorily there are organizations out there that might be able to such as the vatican website and you might also want to check out catholic planet which has current articles on moral theology.

I have not met anyone or known of anyone and would be hard pressed to find anyone out there whos has lived forever or at least a few hundred years.

 

[grannymh]

In my humble opinion, the basic discomfort of biological sciences is that they do not go beyond the finality of decomposition.

 

[edwest2]

TheAtheist, this is an excellent question that I have pondered a lot myself. In fact, I would add to it the problem of the almost infinite gradation of “souls” in the hominid lineage. Five million years elapsed between the divergence of hominids and the other great apes from their common ancestor. In that time, imperceptibly, generation by generation, hominids over twenty million generations increased in brain size and in the capacities that would in the end make us human, as Pope Benedict himself has said. Never at any point could one say that here we have definitely a human being who had non-human parents. Never at any point could one say that here we have an ensouled human being whose parents did not have “immortal souls.”

StAnastasia

A very strange theory and one not supported by the Church. Humans did not gradually become human, they were always human. This odd idea that man gradually, through neurological development, could one day detect God is unsupported. Adam and Eve are given as the parents of all. Humani Generis lays this out in detail, and Communion and Stewardship, in continuity with Humani Generis, reaffirms this.

Science has nothing to say about the ontological leap to the human being. Pope Benedict has said that this gradual development cannot be proven.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

A very strange theory and one not supported by the Church. Humans did not gradually become human, they were always human. This odd idea that man gradually, through neurological development, could one day detect God is unsupported. Ed

Ed, actually this is mainstream, not a strange theory. The strange theory is the poofing of humans into existence. You are free to believe in poofing, of course, but it has no foundation in science, and it seems theologically unnecessary.

 

[StAnastasia]

In my humble opinion, the basic discomfort of biological sciences is that they do not go beyond the finality of decomposition.

Quite right grannymh. Neither do physics, astronomy, chemistry or geology. Like biology, these sciences are constrained by the limits of their empirical methodology.

 

[grannymh]

Ed, actually this is mainstream, not a strange theory. The strange theory is the poofing of humans into existence. You are free to believe in poofing, of course, but it has no foundation in science, and it seems theologically unnecessary.

There is more to real science and real theology than what the mainstream media promotes. In other words, there is more to real religion and real biological sciences which can be quite discomforting to both sides of the “poofing” theory which you mentioned.

 

[grannymh]

Quite right grannymh. Neither do physics, astronomy, chemistry or geology. Like biology, these sciences are constrained by the limits of their empirical methodology.

By all means, the realm of science is that of the material and physical realm. But that does not automatically eliminate the immaterial or spiritual realm from inquiry as if it were non-existent.

Ah, one says. The immaterial cannot be put under a natural science microscope. True. But that does not exclude the reality of spiritual existence which can be known by the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought.

Blessings,
granny

Adam and Eve are real by the grace of God.

 

[Betterave]

Betterave, would you have a problem with the idea of “soulishness” emerging organically from the process of fertilization? That is, with fertilization the spiritual qualities of an individual emerge.

Yes. I would have a problem because it is not at all clear what you would mean to suggest with such a statement. Can you clarify?

 

[Betterave]

Well, this thread took a very odd turn. Guess i should make the most of it.

You mean this isn’t what you wanted to talk about?

Is there an established viewpoint regarding clones or animal-human chimeras (scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=human-animal-chimeras)??)

Would they also be “ensouled” so to speak? I asked that question of a Fordham University theologian (yes yes, he’s an SJ if anyone was wondering. They and the Franciscans are the only ones who can put up with my incessant questioning - at least in terms of Catholicism. Probably talked one too many rabbis and buddhist monks ears off too. ) a rather long time ago, but i’m also rather curious about the opinion outside of the ivory tower.

The clone case is just as obvious as the twinning case. The chimera case is more difficult. Your link didn’t work for me so I may be missing some of the context of what you’re asking, but at the moment of conception it would probably not be possible to evaluate what kind of soul a chimera possesses. Souls are things we differentiate according to their proper function, which is first potential and only gradually actualized. In the order of knowledge we proceed from what is more known to what is less known… In other words, we can’t recognize what kind of innate potential (what kind of soul) a chimera possesses until we watch it grow up so as to actualize those potentialities.

(What did your Fordham SJ have to say about it?)

Um. Gentlemen. Perhaps it would be wise of us to avoid discussions about whether the glass is half empty or half full. You’ll be chasing each others’ tails for a week with little to show for it besides the opinion that the other person is too dogmatic in their thinking or cannot objectively perceive the universe.

I think you’re mischaracterizing my comments.

 

[edwest2]

Ed, actually this is mainstream, not a strange theory. The strange theory is the poofing of humans into existence. You are free to believe in poofing, of course, but it has no foundation in science, and it seems theologically unnecessary.

On what basis do you believe in the reality of God’s work, including the miracles performed by Jesus? The ‘poofing,’ as you put it, of loaves and fishes? Or his ability to raise the dead? No science or technology involved there. No evidence for a scientist standing next to Him to examine. Would bringing Himself back to life fall under this category as well? God adding a soul to each human being? Now, that’s poofing.

Peace,
Ed

 

[ricmat]

Ed, actually this is mainstream, not a strange theory. The strange theory is the poofing of humans into existence. You are free to believe in poofing, of course, but it has no foundation in science, and it seems theologically unnecessary.

Could you define, and give an example of what you mean by theologically necessary? I’m not sure what you mean by theologically unnecessary.

 

[StAnastasia]

By all means, the realm of science is that of the material and physical realm. But that does not automatically eliminate the immaterial or spiritual realm from inquiry as if it were non-existent.

Precisely. That is the error of those who falsely assume that legitimate methodological naturalism ineluctably entails metaphysical naturalism.

 

[StAnastasia]

There is more to real science and real theology than what the mainstream media promotes. In other words, there is more to real religion and real biological sciences which can be quite discomforting to both sides of the “poofing” theory which you mentioned.

For example?

 

[StAnastasia]

Yes. I would have a problem because it is not at all clear what you would mean to suggest with such a statement. Can you clarify?

Betterave, what is not clear to me is what is meant by the “insertion” of the soul. Since it is not clear how one inserts an immaterial principle into a material zygote, I’m wondering if there might be theologically or philosophically different language for expressing the way in which sperm and egg become a living, self-organizing being.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

Would bringing Himself back to life fall under this category as well? Peace,Ed

Who bringing whomself back to life?