Souls With Bodies vs. Bodies With Souls

[Bubba_Switzler]

What leads one to believe that human consciousness exists apart from the body, between death and resurrection?

 

[Gorgias]

If all animals have souls and human animals have human souls there is no need for a replacement.

Right. Aquinas would assert that animals have sensitive souls, but humans – in addition – have rational souls. It’s not a matter of ‘replacement’, but ‘addition’.

At some point in evolution not only human bodies but human souls came into being.

No – at some point in time, not in evolution. Christian theology would assert that the soul isn’t a feature that ‘evolved’.

At a minimum, we can say that we experience animal urges e.g. to eat and copulate, right? Are those external forces or internal to our essential being?

‘Animal urges’ are what Aquinas was addressing with the notion of ‘sensitive appetites’ and the ‘sensitive soul’. These are part of our nature as animals. However, if by our ‘essential being’, you’re speaking of our rationality (that is, what makes us ‘human’), then no, these are not rational ‘appetites’.

 

[Gorgias]

What leads one to believe that human consciousness exists apart from the body, between death and resurrection?

It depends on what you mean by ‘consciousness’. What’s the definition that you’re presuming, here?

Be careful, though – if your definition presumes a physical body, then we’re gonna call you on that assertion, since it stacks the deck! On the other hand, if the definition only presumes a human soul, then we can discuss it in the context of Christian theology. Obviously, though, if the ground rules contained in your definition preclude a discussion of human nature (vis-a-vis the soul), then the question is skewed in such a way as to prevent a discussion that includes a theological component.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

It depends on what you mean by ‘consciousness’. What’s the definition that you’re presuming, here?

Be careful, though – if your definition presumes a physical body, then we’re gonna call you on that assertion, since it stacks the deck! On the other hand, if the definition only presumes a human soul, then we can discuss it in the context of Christian theology. Obviously, though, if the ground rules contained in your definition preclude a discussion of human nature (vis-a-vis the soul), then the question is skewed in such a way as to prevent a discussion that includes a theological component.

Well, indeed. If I try to imagine a disembodied conscience I would imagine something like a sensory deprivation tank:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I could think but I would not be able experience or do anything. That, of course, presuposes that my cognition is not my physical brain.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

No – at some point in time, not in evolution. Christian theology would assert that the soul isn’t a feature that ‘evolved’.

I think I know what you’re saying but, to be clear, what I’m suggesting is that if the soul were an emergent property of organic materiality then you would have an evolution of humanoids with increasingly sophisticated souls until, at some point, fully rational human beings were born (Adam and Eve for our discussion). They would have a human soul from birth. If souls are, in this way, tied to organic materiality it would be fair to say that souls evolved in parallel with our material bodies.

‘Animal urges’ are what Aquinas was addressing with the notion of ‘sensitive appetites’ and the ‘sensitive soul’. These are part of our nature as animals. However, if by our ‘essential being’, you’re speaking of our rationality (that is, what makes us ‘human’), then no, these are not rational ‘appetites’.

Right, what this view implies is that “we” are essentially rational and that our sensitive appetites are outside this essential self as opposed to intrinsic to it. In this view, if I understand it properly, rationality is something acquired from the soul (perhaps created supernatually at conception) and not something that evolves naturally.

 

[fisherman_carl]

I think Aquinas would say that God gave humans a rational soul. It wasn’t evolved. Nor does it rely on the body for its existence. The rational part, having an intellect and a will, was given to man who was created in His image. So the part that survives the death of the body does so because God wills it and not because there is something in the body that keeps it in existence. For Aquinas would say that animals who lack this rational quality, their souls, simply go out of existence when they die. The rational mind of the human already exists apart from the the body and therefore continues to exist after the death of the body. Whereas the animal is completely sensual and instinctive, corresponding to the functions of the body, such that there is nothing in the soul of an animal that doesn’t correspond to the body, and thus is so connected with the body that it does not survive its death.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I think Aquinas would say that God gave humans a rational soul. It wasn’t evolved.

Well, yes, of course, but then Aquinas did not know Darwin. Suppose, though, that we want to harmonize Aquinas and Darwin. Let’s imagine what Aquinas would say if he had the opportunity to study modern theories of evolution.

Nor does it rely on the body for its existence. The rational part, having an intellect and a will, was given to man who was created in His image. So the part that survives the death of the body does so because God wills it and not because there is something in the body that keeps it in existence. For Aquinas would say that animals who lack this rational quality, their souls, simply go out of existence when they die.

Practically anything is possible if God wills it. But how might we understand what it is that God wills especially in light of the indirect creation we see in the natural world.

The rational mind of the human already exists apart from the the body and therefore continues to exist after the death of the body.

How do we know this? What leads you to believe this is true? Is “rational mind” the soul?

Whereas the animal is completely sensual and instinctive, corresponding to the functions of the body, such that there is nothing in the soul of an animal that doesn’t correspond to the body, and thus is so connected with the body that it does not survive its death.

Could God will the animal soul to survive the death of the body?

 

[fisherman_carl]

Well, yes, of course, but then Aquinas did not know Darwin. Suppose, though, that we want to harmonize Aquinas and Darwin. Let’s imagine what Aquinas would say if he had the opportunity to study modern theories of evolution.

For Aquinas the soul is made by God and therefore undergoes no natural evolution.

Practically anything is possible if God wills it. But how might we understand what it is that God wills especially in light of the indirect creation we see in the natural world.

How do we know this? What leads you to believe this is true? Is “rational mind” the soul?

There is a debate among modern philosophers about the immaterial mind. Aquinas never had such a debate in his day. He didn’t talk about the immaterial mind but of the rational soul which has an intellect and a will. For Aquinas the soul was the form of the body, based on Aristotle. However, the human soul in particular had qualities like abstract reasoning that do not exist in physical natures, but in the immaterial soul. In modern philosophy of the mind there is a problem with the concept of a physical substance being able to think about something else. The immaterial mind seems to deal in immaterial thoughts. And there is nothing about the nature of physical substance that dictates how something in the physical world must be represented in a physical substance like a brain. We can for instance represent things in the physical world in computers using binary symbols. However, it takes an already existing mind to create these symbols. They aren’t just spontaneously generated by the nature of binary numbers or hard drives. They required a human mind to make them. Thus, if the mind was purely physical and it holds symbolic representations of objects in the world that we think about then where do these representations come from? There is nothing about a physical thing that would for instance dictate what a giraffe should be represented as. And especially for abstract concepts where there is no corresponding physical object. In fact everything you are reading now involves the use of your mind to understand such abstract concepts.

Could God will the animal soul to survive the death of the body?

For Aquinas God gave man an intellect so he could contemplate God and enter into the beatific vision. That is the reason for man’s continued existence. However, the animals do not have this ability and therefore can not experience the beatific vision. Thus Aquinas thought there was no reason for God to have animals survive death. Their purpose was served on earth. Now, some others have suggested that God may allow certain animals in heaven if they increase our joy there, like pets for instance.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

For Aquinas the soul is made by God and therefore undergoes no natural evolution.

Again, though, Aquinas (and Aristotle) had no concept of evolution. They did have a concept of natural birth, of course, so perhaps that is the disinction to be made. In pre-Darwin terms, humans were always human, birds were always birds, etc. But a human was born of the sexual union of two people. So Aquinas would argue, relevantly, that the soul of a child is not the product of a sexual union, right?

There is a debate among modern philosophers about the immaterial mind. Aquinas never had such a debate in his day. He didn’t talk about the immaterial mind but of the rational soul which has an intellect and a will. For Aquinas the soul was the form of the body, based on Aristotle. However, the human soul in particular had qualities like abstract reasoning that do not exist in physical natures, but in the immaterial soul. In modern philosophy of the mind there is a problem with the concept of a physical substance being able to think about something else. The immaterial mind seems to deal in immaterial thoughts. And there is nothing about the nature of physical substance that dictates how something in the physical world must be represented in a physical substance like a brain. We can for instance represent things in the physical world in computers using binary symbols. However, it takes an already existing mind to create these symbols. They aren’t just spontaneously generated by the nature of binary numbers or hard drives. They required a human mind to make them. Thus, if the mind was purely physical and it holds symbolic representations of objects in the world that we think about then where do these representations come from? There is nothing about a physical thing that would for instance dictate what a giraffe should be represented as. And especially for abstract concepts where there is no corresponding physical object. In fact everything you are reading now involves the use of your mind to understand such abstract concepts.

Ok, but I’m not proposing a purely material humanity. I understand that debate and why it is problematic. But what in Christian theology or anthropology requires that the soul not be an emergent property of the material body? What precludes a natural soul?

 

[davidv]

Again, though, Aquinas (and Aristotle) had no concept of evolution. They did have a concept of natural birth, of course, so perhaps that is the disinction to be made. In pre-Darwin terms, humans were always human, birds were always birds, etc. But a human was born of the sexual union of two people. So Aquinas would argue, relevantly, that the soul of a child is not the product of a sexual union, right?

Ok, but I’m not proposing a purely material humanity. I understand that debate and why it is problematic. But what in Christian theology or anthropology requires that the soul not be an emergent property of the material body? What precludes a natural soul?

What did Darwin teach about the soul? And why is it relevant?

The Church teaching on the origin of each individual precludes a natural soul.

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.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Again, though, Aquinas (and Aristotle) had no concept of evolution. They did have a concept of natural birth, of course, so perhaps that is the disinction to be made. In pre-Darwin terms, humans were always human, birds were always birds, etc. But a human was born of the sexual union of two people. So Aquinas would argue, relevantly, that the soul of a child is not the product of a sexual union, right?

I think Aquinas would have argued more based on the fact that man was created in the image and likeness of God that his soul was specially created by God. And not the result of some physical process. And the other that could be said about this is that if the soul is immaterial then how could it evolve from physical substance? For Aquinas things are composite of form and matter. A ball for instance might have the form of a sphere, and be bouncy and soft. While its matter may be what it is composed of. The soul is defined as the form of something that is alive. Whereas the form of a ball is not a soul and it does not survive the melting of the ball.

Ok, but I’m not proposing a purely material humanity. I understand that debate and why it is problematic. But what in Christian theology or anthropology requires that the soul not be an emergent property of the material body? What precludes a natural soul?

The soul is the form of a human. Thus it always must have existed with the body since it describes the body. The human soul is created by God in his image. So while it may be possible for animals to evolve, it would not be possible for an immaterial and immortal soul created in the image of God’s own eternity to evolve from physical processes. The thing with Aquinas is that he is not a materialist, but neither does he believe the soul is a separate substance from the body. After all, the soul is the form of the body. Rather the soul and body together make one substance. Thus, a bodiless soul is not fully human, but is incomplete. Our soul and body together make us what God created us to be. The body is not merely a mechanical suit. And the soul is not a ghost in a machine.

 

[Gorgias]

I think I know what you’re saying but, to be clear, what I’m suggesting is that if the soul were an emergent property of organic materiality then you would have an evolution of humanoids with increasingly sophisticated souls

You make the claim (in a later post) that perhaps Aquinas would think differently about souls if he knew anything about evolution. However, that doesn’t stand to reason. ‘Evolution’ is only possible for physical bodies – by definition, we’re talking about the ways that physical properties of creatures change in response to their environment. However, the soul does not have physical properties; therefore, by definition, it cannot ‘evolve’. (Christian theology agrees on this point: souls are “immediately created” by God, and therefore, are not subject to ‘evolution’.)

That being the case, your suggestion that humans had “increasingly sophisticated souls” doesn’t hold up. Souls are souls – whether in Adam and Eve, or you and I, or the last humans to be born on earth prior to the eschaton. There’s simply no evolutionary mechanism that can apply to them. (If you’d like to posit that there’s an analogous mechanism that applies to purely spiritual entities, you’re free to do so – but that would mean that you not only have to propose the mechanism but also substantiate your proposition. )

If souls are, in this way, tied to organic materiality it would be fair to say that souls evolved in parallel with our material bodies.

Souls are associated with humans; that does not imply that they are subject to the same physical forces that bodies encounter.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I think Aquinas would have argued more based on the fact that man was created in the image and likeness of God that his soul was specially created by God. And not the result of some physical process.

I don’t see the logic in that. It sounds to me like the “Made by hand” sticker on tourist merchandise that is supposed to raise the value of it. Wouldn’t it be interesting if human souls were natural products like human bodies and still ended up being in God’s image?

And the other that could be said about this is that if the soul is immaterial then how could it evolve from physical substance? For Aquinas things are composite of form and matter. A ball for instance might have the form of a sphere, and be bouncy and soft. While its matter may be what it is composed of. The soul is defined as the form of something that is alive. Whereas the form of a ball is not a soul and it does not survive the melting of the ball.

I don’t have a pat answer to this but it doesn’t seem as absurd to me as it must to you. But Aquinas seemed to be of the opinion that animals have souls of some sort. (Plants too?) It’s possible, of course, that God forms these souls “by hand” but it also seems entirely reasonable to imagine that animal souls are just the animation of material bodies. At some point sophisicated chemical reactions cross the threshold to animate beings with presumable pretty simple souls. How life arises from cheical reactions is still not well understood but that doesn’t mean that it must be supernatural. And if animal souls can be natural, why not human souls?

The soul is the form of a human. Thus it always must have existed with the body since it describes the body. The human soul is created by God in his image. So while it may be possible for animals to evolve, it would not be possible for an immaterial and immortal soul created in the image of God’s own eternity to evolve from physical processes. The thing with Aquinas is that he is not a materialist, but neither does he believe the soul is a separate substance from the body. After all, the soul is the form of the body. Rather the soul and body together make one substance. Thus, a bodiless soul is not fully human, but is incomplete. Our soul and body together make us what God created us to be. The body is not merely a mechanical suit. And the soul is not a ghost in a machine.

I think we’re still debating the ‘immortality’ of the soul. If the soul is a property of a physical body then it would not have an existence apart from the body and we would not be conscious after death, only upon resurrection. If the soul is an emergent property of the physical body then it would be conceible for it to evolve with the evolution of the body.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

You make the claim (in a later post) that perhaps Aquinas would think differently about souls if he knew anything about evolution. However, that doesn’t stand to reason. ‘Evolution’ is only possible for physical bodies – by definition, we’re talking about the ways that physical properties of creatures change in response to their environment. However, the soul does not have physical properties; therefore, by definition, it cannot ‘evolve’. (Christian theology agrees on this point: souls are “immediately created” by God, and therefore, are not subject to ‘evolution’.)

“Claim” is a bit strong, how about “conjecture”? True, the soul does not have physical properties but it is not unrelated to the body. We are considering the body/soul conjunction. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that the soul is an emergent property of the body and that different bodies (e.g. snake vs. tiger) have different souls and that the soul influences the body in some way (e.g. primitive decision making) then environment could certainly influence the evolution of the soul. Humans, with their human souls, would have some environmental advantage over, say, cromagnon man with his more primitive soul and crowd out the later in competition for resources.

That being the case, your suggestion that humans had “increasingly sophisticated souls” doesn’t hold up. Souls are souls – whether in Adam and Eve, or you and I, or the last humans to be born on earth prior to the eschaton. There’s simply no evolutionary mechanism that can apply to them. (If you’d like to posit that there’s an analogous mechanism that applies to purely spiritual entities, you’re free to do so – but that would mean that you not only have to propose the mechanism but also substantiate your proposition.

Souls are associated with humans; that does not imply that they are subject to the same physical forces that bodies encounter.

But we recognize a difference between animal souls and human souls, right?

See above (this and the previous post) for my proposed mechanism of soul evolution.

 

[davidv]

I don’t see the logic in that.

How have you evaluated the logic. Where do you see a difficulty?

It sounds to me like the “Made by hand” sticker on tourist merchandise that is supposed to raise the value of it.

Why does it sound this way?

Wouldn’t it be interesting if human souls were natural products like human bodies and still ended up being in God’s image?

Why would falsehood be more interesting the truth? This would invalidate a saying, “Truth is stranger than fiction”.

I don’t have a pat answer to this but it doesn’t seem as absurd to me as it must to you. But Aquinas seemed to be of the opinion that animals have souls of some sort. (Plants too?) It’s possible, of course, that God forms these souls “by hand” but it also seems entirely reasonable to imagine that animal souls are just the animation of material bodies. At some point sophisicated chemical reactions cross the threshold to animate beings with presumable pretty simple souls. How life arises from cheical reactions is still not well understood but that doesn’t mean that it must be supernatural. And if animal souls can be natural, why not human souls?

Why should they be? Genesis records that humans are of a different kind the rest of the living creatures.

I think we’re still debating the ‘immortality’ of the soul.

Why do you think this?

If the soul is a property of a physical body then it would not have an existence apart from the body and we would not be conscious after death, only upon resurrection. If the soul is an emergent property of the physical body then it would be conceible for it to evolve with the evolution of the body.

Since the soul is not a property of the body, the rest of this statement is not valid.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

How have you evaluated the logic. Where do you see a difficulty?

It appears to me to be a non-sequitor. Perhaps you could help me see why you think the conclusion (his soul was specially created by God. And not the result of some physical process) necessarily follows the premises (man was created in the image and likeness of God)?

Why should they be? Genesis records that humans are of a different kind the rest of the living creatures.

Well, yes, apples are different from oranges too. It doesn’t follow that one is a result of natural processes and the other supernatural creation.

Why do you think this?

Two reasons: 1) We are body/soul composite, that is our present experience, the one thing we know with certainty. 2) We expect a resurrection after death, a new composite of body/soul. Between the two of these it seems as if the body is, in some as yet unstated way, essential to the life of the soul. It seems at least plausible, then, that the soul has no experience without the body.

If it were the case that the soul had an experience apart from the body that is sufficent to love and serve God and to be with Him forever then the natural questinon is: why a ressurection?

 

[NM505StKate]

We are humans?

 

[davidv]

It appears to me to be a non-sequitor.

This is not a very thorough analysis. It also seems to be based on a strawman.

Perhaps you could help me see why you think the conclusion (his soul was specially created by God. And not the result of some physical process) necessarily follows the premises (man was created in the image and likeness of God)?

I think you are missing some of the premises.
Genesis 2:20:

The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man[c] there was not found a helper as his partner.

Well, yes, apples are different from oranges too. It doesn’t follow that one is a result of natural processes and the other supernatural creation.

I think you missed the point and misunderstand the difference of which I was speaking.

Two reasons: 1) We are body/soul composite, that is our present experience, the one thing we know with certainty. 2) We expect a resurrection after death, a new composite of body/soul. Between the two of these it seems as if the body is, in some as yet unstated way, essential to the life of the soul. It seems at least plausible, then, that the soul has no experience without the body.

If it were the case that the soul had an experience apart from the body that is sufficent to love and serve God and to be with Him forever then the natural questinon is: why a ressurection?

 

[davidv]

We are humans?

If not, what are we?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

This is not a very thorough analysis. It also seems to be based on a strawman. I think you are missing some of the premises.

Why don’t you elaborate then.

I think you missed the point and misunderstand the difference of which I was speaking.

So what is the difference that leads to the conclusion you claimed?