Souls

[Neithan]

hurst:

How would it differ from an animal?

Let’s say ‘SusanB’ is the clone of ‘SusanA,’ but from all empirical observation SusanB might as well be SusanA’s identical twin from birth. I mean that she is entirely human: she believes in God, prays, even hopes for life after death, is capable of abstract thought, speaks and understands language normally, draws pictures, writes stories, learns philosophy and science, demonstrates imaginative creativity, experiences regret and remorse… how could we possibly say she doesn’t have a spiritual soul?

So it is not conceived, and not conjoined. Thus, no soul.

The moment that full genetic information is transferred from one individual into another–say the moment the DNA is injected into the empty egg cell and begins to develop–that could possibly be a moment of conception, God infuses a new human soul and an entirely new person results, albeit with the identical genetic information as another. No different, really, from identical twins.

 

[hurst]

Let’s say ‘SusanB’ is the clone of ‘SusanA,’ but from all empirical observation SusanB might as well be SusanA’s identical twin from birth. I mean that she is entirely human: she believes in God, prays, even hopes for life after death, is capable of abstract thought, speaks and understands language normally, draws pictures, writes stories, learns philosophy and science, demonstrates imaginative creativity, experiences regret and remorse… how could we possibly say she doesn’t have a spiritual soul?

Wait a minute. Your description is not totally based on external observation. For one thing, how do you know she believes in God? How do you know she prays with her heart, or hopes with her heart for life after death? Things spoken with lips can be faked. Those things which other people have exhibited can be part of a knowledge base for a program.

On the other hand, such behavior would rule out it being a mere animal.

Now, if a “clone” actually survived, and grew up like most other people, exhibiting independence, emotions, intelligence, personality, and self-awareness; got married, had children, took interest in sports and hobbies, sang songs, showed charity and self-sacrifice and other virtues such as humility, obedience, and kindness; and took responsibility for their own actions etc., then I would concede that God must have given such a creature a spiritual soul. For I don’t think anyone could program that, even if it were monitored or manipulated. Nor do I think a devil could possess a blank body and do those things. Nor do I think an angel in the form of a person would do that or be around that long.

But I don’t think God would do that. Nor do I think mankind has any business in trying to find out. Can we really bear the responsibility of the results?

Neithan:

The moment that full genetic information is transferred from one individual into another–say the moment the DNA is injected into the empty egg cell and begins to develop–that could possibly be a moment of conception, God infuses a new human soul and an entirely new person results, albeit with the identical genetic information as another.

If God were to do that, then who am I to say no? Yet, I don’t think He would. The dead genetic material being put into a condition of “life” makes me think of a frozen dead person later brought to life via advanced technology. Will God put a new soul into it? I’d say no. And I’d say no to God putting a soul into the DNA from remnants of the man’s fingernails.

This brings up a lot of questions that we don’t really know the answers for. Here is a link to a theological opinion:
dwc.org/questions/clone_soul.shtml

Neithan:

No different, really, from identical twins.

Do twins share identical DNA?

hurst

 

[Neithan]

But I don’t think God would do that. Nor do I think mankind has any business in trying to find out. Can we really bear the responsibility of the results?

I agree that we have no business messing with the designs of God, and human cloning is seriously encroaching on that territory (however, it is interesting that He has given us the option).
There are just far too many ethical problems with it–why not stick with non-embryonic stem cells? I’m afraid that sometime soon we probably will hear of the first cloned human being (perhaps within the next decade or so). Eventually (unfortunately), it willl probably happen. Curiosity is the driving force of science, but it can lead down some dark paths with dangerous consequences (think: atom bomb).

I for one pray that God would give fully spiritual souls even to human clones. What kind of abomination would we have on our hands if He didn’t?

Do twins share identical DNA?

Yep. They come from the same fertilized egg (same genetic information). Yet, they each have completely independent personalities, which demonstrates unique spiritual souls.
It’s troublesome for crime investigators when they track DNA evidence to an individual who has an identical twin!

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Thanks everybody for being so responsive : D

First, I want to argue that the existence of SusanB is a possibility. God is the one who puts souls into physical matter; presumably God could choose not to do so (maybe God never would, but certainly God could). It is possible for there to be a thing with the same physical composition as a normal human, but which has no soul. The question is: how would we go about distinguishing SusanA (soul) from SusanB (no soul)? Now, we will, in all likelihood, never have to deal with such a situation, but that’s not really the point.

Some people have answered that we could do so - that there are human behaviors which cannot be accounted for solely by physical processes (eg “check her pulse”). Others have been less clear on that point (eg self-awareness). Is this a point that the CC is clear on, or have you drawn your own conclusions (and if so, why?)?

 

[thistle]

EnterTheBowser:

Thanks everybody for being so responsive : D

First, I want to argue that the existence of SusanB is a possibility. God is the one who puts souls into physical matter; presumably God could choose not to do so (maybe God never would, but certainly God could). It is possible for there to be a thing with the same physical composition as a normal human, but which has no soul. The question is: how would we go about distinguishing SusanA (soul) from SusanB (no soul)? Now, we will, in all likelihood, never have to deal with such a situation, but that’s not really the point.

Some people have answered that we could do so - that there are human behaviors which cannot be accounted for solely by physical processes (eg “check her pulse”). Others have been less clear on that point (eg self-awareness). Is this a point that the CC is clear on, or have you drawn your own conclusions (and if so, why?)?

All humans have a soul. I’m still not clear on what you mean by “same physical composition as a human”. To me its very clear. If you are human (also a clone) you have a spiritual soul which is immortal. Anything not human (animal or plant) has a mortal soul which dies upon the death of the animal or plant.

 

[Fidelis]

thistle:

All humans have a soul. I’m still not clear on what you mean by “same physical composition as a human”. To me its very clear. If you are human (also a clone) you have a spiritual soul which is immortal. Anything not human (animal or plant) has a mortal soul which dies upon the death of the animal or plant.

Properly speaking, animals do not have souls. Animals (and even plants) have an animating spirit (anima) but not a soul, imortal or otherwise.

For a terrific explanation of this, I recommend the first few chapters of “Theology For Beginners,” by Frank Sheed.
shop.catholic.com/cgi-local/SoftCart.exe/online-store/scstore/p-B0072.html?L+scstore+lcys3569ff17aa17+1142092940

This book is much deeper than the title indicates, but is written, like all Sheed’s work, in a very accessable style.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

thistle:

All humans have a soul. I’m still not clear on what you mean by “same physical composition as a human”. To me its very clear. If you are human (also a clone) you have a spiritual soul which is immortal.

…

I imagine that (in a certain sense) you are right to say that all humans have souls. But that doesn’t really matter to the present discussion.

By “same physical composition,” I mean that if we were to take SusanB and SusanA apart, and look at the structure of all the physical bits of them - molecules in motion, as it were - we wouldn’t find any important differences (ie no more than we’d find between you and me).

 

[thistle]

Fidelis:

Properly speaking, animals do not have souls. Animals (and even plants) have an animating spirit (anima) but not a soul, imortal or otherwise.

For a terrific explanation of this, I recommend the first few chapters of “Theology For Beginners,” by Frank Sheed.
shop.catholic.com/cgi-local/SoftCart.exe/online-store/scstore/p-B0072.html?L+scstore+lcys3569ff17aa17+1142092940

This book is much deeper than the title indicates, but is written, like all Sheed’s work, in a very accessable style.

I have that book. Actually he does talk about the souls of animals and plants.
Page 60. He says :The souls, the life principles of plants and animals produce no vital activities which rise above matter".

 

[hurst]

EnterTheBowser:

The question is: how would we go about distinguishing SusanA (soul) from SusanB (no soul)?
…
Is this a point that the CC is clear on, or have you drawn your own conclusions (and if so, why?)?

The only thing I have been able to find is that the Church is not clear on this - probably because it hasn’t needed to be up to this point. I was only able to find a theological opinion about it.

Clone Soul
Answered by:
Fr. Richard Shoda, PERSONAL THEOLOGICAL OPINION

Can a God-given soul be duplicated? No.

Would a clone have a soul? Philosophically, yes. The soul is the principle of animation. Plants and animals have a philosophical soul, but with differing levels of sophistication. Nor is the soul co-extensive with the body it animates.

Since the Catholic Church does not know exactly when God gives a soul to a developing child in the womb, the Church opts for the very moment of conception.

How does the Church, or anyone for that matter, understand “conception”?

General biological knowledge would understand it as the union of the sperm and the egg.

Can one say that conception takes place in cloning when the genetic material is sucked out of an unfertilized ovum and refilled with the genetic material from the person to be cloned? I would answer, no.

Or if the ovum is fertilized, should one suck out the “God-given ensouled” genetic material to refill the ovum with another’s genetic material that is “God-given ensouled” or not? I would again answer, no.

While not approved by the Church, a child conceived through incest and rape, still has a God-given soul. To the best of my knowledge, this would apply to test-tube conceptions.

The Catholic Church teaches that every soul is an individual act of creation by God. Nor is there some “well of souls” from which God reincarnates souls. Therefore, if clones were to have God-given souls, then God would have to enter the process somewhere along the way. Presumably, this would be at the very beginning of the process.

Another logical question. If there is no God-given soul to a human clone, then what do we have. Just another higher primate?

In time, after sufficient reflection, (and, I dare say, the first human cloning), I am sure the Church will have to answer the question…

dwc.org/questions/clone_soul.shtml

hurst

 

[Neithan]

EnterTheBowser:

It is possible for there to be a thing with the same physical composition as a normal human, but which has no soul.

If something does not have a soul it is not alive, so for SusanB to be a living organism–much less human–she would require a soul. Soul=life-principle. The proof that this is not a material thing lies in the fact that we cannot materially revive/reanimate dead bodies (i.e. Frankenstein is science fiction).
Since the soul is the *form *of the human body, I speculate that even a clone would be given a uniquely spiritual soul or else it couldn’t develop into a person.

Try reading this article on the subject from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Neithan:

If something does not have a soul it is not alive, so for SusanB to be a living organism–much less human–she would require a soul.

…

So are you saying, then that purely physical processes cannot account for what we observe other plants and animals doing - eating, breathing, growing, etc?

 

[Neithan]

EnterTheBowser:

So are you saying, then that purely physical processes cannot account for what we observe other plants and animals doing - eating, breathing, growing, etc?

Physical processes can account for everything a plant or animal does, but not how it is alive in the first place or how it remains alive.

Living Organism-Physical Body=Soul.

Again, the soul is the life or animating principle of an organism.
Please read the above linked article.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Neithan:

Physical processes can account for everything a plant or animal does, but not how it is alive in the first place or how it remains alive.

…

I guess I have to ask exactly what you mean by “alive,” because I might be misunderstanding you.

I’ve read the article; I’m not sure what part of it bears on what you’ve been saying, so if you could pick out specific passages, that would be great.

 

[Neithan]

“The soul may be defined as the ultimate internal principle by which we think, feel, and will, and by which our bodies are animated.”

**life **(lhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/imacr.giff)
n. pl. **lives **(lhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/imacr.gifvz)

1. 
   *]The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.
   *]The characteristic state or condition of a living organism.
   
   **a·live **(http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/...co.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gif)
   adj.
   1. 
      *]Having life; living. See Synonyms at living
      
      
      EnterTheBowser:
      

      how would we tell the difference between SusanA, who has a soul, and SusanB, who is physically identical to SusanA, but has no soul?

      Answer: SusanA is alive; SusanB is dead.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

I do hate to be so excessively pedantic, but:

First, do you mean to say that those things which are alive just are those things which undergo metabolysis, which grow, respond to the environment, etc, or do you mean that these things just are the characteristic signs of being alive - so that something might be alive without showing them, or might show them and not be alive?

Second, I want to note that the definition of “soul” that you have offered does not mean just whatever it is that is the cause of life (that whatever it is that causes life, we will call the soul). It includes some other properties of the thing - it says that the soul is a particular thing with certain properties, and also makes a statement about the world - that the soul is the cause of life. In other words, it is synthetic rather than analytic that the soul is the cause of life; presumably then this is the sort of thing we would find out through examination of the world (world in the broad sense; I don’t mean to discount introspection).

 

[Fidelis]

thistle:

I have that book. Actually he does talk about the souls of animals and plants.
Page 60. He says :The souls, the life principles of plants and animals produce no vital activities which rise above matter".

You are right, but he makes clear that the “souls” of animals are not to be equated with human souls.

 

[Neithan]

EnterTheBowser:

First, do you mean to say that those things which are alive just are those things which undergo metabolysis, which grow, respond to the environment, etc, or do you mean that these things just are the characteristic signs of being alive - so that something might be alive without showing them, or might show them and not be alive?

What is the biological definition for ‘life’? Let’s go with that. It doesn’t really matter until we come to human beings, anyway. Everything in existence has form, which we readily recognize by the universal of an object. When you look at a tree, you recognize it as such because the general form is known to you. Yes, rocks have immaterial forms as well (but we do not call that a soul so as to maintain the difference). This is a philosophical concept. Soul is simply the label to differentiate those formal causes for animate matter.

Second, I want to note that the definition of “soul” that you have offered does not mean just whatever it is that is the cause of life (that whatever it is that causes life, we will call the soul). It includes some other properties of the thing - it says that the soul is a particular thing with certain properties, and also makes a statement about the world - that the soul is the cause of life. In other words, it is synthetic rather than analytic that the soul is the cause of life; presumably then this is the sort of thing we would find out through examination of the world (world in the broad sense; I don’t mean to discount introspection).

I’m not sure I follow.
The *efficient *cause of life is God, actually, and soul is simply the animating principle behind all life, the formal cause (Aristotelian causes).
Given that one cannot examine immaterial reality purely through material means, and vice-versa, the only way to examine the reality of form (inanimate) or *soul *(animate) is through the apprehension of it in your own mind.
The soul does not have ‘specific properties’ which are different from the physical body in which it inheres, because those physical properties themselves result from the form–the soul.

I suspect that what you might be asking is: what would differentiate two physically identical humans, only one of which has a *human *soul, and the other not (perhaps an animal soul)? I can’t answer this because I believe it to be illogical–a human body necessitates a human soul, just as a rock necessitates the form of rock. Does that make sense?

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Neithan:

What is the biological definition for ‘life’? Let’s go with that. It doesn’t really matter until we come to human beings, anyway. Everything in existence has form, which we readily recognize by the universal of an object. When you look at a tree, you recognize it as such because the general form is known to you. Yes, rocks have immaterial forms as well (but we do not call that a soul so as to maintain the difference). This is a philosophical concept. Soul is simply the label to differentiate those formal causes for animate matter.

Just as a note, I think that the reification of abstract concepts is a mistake. The concept of “tree” is just a category formed in a human mind, not some sort of form existing separate from us. That aside… can we agree that a thing is alive if it grows, metabolizes, reacts to its environment, mantains homeostasis, etc?

I’m not sure I follow.
The *efficient *cause of life is God, actually, and soul is simply the animating principle behind all life, the formal cause (Aristotelian causes).

…

Well, I don’t think Aristotle really had it all down when it came to philosophy.

Regarding what I said - let me try and make myself a little more clear. On one hand, you can say “Whatever it is that does X, regardless of its other properties, is called Y.” Or you can say “There is this thing Y with properties ABC, and it does X.” One of them is true regardless of what we eventually find out about Y. The other is not - we might find out that instead thing Z with properties FGH did X. Saying that Y has ABC is part of the analytic definition of Y, whereas saying Y does X is statement that needs to be empirically verified (it is synthetic).

Basically, you can’t have it both ways - you can’t say that “Whatever it is that does X, is called Y, and Y has properties ABC.” And it seems that you tried to say that about the soul.

I suspect that what you might be asking is: what would differentiate two physically identical humans, only one of which has a *human *soul, and the other not (perhaps an animal soul)? I can’t answer this because I believe it to be illogical–a human body necessitates a human soul, just as a rock necessitates the form of rock. Does that make sense?

Well - let me ask - could God create such a thing - a SusanB (in this case, as materialy similar to SusanA as I am to you but with an animal instead of a human soul)?

But you might want to note that I think that Plato’s theory of forms is a load of hooey.

 

[Neithan]

EnterTheBowser:

The concept of “tree” is just a category formed in a human mind, not some sort of form existing separate from us

Exactly, you know its form in the human mind. It doesn’t only exist in *your *mind, but in *all *minds–therefore it has objective immaterial reality.
And you’re right, a form does not exist as some ‘separate’ entity–it is always attached to the object it inheres.

Basically, you can’t have it both ways - you can’t say that “Whatever it is that does X, is called Y, and Y has properties ABC.” And it seems that you tried to say that about the soul.

All this algebraic formulation aside, a soul is simply an immaterial reality–a formal cause of an animate object.The ‘properties’ of a soul are known through its physical body–its material extension. I don’t know how else to explain it. It’s like trying to answer ‘what is an idea?’ There are innumerably different kinds of ideas, and the only commonality is they are all immaterial.

Now if we are talking about a spiritual soul–a *human *soul, then we can involve the moderate dualism of a spiritual entity as part of that soul. The principle of ‘thinking’ and ‘willing,’ of ‘self-identity’, are spiritual properties unique to the human soul. What scientists would call ‘*intelligent *life.’

Well - let me ask - could God create such a thing - a SusanB (in this case, as materialy similar to SusanA as I am to you but with an animal instead of a human soul)?

God is perfectly logical. He cannot create a rock bigger than He can lift ; therefore, I don’t beleive He could create a human being without a human soul. Doesn’t make any sense.
If some material thing has the physical form of a human then it is human. If that human is animate, is alive, then it must have a human soul. Whether that soul demonstrates spiritual properties (i.e. intellect, free-will and self-identity) would depend–as I mentioned in an above post–on whether the body is properly formed (i.e. no physical defects esp. brain damage).

But you might want to note that I think that Plato’s theory of forms is a load of hooey.

No surprise there, figuring you’re an atheist. In Christianity, Plato’s transcendent realm of forms is perfected in the mind of God.

 

[vz71]

EnterTheBowser:

Well - let me ask - could God create such a thing - a SusanB (in this case, as materialy similar to SusanA as I am to you but with an animal instead of a human soul)?

I am sure others will correct me if my reasoning is wrong here, but…
This ‘thing’ would necessarily be non-human.
Since a soul is part of the very definition of human.

Would we actually be able to differentiate the human from the non-human? Maybe, maybe not. It is impossible to say given that there is no means of ‘soul-detecting.’

But if the question is whether or not God could create a soulless human, the answer would be no.
Actually it would more properly be stated as a meaningless question. Similar to asking if it is possible to create a four sided triangle.

Two cents duly deposited.

Z