The Soul and Death

[Jaaanosik]

This is a major issue you seem to have raised. I don’t know if it was on purpose or not, but think about it.

If someone is brain dead for an extended period of time but their body is physically alive, yet their soul has already departed like you say, would you claim that euthanasia in this case is acceptable? I personally do not think it is acceptable, and I know the USCCB would have a thing or two to say about it.

Perhaps this isn’t quite what you meant when you say brain dead… Maybe you just meant that there is a brief moment after the soul departs before bodily death occurs. Elaborate? Thanks.

This is a very fine line. “Brain dead” is very hard to decide. There are people in coma with very little brain activity but the latest devices can measure the activity with better results.
The body would not live by itself if it was not attached to machines.

When is a person proclaimed dead?

 

[Speedypizza]

This is a major issue you seem to have raised. I don’t know if it was on purpose or not, but think about it.

If someone is brain dead for an extended period of time but their body is physically alive, yet their soul has already departed like you say, would you claim that euthanasia in this case is acceptable? I personally do not think it is acceptable, and I know the USCCB would have a thing or two to say about it.

Perhaps this isn’t quite what you meant when you say brain dead… Maybe you just meant that there is a brief moment after the soul departs before bodily death occurs. Elaborate? Thanks.

No, I was not aware that this was a big can of worms, in fact I have never thought about it much. I am not sure what you mean by euthanasia, I would never believe in doing something TO kill somebody, however I would not be against “pulling the plug” on somebody who is clearly dead. Not sure 100% what the Church teaches about this because I am in RCIA and they would not talk about anything like this at all, as it might be a REAL issue and not happy clappy dribble.

If what you are saying is that what I am saying is wrong from Catholic teachings, I will be the first to say that you MIGHT be right. If that is the case please point me the OFFICIAL CHURCH DOCUMENTS that say what the position of the Church is about this matter. I don’t mean to put to fine of a point on it, but sadly some people on here are very good at telling us what is THEIR truth is, and then trying to pass it off as the truth of the Church. The only way I can get to the bottom of this is to demand something official that says A or B is true or false.

 

[Catholic4Christ]

@Speedypizza I didn’t mean to accuse you of being against Church teachings or anything like that, nor do I think that “pulling the plug” is necessarily wrong. I just meant that, if the body could live for an extended period of time after the soul departs, the issue of euthanasia could be raised. I wasn’t trying to say that you personally are okay with euthanasia. Sorry for any confusion there

From the Catechism:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm
*
2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.

2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.

Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.

2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of “over-zealous” treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.

2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged. *

Clearly there’s some wiggle room here. I think the basic idea is that you can’t willingly end someone’s life for any reason, but ending treatment can be okay depending on the intention. Obviously, a deliberate act that kills someone is not okay. You can see how the belief of whether the soul is present in a dying person could affect the decision-making.

Also, good luck with your RCIA - I’m working towards Confirmation currently, and we are learning alongside the RCIA folks, so I know what you mean when you bring up “happy clappy dribble.”

 

[Speedypizza]

@Speedypizza I didn’t mean to accuse you of being against Church teachings or anything like that, nor do I think that “pulling the plug” is necessarily wrong. I just meant that, if the body could live for an extended period of time after the soul departs, the issue of euthanasia could be raised. I wasn’t trying to say that you personally are okay with euthanasia. Sorry for any confusion there

From the Catechism:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm
*
2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.

2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.

Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.

2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of “over-zealous” treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.

2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged. *

Clearly there’s some wiggle room here. I think the basic idea is that you can’t willingly end someone’s life for any reason, but ending treatment can be okay depending on the intention. Obviously, a deliberate act that kills someone is not okay. You can see how the belief of whether the soul is present in a dying person could affect the decision-making.

Also, good luck with your RCIA - I’m working towards Confirmation currently, and we are learning alongside the RCIA folks, so I know what you mean when you bring up “happy clappy dribble.”

I am sorry if I jumped at you some, I have not always been treated kindly on this board and tend to jump to conclusions, always expecting an all out attack to come next, followed by nothing to back up their sometimes insane claims. Please forgive me for thinking that of you without asking first.

Thank you so much for the quotes from the CCC, they are oddly in line with my own feelings about things. I never expected to be so spot on with the Church already. Although it makes a lot of sense now that I think about it. Years ago, long before even thinking about coming into the Church, I remember the Terri Schiavo case and at first I was unsure about how to feel about it one way or the other, and then I heard a quote from the Pope (Blessed John Paul the Great) “When we are in doubt, we must err on the side of life.” and that really cut through the issue for me. I have always had great respect for him as a person, even when I did not agree with him on religion.

 

[Julia_Mae]

If someone is brain dead for an extended period of time but their body is physically alive, yet their soul has already departed like you say, would you claim that euthanasia in this case is acceptable?

Well, we do turn off artificial life support. But if you mean doing some action to make the body die, that would be very bad, because no one can say the soul did leave, just that it could have. I don’t think bodies continue on for any length of time after the soul leaves, maybe up to an hour or something, but not days.

If a body sustains itself without artificial heart/lungs, I think we have to always assume the soul is present.

 

[greylorn]

The soul - the principle of life - has eluded scientists as well. Up to now they have not made a single living cell.

And should they do so, the only thing that they will prove is that it is possible for intelligent entities to manipulate the raw material on our planet so as to create life.

The soul is not a principle of life. If you believe that, you must believe that bacteria have God-created souls, each of the trillions upon trillions of the little buggers. Of course you are entitled to own such a belief, but what is the point of it?

Is the “specialized circuitry” that connects the soul to the brain a physical circuit that has been observed in the laboratory? Can you give scientific evidence?

Yes, but the information has not been properly interpreted. This is something which I discussed with a neurological researcher a few years ago, who offered several examples, including an experiment which he and two other associates had performed, which could easily be interpreted as evidence for such circuitry.

As you may know, or may eventually realize, all evidence is interpreted in the context of known paradigms. There is no paradigm or theory out in the world, except for Descartes’ and mine (that I know of), which treats the soul as a physical entity with a neurological interface to the human brain. The Church shot down Descartes, and religionists will generally treat my ideas similarly or worse. From the religious perspective, integrating the spiritual and the physical is a no-no.

Of course the concept of soul is too vague and ill-defined to have any place in science. Thus, from either the science or religion perspective, there is no paradigm which would allow researchers to interpret their evidence correctly.

BTW, detailing such evidence that is available is beyond the scope of the CAF. My book presents some of it. To begin with, you might (if genuinely interested) research the Sperry-Gazzoniga split-brain experiments, and hypnosis.

How do you know that the unconscious state is the native state of the soul?

Duh? Unless you were a super-genius who, after being slapped on the butt upon emerging from your mother’s womb, introduced yourself to the mother whose name you already knew, as well as the doctor or midwife, and attending nurses, then asked to be shown to the nearest piano, library, or computer as soon as you recovered from the silver nitrate in your eyes and nasty surgical procedure on your privates, you were born unconscious.

That is your natural state. Without constant feedback from your brain-body system you will return to it, quickly.

 

[greylorn]

I don’t think you are splitting hairs at all. Soul goes first. The body stops being animated.The person can leave and the body still be breathe and heart still pump for a while. Like a bicycle rolling along after the rider has jumped off. So human life on earth can be ended before people are pronounced dead, sometimes. You read about people who have had a “visit” from some dying relative, but if you match up the times they sometimes aren’t observed to have died until a while after the visit happened.

You seem to be overlooking the evidence of prefrontal lobotomy patients and victims of Alzheimer’s disease, who live in a mindless, soul-free state for many years.

 

[greylorn]

Well, we do turn off artificial life support. But if you mean doing some action to make the body die, that would be very bad, because no one can say the soul did leave, just that it could have. I don’t think bodies continue on for any length of time after the soul leaves, maybe up to an hour or something, but not days.

If a body sustains itself without artificial heart/lungs, I think we have to always assume the soul is present.

IMO you are badly mistaken. Cockroaches live a long time without a soul.

The notion that the soul is essential for life is a poorly considered belief, IMO, which was adopted about 15 centuries ago, in medieval times, long before physics and biochemistry made it obvious that life was a purely physical process.

(This does not imply that life forms appeared spontaneously, as per current scientific belief.)

 

[Catholic4Christ]

The soul is not a principle of life. If you believe that, you must believe that bacteria have God-created souls, each of the trillions upon trillions of the little buggers. Of course you are entitled to own such a belief, but what is the point of it?

Anyone, please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong on this, I am but a simple armchair theologian But it is my understanding that non-human living things do have souls, albeit mortal souls, not immortal souls.

Of course, you raise a valid point when you say “what is the point of it.” I suppose a soul is of little use to a bacterium after it dies

 

[greylorn]

Anyone, please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong on this, I am but a simple armchair theologian But it is my understanding that non-human living things do have souls, albeit mortal souls, not immortal souls.

Of course, you raise a valid point when you say “what is the point of it.” I suppose a soul is of little use to a bacterium after it dies

Do you honestly believe that every time a bacterium divides, God creates a brand new “soul” for it?

Many primitive critters are single-celled. Does God, in your opinion, create a soul for each one?

If so, what happens when individual cells combine into multi-cellular organisms, such as the human body? Does God create a tiny mortal soul for each of our cells at every division?

 

[Catholic4Christ]

Do you honestly believe that every time a bacterium divides, God creates a brand new “soul” for it?

Many primitive critters are single-celled. Does God, in your opinion, create a soul for each one?

If so, what happens when individual cells combine into multi-cellular organisms, such as the human body? Does God create a tiny mortal soul for each of our cells at every division?

I’m starting to tell that it clearly doesn’t matter what I believe, so long as it can be turned into an arguing point :ehh:

I don’t really see why individual bacteria can’t have individual mortal souls, but I also don’t really think God cares that much whether or not I believe in a single-celled organism’s “soul-status.” I don’t think it is really of much consequence. But thanks for pointing out that I wasn’t considering bacteria in my post, mea culpa.

As for multi-cellular organisms, I’m a Classical Studies major, not a Biology major, so I can’t say I know at what point individual organisms became one organism, or if it happened that way. I don’t think it matters that much. Nor do I really think it matters if plants have mortal souls, or mitochondria, or viruses. God did whatever He wanted to get us to this point, I’m not really going to put limits on Him. Perhaps there’s a difference between life as defined by biological science and God-given life that we haven’t addressed. The point is, who knows.

Anyways, the whole point is about whether or not the soul is the principal of life. And, as addressed earlier, I think that this wasn’t meant as life as a biologist would describe it, but human life, in respect to how we are considered “special” amongst God’s creation.

 

[Hubertus]

I once heard it said that the soul is in fact an infinity small, infinity bright point of light that resides between “the third eye” (the space in the middle of your eyes, just above.) and the temples. If you were to draw a line between the two, where they meet, is where the soul lives. This space is also the base of the brain, where the brain connects to the spine. Now I am not sure if this is true or not, however it always made a lot of sense to me, so until somebody can prove me wrong, I am going to stick with it.

Random bit: According to the movie Gran Torino, the Hmong people consider it quite offensive to pat someone on the head, since that’s where they allegedly believe the soul resides.

But where did you hear that bit about the third eye? I’ve always been wary of anything that mentioned that phrase, since I’ve heard the concept of a third eye is used in some eastern mysticism and can be dangerous. However, I was told it was something you obtain, and are not inherently born with. I think it’s supposed to let you see people’s “auras,” or something like that.

Anyway, it seems we both understand the phrase a bit differently. As far as what a soul looks like or is shaped like, I’ve always seen it represented in Catholic books (I seem to remember pictures in the Baltimore Catechism) as at least humanoid. I don’t think the Church has any official teachings on what it’s shaped like though, or even where it’s located, other than that it’s in the human being. It’s just easier for me to imagine it being humanoid, since that makes it seem more personally tied to you and your character.

 

[greylorn]

I’m starting to tell that it clearly doesn’t matter what I believe, so long as it can be turned into an arguing point :ehh:

I don’t really see why individual bacteria can’t have individual mortal souls, but I also don’t really think God cares that much whether or not I believe in a single-celled organism’s “soul-status.” I don’t think it is really of much consequence. But thanks for pointing out that I wasn’t considering bacteria in my post, mea culpa.

As for multi-cellular organisms, I’m a Classical Studies major, not a Biology major, so I can’t say I know at what point individual organisms became one organism, or if it happened that way. I don’t think it matters that much. Nor do I really think it matters if plants have mortal souls, or mitochondria, or viruses. God did whatever He wanted to get us to this point, I’m not really going to put limits on Him. Perhaps there’s a difference between life as defined by biological science and God-given life that we haven’t addressed. The point is, who knows.

Anyways, the whole point is about whether or not the soul is the principal of life. And, as addressed earlier, I think that this wasn’t meant as life as a biologist would describe it, but human life, in respect to how we are considered “special” amongst God’s creation.

Good. Now that we’ve gotten the irrelevant notion of soul as a general purpose principle (not principal) of life out of the way, you can address the relevant issue.

What exactly are the properties of soul? What does it do that the human brain does not? How does it differentiate humans from animals?

And finally, why would God have created it?

 

[rom422]

The soul is not a principle of life. If you believe that, you must believe that bacteria have God-created souls, each of the trillions upon trillions of the little buggers. Of course you are entitled to own such a belief, but what is the point of it?

The soul is not a principle of life? Then what is it?

There is no paradigm or theory out in the world, except for Descartes’ and mine (that I know of), which treats the soul as a physical entity with a neurological interface to the human brain…

Of course the concept of soul is too vague and ill-defined to have any place in science. Thus, from either the science or religion perspective, there is no paradigm which would allow researchers to interpret their evidence correctly.

If the concept of soul is “too vague and ill-defined,” then how can you propose a clear theory about it?

You said that you and Descartes are the only ones who have a theory of the soul as a physical entity with a neurological interface to the brain. But if you don’t know what a soul is, then what has a neurological interface to the brain?

BTW, detailing such evidence that is available is beyond the scope of the CAF. My book presents some of it. To begin with, you might (if genuinely interested) research the Sperry-Gazzoniga split-brain experiments, and hypnosis.

You have evidences for the neurological interface of the soul with the brain? I bet you can’t interpret those evidences correctly, because you just said above that “from either the science or religion perspective, there is no paradigm which would allow researchers to interpret their evidence correctly.”

By the way, what use are those evidences if you can’t interpret them correctly?

Duh? Unless you were a super-genius who, after being slapped on the butt upon emerging from your mother’s womb, introduced yourself to the mother whose name you already knew, as well as the doctor or midwife, and attending nurses, then asked to be shown to the nearest piano, library, or computer as soon as you recovered from the silver nitrate in your eyes and nasty surgical procedure on your privates, you were born unconscious.

I’m sorry. I thought by “native state of the soul” you meant the natural state of the soul. If by “native state” you merely meant the original state of the soul, then you are right, and I agree with you. The soul when it was first created was in an unconscious state.

That is your natural state. Without constant feedback from your brain-body system you will return to it, quickly.

Ah! So I was right after all. You are talking of the unconscious state as the natural state of the soul, and not merely the original state. In that case I disagree with you. Just as the natural state of the body is not the embryonic state when it was first conceived (without head, body, arms and legs) but the state when its organs are functioning, so the natural state of the soul is not the unconscious state when it was first created, but its state when it is in full use of its powers of intellect and will. The human soul has an intellect that is made for knowledge, and a will that is made for love. Its natural state is, therefore, that state when it is in the act of knowing and loving. In the beginning the mind is like a blank state. But once a person is born, knowledge begins. And, assuming that a person has lived long enough to acquire knowledge, then at death the soul will have sufficient ideas to retain knowledge. Furthermore, we believe that at death, the soul will see God face to face (in an act of knowledge), and by seeing Him, it will also love Him. So, it is in the knowledge and love of God that the soul will rest in its natural state. The natural state of the soul is not the death-like unconscious state when it was first created, but the state when it is actively engaged in knowledge and love.

It is amazing that, after saying that the soul is a vague and ill-defined concept, you seem to know very much about it already. You know that it is not the principle of life, that it is a physical entity, that it has a “specialized circuitry” connected to the brain, that this circuitry is a “neurological interface” with the brain (based on evidences that can’t be interpreted correctly), and that its natural state, after the death of the body, is the unconscious state.

 

[Julia_Mae]

You seem to be overlooking the evidence of prefrontal lobotomy patients and victims of Alzheimer’s disease, who live in a mindless, soul-free state for many years.

Not at all. I don’t know why you think they are “soul-free” but I don’t. Of such are horseraces comprised.

 

[Catholic4Christ]

Good. Now that we’ve gotten the irrelevant notion of soul as a general purpose principle (not principal) of life out of the way, you can address the relevant issue.

What exactly are the properties of soul? What does it do that the human brain does not? How does it differentiate humans from animals?

And finally, why would God have created it?

Actually, the relevant issue is what I asked in the first post. I’ll consider continuing this discourse when you ask these provocative questions in a way that clearly relates to my original question; when you stop deciding what is “relevant” and “irrelevant” and start wording your statements more respectfully; and when you consider not nitpicking the typos that I make at nearly 3 AM.

I’m a nice guy, and I love me some talk about God, souls, and such. But I hate making things argumentative.

 

[Julia_Mae]

IMO you are badly mistaken. Cockroaches live a long time without a soul.

The notion that the soul is essential for life is a poorly considered belief, IMO…

I got that. Perhaps we need to look at the difference between psuche and* zoe*.

Human beings are not cockroaches. They are not bacteria or trees or hairless bipedal great apes. H. sapiens may be the last, but has so adapted in the last 150k years or so to the presence of soul that it can no longer survive absent one for very long.

I think we don’t need to make a point of the fact of disagreement between posters. This is a topic and thread that by necessity contains belief and opinion, not facts.

 

[Catholic4Christ]

This is a topic and thread that by necessity contains belief and opinion, not facts.

Thank you. All I wanted to know was peoples’ thoughts on the human soul at or around the time of bodily death, and what consequences said thoughts might have. Clearly an issue of opinion, not fact.

 

[greylorn]

The soul is not a principle of life? Then what is it?

If the concept of soul is “too vague and ill-defined,” then how can you propose a clear theory about it?

You said that you and Descartes are the only ones who have a theory of the soul as a physical entity with a neurological interface to the brain. But if you don’t know what a soul is, then what has a neurological interface to the brain?

You have evidences for the neurological interface of the soul with the brain? I bet you can’t interpret those evidences correctly, because you just said above that “from either the science or religion perspective, there is no paradigm which would allow researchers to interpret their evidence correctly.”

By the way, what use are those evidences if you can’t interpret them correctly?

I’m sorry. I thought by “native state of the soul” you meant the natural state of the soul. If by “native state” you merely meant the original state of the soul, then you are right, and I agree with you. The soul when it was first created was in an unconscious state.

Ah! So I was right after all. You are talking of the unconscious state as the natural state of the soul, and not merely the original state. In that case I disagree with you. Just as the natural state of the body is not the embryonic state when it was first conceived (without head, body, arms and legs) but the state when its organs are functioning, so the natural state of the soul is not the unconscious state when it was first created, but its state when it is in full use of its powers of intellect and will. The human soul has an intellect that is made for knowledge, and a will that is made for love. Its natural state is, therefore, that state when it is in the act of knowing and loving. In the beginning the mind is like a blank state. But once a person is born, knowledge begins. And, assuming that a person has lived long enough to acquire knowledge, then at death the soul will have sufficient ideas to retain knowledge. Furthermore, we believe that at death, the soul will see God face to face (in an act of knowledge), and by seeing Him, it will also love Him. So, it is in the knowledge and love of God that the soul will rest in its natural state. The natural state of the soul is not the death-like unconscious state when it was first created, but the state when it is actively engaged in knowledge and love.

It is amazing that, after saying that the soul is a vague and ill-defined concept, you seem to know very much about it already. You know that it is not the principle of life, that it is a physical entity, that it has a “specialized circuitry” connected to the brain, that this circuitry is a “neurological interface” with the brain (based on evidences that can’t be interpreted correctly), and that its natural state, after the death of the body, is the unconscious state.

I had hoped for an interesting conversation with you, because you appeared to have some knowledge and curiosity. But, alas, you are just another dogmatist, whose brain, when reading or hearing a statement which conflicts with its programming, is primarily engaged in refuting it. I apologize for engaging you.

 

[greylorn]

I got that. Perhaps we need to look at the difference between psuche and* zoe*.

Human beings are not cockroaches. They are not bacteria or trees or hairless bipedal great apes. H. sapiens may be the last, but has so adapted in the last 150k years or so to the presence of soul that it can no longer survive absent one for very long.

I think we don’t need to make a point of the fact of disagreement between posters. This is a topic and thread that by necessity contains belief and opinion, not facts.

Necessity? By what standards of ignorance can any topic of interest to a competent human mind be limited to belief and opinion?

I missed the note that this thread was only for those whose small but well-programmed brains operate entirely upon Belief and Opinion, and are not interested in knowledge. Please do not vote this year.