The soul as the animating principle?

[blase6]

I’m no expert on this subject but I understand that according to St. Thomas Aquinas that the soul is what makes an organism alive, and thus death means the departure of the soul(?). This is problematic to me because based on my understanding of modern science there doesn’t seem to be a real reason why the soul would be necessary to explain biological life. I’m also no expert in this area, but I assume that the life of animals and plants can be explained solely in reference to their physical characteristics (in the same way that a kinetic sculpture moves by virtue of its physical configuration, the actions of plants and animals can be explained?). This is why I find the description of non-rational beings strange.

Does anyone have insights to this?

 

[blase6]

That we can’t animate an organism is an unproven assumption. That the technology to do it does not exist is not a proof that it is impossible.

 

[davidv]

It is also presumptuous to claim that we will be able to some day animate something.

 

[blase6]

I didn’t make that claim. I said that he hadn’t proven it is impossible. It seems to me based on what I have heard that it may be a reality someday.

 

[Spyridon]

It is currently impossible, therefore it is correct to say it is impossible.

If 500 years from now it becomes possible, then it will be possible.

Theoretically anything is possible.

Realistically only what we are able to do right now is possible.

 

[MPat]

I’m no expert on this subject but I understand that according to St. Thomas Aquinas that the soul is what makes an organism alive, and thus death means the departure of the soul(?). This is problematic to me because based on my understanding of modern science there doesn’t seem to be a real reason why the soul would be necessary to explain biological life.

That we can’t animate an organism is an unproven assumption. That the technology to do it does not exist is not a proof that it is impossible.

I didn’t make that claim. I said that he hadn’t proven it is impossible.

Something isn’t right here. Your first post seems to claim that you think modern science has almost proved that souls are superfluous. And yet now it appears that instead you only claim that modern science hasn’t proved souls exist.

For it is clear that the fact that scientists haven’t been able to create any living thing is perfectly compatible with existence of souls, and might well be evidence that souls exist.

And yes, we are able to imagine scientists doing so in the future. But that is only evidence of our creativity, not of abilities of future scientists.

I’m also no expert in this area, but I assume that the life of animals and plants can be explained solely in reference to their physical characteristics (in the same way that a kinetic sculpture moves by virtue of its physical configuration, the actions of plants and animals can be explained?).

You know, if you are not an expert in this area, perhaps you should leave assuming to the ones who are…?

Or at least be careful to make sure those “assumptions” won’t be treated as if they were unquestionable facts…

Also, “soul” is a name for substantial form of the living body. Thus analogy with “physical configuration” (while not precise - in your example that would be accidental form) works in favour of existence of souls, not against it.

 

[Aloysium]

Being a soul yourself, you’d expect to know, shouldn’t you? What is knowledge? How do you know anything? Who is it that knows? When you stub your toe, who feels the pain? If I analyse you as a collection of material processes, those that govern the existence of atoms and their relationships with one another, there’s no pain, no thoughts, none of this that you here experience would be understood as existing. Modern science includes psychology and psychiatry. While there are mindless scientists, they all behave as if they have a soul. They strive for honour, more stuff and more power in academic fiefdoms. They relate to their spouses and kids as if they were souls. But then again, having a doctorate does not immunize against confusion; it may even promote it.

 

[blase6]

I’m not talking about human life, I’m talking about whether the soul is necessary for any biological life at all.

 

[blase6]

It is currently impossible, therefore it is correct to say it is impossible.

If 500 years from now it becomes possible, then it will be possible.

Theoretically anything is possible.

Realistically only what we are able to do right now is possible.

You are wrong. Impossible in this case means “never possible”, not “not possible now.”

 

[Spyridon]

Then in that case literally anything is possible.

It is possible I could grow wings and fly - how can you prove medical science will never be able to make that happen for me?

 

[Aloysium]

I’d go so far to say that matter has a material “soul”, which gives any particle the properties it has in relation to other matter. Existing as a particle in its own right, it can be subsumed into a greater “soul”. Starting from the smallest up, the subatomic might be said to be ensouled “light”, or whatever one might call that which becomes a photon when the properties that make it so are bestowed upon it.

What I’m going to suggest next is that things become what they are and are not merely atoms on which we impose our meaning. A pail of water is a pail of water; brought into a room, the temperature of the water changes in relation to the room air temperature, because it is now part of the room. A photon becomes a light beam in a slit experiment, which as a whole produces a wave pattern on the screen. This would be in keeping with its being no longer a particle itself, but a vibration in the totality that is the experimental apparatus. When we try to detect a particle, whether we do so before or after the light is shone through the slit onto the screen, we change the nature of the whole which constitutes the experiment, pulling the electron out, disentangling it as they say from that whole. And in doing so, it reverts to the material “soul” that defines its existence as something separate. We then get a particle pattern, again interestingly, even when the detection is carried out after the event; this is because the experimental event is one, made up of things, space and time.

Individual bits of matter may be taken into the soul that constitutes a specific plant or animal. That living creature exists as one being. Imagine a one-celled creature moving its cilia and propelling itself through the water. It strikes a material body and it outer membrane lightens up as does our nervous system when light strikes our eyes. It perceives food and engulfs it. All this is matter, under the direction of the instinctual soul of this tiny creature. And, we too are made up of matter, all of it organized into cells and organ systems, working in unison under the direction of the human spirit, which brings all the complexity together as one in ourselves, and one with the world about us, material and immaterial.

We here exist as a unity, our physical bodies, participating in the world, our spirit defining our relationship with it, with one another, and with our Maker. One experience, uniting the perception in the perceiving with the observer, the known and the knower in the knowing, the lover and the beloved in love.

.