The "souls" of bacteria and other creatures?

[ateista]

Seems like this might be a very good reason why there is so much disagreement on their status regarding, being alive.

It may be. I am no a biologist, so I am not familiar with all the details, but I think it has more do to with their internal structure. Viruses have no DNA, only the much simpler RNA, so they do not exihibit all the features we usually attribute to life. This just underlines the problem that “life” is not a black and white phenomenon.

The best “definition” we can give is that inanimate objects have “simple” structures and and have “simple” responses to complex stimuli, while living entities have a “complex” structure and have “complex” responses.

Where to draw the line between “simple” and “complex” is not based on objective criteria.

 

[Cadellin]

Where is it written that all living things have souls?

I Asked an Apologist, "Would a clone have a soul? "

The answer from Michelle Arnold was, “All living things have souls. If a clone were a human being, it would have a human soul.”

 

[Ignatius]

If bacteria have a “soul”… what happens to it when they split and two new ones come into existence? Will one carry on the “old soul”, and the other one get a fresh one? Or will the “old soul” die and two fresh ones need to be created?

What about viruses? If they alive (which is a matter of opinion), then they must have “souls”, right?

Only Human Beings have immortal souls. Animals only have a ‘soul’ in the sense that they have a life force. This is not the same thing as a Human Beings immortal soul.

 

[mschrank]

The soul is not the thing that floats away from the body when you die. In fact, I don’t even know if such a thing exists or is in line with Catholic teaching.

The soul is the thing which makes a bacterium a really existing thing. Think about it.

If you believe in fundamentalist materialism, there is no such thing as a bacterium. There are only atoms. The bacterium is only an illusion, just like when a cloud looks like a dragon or a bear or whatever- there is really just water molecules suspended in the air.

Now a thomistic or Catholic point of view would say that the bacterium is there, it has a soul because it objectively exists as a real thing.

The soul is a metaphysical reality, not a scientific one because the scientific method assumes material things have material causes.

 

[Hastrman]

The soul is not the thing that floats away from the body when you die. In fact, I don’t even know if such a thing exists or is in line with Catholic teaching.

The soul is the thing which makes a bacterium a really existing thing. Think about it.

If you believe in fundamentalist materialism, there is no such thing as a bacterium. There are only atoms. The bacterium is only an illusion, just like when a cloud looks like a dragon or a bear or whatever- there is really just water molecules suspended in the air.

Now a thomistic or Catholic point of view would say that the bacterium is there, it has a soul because it objectively exists as a real thing.

The soul is a metaphysical reality, not a scientific one because the scientific method assumes material things have material causes.

Thomism! Hurray!

But the scientific method is right, material things have material causes (hence the name). A better way to state the difficulty is, “Science deals only with material and efficient causes, not with formal or final.”

The very common error that we have to address here, is the supposition that because the scientific method only deals with those two of the four causes, the other two don’t exist. Which is like saying, “I am a lawyer. I deal only in the laws of Coconino County, Arizona. Therefore all other laws do not exist.”

Positivism or Scientism, in philosophy, is that same statement, with the terms changed.

 

[Riley259]

Hypothetically, I would explain it like this: soul=consciousness

all life is part of one great mass consciousness. Therefore, there would be no destruction of old and no new, no beginning and no end - one stream of consciousness constantly changing into different forms.

Peace…

MW

Sounds very New Agey to me.

 

[mschrank]

Sounds very New Agey to me.

Kinda reminds me of Weston in Perelandra!

 

[mschrank]

The very common error that we have to address here, is the supposition that because the scientific method only deals with those two of the four causes, the other two don’t exist. Which is like saying, “I am a lawyer. I deal only in the laws of Coconino County, Arizona. Therefore all other laws do not exist.”

Positivism or Scientism, in philosophy, is that same statement, with the terms changed.

Thats what you would think. Yet, if you say this proponents of Positivism usually imply in one way or another that you are stupid and they are smart.

As far as I see, it’s quite obvious that everything has more than two causes, for example take a pencil, it has as its 3rd cause the idea of the guy who made it, and 4th, the purpose of writing. Without these things, a “pencil” could not exist. It is not just wood and graphite.

I’ve been praying to St. Thomas a lot lately and I think his prayers are working. Before, Thomism just seemed impossible for me to get my head around and somewhat irrelevant. Now, Thomism keeps making more and more sense to me.

 

[ateista]

If you believe in fundamentalist materialism, there is no such thing as a bacterium. There are only atoms. The bacterium is only an illusion, just like when a cloud looks like a dragon or a bear or whatever- there is really just water molecules suspended in the air.

I wonder where this came from? I am constantly amazed that people keep saying these weird, off-the-wall assertions about materialism.

 

[Hastrman]

I wonder where this came from? I am constantly amazed that people keep saying these weird, off-the-wall assertions about materialism.

Strictly speaking, *philosophical *materialism does say that, ateista. It denies essences, therefore things are merely collections of their parts. “Bacterium” is just a construct in our minds that, for convenience, we apply to a particular kind of bunch-of-atoms.

Materialist philosophers–like Wittgenstein, I think, at least for much of his career–do, in fact, say this. Although he might have been a mathematical realist (numbers are real, too) or a conceptualist (forms/essences are real, but don’t exist outside of what they are the forms of). A lot of the Parapatetics were that last one.

 

[ateista]

Strictly speaking, *philosophical *materialism does say that, ateista.

Sorry, that will not wash.

Such ludicruous oversimplificaton would necessarily deny the concept of molecules, too - since they are just a special configuration of atoms. And the denial of atoms, since they are just a special configurations of protons, electrons and neutrons. Or the reality of electrons, protons and neutrons, since they are just “convenient” configurations of even simpler particles… etc. No materialist says that.

It denies essences, therefore things are merely collections of their parts.

I don’t know what “essences” you speak of, but it does not matter anyhow. Materialism does not deny the concept of emerging attributes - which tells us that the whole can be more than its parts.

Such and like distortions of what materialism is all about makes these conversations almost impossible, and definitely frustrating. I am trying to understand what theists assert - even though most of it makes no sense. The bare minimum would be a similar attempt to understand what materialism is.

It should be easy and simple, since we materialists do not invoke mystical, magical, esoteric concepts (like souls), every concept we present is based on the reality - as we all know it. It is therefore unforgivable to see these distortions.

They look like deliberate distortions, since such distortions are necessary - to deny the fact that the actual concepts of materialism cannot be challenged on a rational ground. The theists must set up straw-man arguments, because they are unable to argue against what materialism really says.

Sorry, if I sound forceful, but I can tolerate such distortions only for a limited time. Argue against materialism if you are so inclined, but do not try to argue against materialism if you have no idea what materialism is.

 

[mschrank]

Atiesta- yes, you’re right… you guys do not really adhere to philosophical materialism, you have a metaphysics of your own which is not strictly materialistic because you said the molecule really exists in itself as an objective thing.

It’s not so much that we are making a straw man, but demonstrating that Philosophical Materialism, a kind of bottom-up monism, is not really what Materialists believe in. So you actually just proved our point there.

To be honest, I think the reason why most “scientists” don’t see this is because its not useful to science (they probably never studied it in college either). A molecule exists as real because it can be studied and worked upon. A kind of Deweyian Pragmatism.

 

[ateista]

Atiesta- yes, you’re right… you guys do not really adhere to philosophical materialism, you have a metaphysics of your own which is not strictly materialistic because you said the molecule really exists in itself as an objective thing.

I am glad we have some kind of agreement. Still I am surprised to hear that my views are not “strictly” materialistic - because they are. I see no need for any “supernatural” aspect or explanation - and that is the only requirement to be “labeled” materialist.

It’s not so much that we are making a straw man, but demonstrating that Philosophical Materialism, a kind of bottom-up monism, is not really what Materialists believe in. So you actually just proved our point there.

It looks like that you equate materialism with the old Greek “primitive” materialism, which has been out of fashion a long time now. What is the point of arguing against something that no one actually presents as a view? As a bare minimum it is a waste of your time.

To be honest, I think the reason why most “scientists” don’t see this is because its not useful to science (they probably never studied it in college either). A molecule exists as real because it can be studied and worked upon. A kind of Deweyian Pragmatism.

Let’s forget about labels. Let’s concentrate on the issues.

The concept of a “soul”, which is the topic of this thread is presented as an “animating principle” - another old Greek philosophical idea.

Having lived in a very ignorant society (especially as biology is concerned) they simply theorized that there must be “something” that differentiates between living and inanimate matter.

They had no idea about bacteria, viruses, they could not have known about the lab experiments which create “proto-life”, simple molecular structures which exhibit some characteristics of life.

They had no idea about the very complex behavior of electronic systems (John Conway’s Game of Life, etc.)

They presented this “animating principle” as their own “god of the gaps” - if something cannot be explained by our current level of knowledge, then it must be some “deity” that is responsible.

Isn’t it time to drop such silly and simplistic views? The world is sufficiently complex and intriguing to investigate it and not waste time and effort on misconceptions like a “soul”, which is useless and has absolutely no explanatory value.

 

[mschrank]

Atiesta, you’re still missing my point. I’m not saying that what you just described is not what the Greeks thought.

What I’m saying is, how is a thing a thing. That’s why it’s called meta-physics. This metaphysic doesn’t even need to be “spiritual”, I think you are confusing souls and spirits. Well, which is pretty reasonable since it all sounds kind of halloweenish and our culture generally confuses the two.

A soul is just a philosophical concept for what makes a thing real. It has nothing in itself to do with immortality (Aristotle believed the soul was substantially present in matter and hence material), and it has nothing to do with spirits. I think we might actually be arguing a bit cross-purposes here. Metaphysics deals with essences. So, “soul” is a metaphysical word for “that which makes it a real thing”. It can be material! St. Thomas for example proposed that animals had material souls (of course we’ll disagree on whether humans fit in there, but that is aside the point and I hope we can ignore it in our debate).

A soul can’t be broken down into its parts. So if a bacterium has a soul, it means that there is really such thing as a bacterium. However, this does not mean that the bacterium continues to be after the material accidents change. A soul is not necessarily seperate from the body, Thomists aren’t Cartesians. We’re not talking about a ghost in the machine here.

So then, you have to have a metaphysic (i.e., beyond physics) to say the thing really exists because otherwise its just infinite regress. Are atoms “real”- that is, do they have ontological status? What about the subatomic particles? Quantum foam? Vacuum energy? It keeps regressing down and down.

 

[ateista]

In that case I see even less need for it.

A building is a building because it is composed of these bricks with those beams and other materials for that particular purpose. To say that the building has a “soul” something which “makes it” a building is nonsense. What kind of use would such a labeling serve?

I know about metaphysics. It can be translated into a simple term: “what exists?”.

Just like epistemology can be translated into: “how do we know it?”.

And finally ethics can be translated into: “so what?”.

 

[mschrank]

No, a building doesn’t have a soul, because it’s an idea in itself and has the idea of the builder as one of its four causes.

 

[ateista]

No, a building doesn’t have a soul, because it’s an idea in itself and has the idea of the builder as one of its four causes.

The building is not just an “idea”, it is a physical structure to give shelter. Does a cave have a soul? It is also a shelter just like a house and no builder.

Does a molecule have a soul? To make it “what it is”? Does a pebble have a soul? To account for “what it is”? If the soul is what makes things what they are, they also ought to have a soul.

 

[mschrank]

Okay, think of it this way. A pencil. A pencil is made out of graphite and wood. But it’s also “made” out of another thing, the idea of writing and the mental wherewithal of a human being. Without those things, you could have no pencil. So it doesn’t need a “soul” for its being, it borrows it from the guy who made it. A pencil simply cannot exist without human causation, pencils are not found in nature.

Now then, how does this apply to molecules? Does a molecule exist? Human beings do not give them their 3rd and 4th cause, and they probably don’t have souls like living things (although a pantheist might disagree), so how can a molecule really exist?

Well, this is again, where metaphysics comes in. We have to decide if a molecule is a real thing or just a useful term for a configuration of atoms. If you asked a Buddhist (a monistic philosophy) if a pebble, or even The Buddha was real, their reply would be no (as far as having their own essence the answer is strikingly no).

Again, this is not about “explanatory value” as a means to something else, this is about truth, about philosophy as an end and not a means to power.

 

[ateista]

Okay, think of it this way. A pencil. A pencil is made out of graphite and wood. But it’s also “made” out of another thing, the idea of writing and the mental wherewithal of a human being. Without those things, you could have no pencil. So it doesn’t need a “soul” for its being, it borrows it from the guy who made it.

Well, first of all, you did not specify what the soul is, so you cannot assume that the pencil does not need one, since you stipulated that it “borrows” from its maker. The soul of the maker is still up in the air. We are using here a method of successive approximations.

A pencil simply cannot exist without human causation, pencils are not found in nature.

Sure they do. Any piece of graphite will do. The possible wooden covering serves no other purpose than to protect your hand from becoming dirty. It is not necessary for the purpose of leaving marks on a suitable surface. Any material would do (instead of graphite) which has a loose enough molecular structure to allow molecules to rub off and leave a mark.

Now then, how does this apply to molecules? Does a molecule exist? Human beings do not give them their 3rd and 4th cause, and they probably don’t have souls like living things (although a pantheist might disagree), so how can a molecule really exist?

What do you mean “probably”? Taking 6 carbon atoms and arranging them in the shape of a hexagon will result in a piece of graphite. Taking the same 6 carbon atoms and arranging them at the vertices of an octahedron will result in a diamond crystal.

The difference is substantial. To deny this difference is tantamount to the denial of reality. Yet, absolutely no “supernatural” explanation is necessary, the simple physical structure of those 6 atoms will explain the difference.

Well, this is again, where metaphysics comes in. We have to decide if a molecule is a real thing or just a useful term for a configuration of atoms. If you asked a Buddhist (a monistic philosophy) if a pebble, or even The Buddha was real, their reply would be no (as far as having their own essence the answer is strikingly no).

Well, let’s leave those monks to their musings. Since their views do not affect this conversation, if they wish to deny the reality it is their own business. Of course such denial would result in starvation if brought to its logical conclusion.

As for “deciding” whether a generic carbon molecule is real or not, try to write with it or try to cut glass with it.

Again, this is not about “explanatory value” as a means to something else, this is about truth, about philosophy as an end and not a means to power.

Truth? We speak of truth when our mental image conforms to reality. If something has no explanatory value, does not allow to make predictions then it is just empty mental exercise. Which exercise is performed by those individuals who do not have to work for living, and whose bodily needs are cared for. They live in their ivory tower and - figuratively speaking - all they do is polish their foreskin.

This is what you said before:

A soul is just a philosophical concept for what makes a thing real.

How does that translate into the question of a pencil, a pebble or a molecule having a soul or not?

Let me make a remark: this definition of the soul you presented has nothing to do with the “soul” as usually presented. Which is of course fine by me.

 

[mschrank]

Sure they do. Any piece of graphite will do. The possible wooden covering serves no other purpose than to protect your hand from becoming dirty. It is not necessary for the purpose of leaving marks on a suitable surface. Any material would do (instead of graphite) which has a loose enough molecular structure to allow molecules to rub off and leave a mark.

A piece of graphite is not a pencil. If you sold hunks of graphite as “pencils”, people would be angry at you. Get it?

What do you mean “probably”? Taking 6 carbon atoms and arranging them in the shape of a hexagon will result in a piece of graphite. Taking the same 6 carbon atoms and arranging them at the vertices of an octahedron will result in a diamond crystal.

Well, I was humoring the pantheists on this board. I do not believe pencils have souls either. Only living things do. In any case, it seems to me you’re arguing that graphite and diamonds are “really” carbon molecules in different arrangements.

The difference is substantial. To deny this difference is tantamount to the denial of reality. Yet, absolutely no “supernatural” explanation is necessary, the simple physical structure of those 6 atoms will explain the difference.

Substantial as in the philosophical term? You’ve giving away your metaphysics now! So, you’re saying form is inherent in the arrangement of matter. Are you an Aristotelian then?

As for “deciding” whether a generic carbon molecule is real or not, try to write with it or try to cut glass with it.

So basically your saying you believe what is real = what is useful. I already accused you of believing that, why didn’t you just agree with me?

Truth? We speak of truth when our mental image conforms to reality. If something has no explanatory value, does not allow to make predictions then it is just empty mental exercise…

Ha ha ha… Quid est veritas? Where have I heard that before?

Let me make a remark: this definition of the soul you presented has nothing to do with the “soul” as usually presented. Which is of course fine by me.

Well, the idea of the soul that is usually presented is some stupid supersitition that seems more influenced by Descartes and the Moderns, so, good- at least we agree on something.