Thesis: I should not have a pet

  • Thread starter Thread starter dskysmine
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sair said:
This is the theology, perhaps, but there isn’t a shred of evidence for anything like an immortal soul. By contrast, there are mountains of evidence pointing to the fact that we are indeed related to every other animal on earth, some more distantly than others.
Click to expand...
evidence is of a physical nature. A soul has a spiritual nature. Though the soul does cause certain physical effects in the human body, it would be difficult to p(name removed by moderator)oint exactly where the soul affects brain function.

It would be extremely difficult to tell if an animal or organism had a soul. We are not even able to determine for ourselves that other humans have souls. We can only know know this by church or devine revelation.
 
zro_x said:
evidence is of a physical nature. A soul has a spiritual nature. Though the soul does cause certain physical effects in the human body, it would be difficult to p(name removed by moderator)oint exactly where the soul affects brain function.

It would be extremely difficult to tell if an animal or organism had a soul. We are not even able to determine for ourselves that other humans have souls. We can only know know this by church or devine revelation.
Click to expand...
What, exactly, are the physical effects of a soul - the ones that can’t be accounted for by actual physical explanations?
 
Sair said:
What, exactly, are the physical effects of a soul - the ones that can’t be accounted for by actual physical explanations?
Click to expand...
One that has nothing to do with a physical explanation, but with the simply fact that if you have any degree of freewill at all then you have a nonphysical attribute.
 
Linux said:
One that has nothing to do with a physical explanation, but with the simply fact that if you have any degree of freewill at all then you have a nonphysical attribute.
Click to expand...
The question of whether or not we have free will or only feel like we have it appears to be under some dispute, based upon what evidence has been gathered regarding brain function and the way we interact with our environment. One would think, if the evidence for a soul were at all conclusive, this would not be the case…
 
Sair said:
The question of whether or not we have free will or only feel like we have it appears to be under some dispute, based upon what evidence has been gathered regarding brain function and the way we interact with our environment. One would think, if the evidence for a soul were at all conclusive, this would not be the case…
Click to expand...
To rationally know that something is true or false, you would have to be able to freely reason to that end in-order to know that the conclusion truly follows from the premise. Thus all this talk about there being some-kind of rational dispute about freewill is nonsense in the guise of science. What’s really happening is that there can be no rational physical explanation for freewill and so metaphysical-naturalists or people who are incapable of distinguishing between metaphysical and scientific statements are compelled into drawing false philosophical conclusions based on a body of evidence that provides no epistemological authority in regards to the question of whether or not we have freewill. Its a circular atheistic non-scientific crusade and nothing more. It is logically impossible to rationally deduce that you have no freewill. You either came across that knowledge freely and therefore rationally, or otherwise that knowledge is not the result of rational thinking and therefore you cannot rationally know that its true.

What a ridiculous debate

We experience freewill just like we experience everything else. If that’s an illusion then scientific reasoning is an illusion too. You can’t have one without the other.
 
Linux said:
To rationally know that something is true or false, you would have to be able to freely reason to that end in-order to know that the conclusion truly follows from the premise. Thus all this talk about there being some-kind of rational dispute about freewill is nonsense in the guise of science. What’s really happening is that there can be no rational physical explanation for freewill and so metaphysical-naturalists or people who are incapable of distinguishing between metaphysical and scientific statements are compelled into drawing false philosophical conclusions based on a body of evidence that provides no epistemological authority in regards to the question of whether or not we have freewill. Its a circular atheistic non-scientific crusade and nothing more. It is logically impossible to rationally deduce that you have no freewill. You either came across that knowledge freely and therefore rationally, or otherwise that knowledge is not the result of rational thinking and therefore you cannot rationally know that its true.

What a ridiculous debate

We experience freewill just like we experience everything else. If that’s an illusion then scientific reasoning is an illusion too. You can’t have one without the other.
Click to expand...
Two questions - why would rationality necessarily be a nonphysical attribute when its basis is a perception of cause-and-effect? Why is it assumed that our subjective experience must be either supernatural or illusory? These seem like false dichotomies to me. And in passing reference to the topic of the thread, there seems no reason to suppose - other than claimed ‘revelation’ - that the differences in reasoning capacity between humans and other animals are of kind rather than of degree.
 
Sair said:
Two questions - why would rationality necessarily be a nonphysical attribute when its basis is a perception of cause-and-effect?
Click to expand...
Rational Freewill cannot exist in a purely physical reality; that’s all i need to know. Physical events are fundamentally made up of non-rational activity. What i mean by this is that atoms (what our brain is made up of) do not move to some end because it has been discerned as rational or desirable to do so; they simply move there because they have been caused to do so. These atoms have no knowledge or rationality. In a physical universe the brain and its actions would be purely the effects of unknowing and non-rational activity. In that sense, in a purely physical reality, rational mental activity and therefore true inferential knowledge cannot exist, and neither we can we know that it does not exist.

But we do have rational minds and we can freely use those minds to rationally discern whether or not a course of action serves our desired agenda. We can have knowledge of whether something is true or false. Science itself cannot exist as a form of true discernible knowledge if you deny rational freewill.
Sair said:
These seem like false dichotomies to me.
Click to expand...
Whatever floats that leaky boat you’re sitting in.
 
Linux said:
St. Francis owned pets? I think your mistaken.
Click to expand...
Nope, he had pet lambs. Somebody mentioned this earlier in the thread as well.

monasteryicons.com/cgi-bin/hazel.cgi?action=DETAIL&item=399&EXPANDED=1
Saint Francis and the Lambs
Saint Francis had great love and respect for the sanctity of all life, seeing all creation as his brothers and sisters in the Lord. On one occasion he came upon a merchant carrying two small lambs to market. Moved by the plaintive bleating of the lams, he caressed them and asked the peasant, “Why do you torment my brothers the lambs?” When he learned in horror that the man intended to sell them for slaughter, he declared “That will not happen!” and bought them from the man. At Portiuncula for many years he had a tame lamb which followed him everywhere, even into the church, where its bleating mingled with the chants of the brethren.
Click to expand...
That certainly sounds like a pet in any meaningful sense of the word.
 
It is logically impossible to rationally deduce that you have no freewill.
Click to expand...
not completely, but it would be extremely difficult. In order for you to have free will, your soul must interfere in the physical workings of the brain on some level. The only way to prove conclusively that free will does not exist would be to discover completely how the brain functions and operates. I think that this is a long way off.
. Physical events are fundamentally made up of non-rational activity. What i mean by this is that atoms (what our brain is made up of) do not move to some end because it has been discerned as rational or desirable to do so; they simply move there because they have been caused to do so. These atoms have no knowledge or rationality.
Click to expand...
not exactly. We know that if naturalism is true, than certain physical events must give rise to consciousness. Most physicalists do not take this all the way to its inevitable conclusion, however. If naturalism is true, every chemical reaction must produce consciousness at some level!
 
Sair said:
What, exactly, are the physical effects of a soul - the ones that can’t be accounted for by actual physical explanations?
Click to expand...
the short answer is that there aren’t any physical effects that necessitate a soul at this point in time. We may eventually discover mirraculous changes in brain chemistry that are caused by the soul, or we may eventually discover that the brain is entirely deterministic.
Right now, however, the existence of free will and the soul remains an open question from a scientific perspective.

However, if you accept that God exists and that the Church has the authority to reveal theological truths without error, then we know that humans do have souls and animals do not, simply because this knowledge utimately comes from the creator of souls.
 
Sair said:
What, exactly, are the physical effects of a soul - the ones that can’t be accounted for by actual physical explanations?
Click to expand...
They primary physical effect of a soul is that a being is alive. That is, no soul, no life.
 
dskysmine said:
Hi everybody,
Given the moral imperative to Love God in our bretheren, how can a Catholic consider having a pet, or pursue any kind of career in the world of pets, or animal entertainment (like circus, etc…)?
Wouldn’t any dollar spent on a pet be a dollar lost on a bretheren that needs it?

Thank you for considering this.

Any opposing views with appropriate refutations are welcomed.

God bless,
D.
Click to expand...
I know several priests who have dogs. Are they in sin because they have dogs?
 
zro_x said:
As Neildown and many posters on the “church stance on animal intelligence” thread (also currently near the top of the first page) mentioned, animals do have souls, just not immortal ones. I think, though I am not absolutely certain, that this is the official church stance on the matter. We should respect the Church’s teaching on subjects of morallity,because Jesus gave her that authority. The Bible of course, is also an important authority. That’s why the quote from the chatechism and frizzgrig…

…have thrown me for a bit of a loop.
Click to expand...
Yes we must respect the Church’s teaching on subjects of morality. However per your previous posts on donning sackcloths and giving everything to the poor, what do you think about selling the Vatican and all of its artwork and treasures and giving the proceeds to the poor?
 
davidv said:
They primary physical effect of a soul is that a being is alive. That is, no soul, no life.
Click to expand...
Not true. Look into St. Thomas’ writings on the difference between plants, animals and human beings.
 
zro_x said:
As Neildown and many posters on the “church stance on animal intelligence” thread (also currently near the top of the first page) mentioned, animals do have souls, just not immortal ones. I think, though I am not absolutely certain, that this is the official church stance on the matter. We should respect the Church’s teaching on subjects of morallity,because Jesus gave her that authority. The Bible of course, is also an important authority. That’s why the quote from the chatechism and frizzgrig…
Click to expand...
Just as a correction, I never actually said or implied that animals do have souls - I just alluded to the possibility.
 
Hello,
So coming back to the subject at hand.
2 main reasons being:
Leisure and respect for animals.
I would respond to these 2 reasons that we may have leisure and respect towards animals without buying one for ourselves alone.
As for the story of St. Francis and the lamb that was tamed, it indicates that the choice was made by the lamb, not by St. Francis to carry it around.
I still do not find a compelling reason to buy a pet for leisure of oneself other than egoism.
What other reasons can you find?

God bless,
D.
 
dskysmine said:
Hi everybody,
Given the moral imperative to Love God in our bretheren, how can a Catholic consider having a pet, or pursue any kind of career in the world of pets, or animal entertainment (like circus, etc…)?
Wouldn’t any dollar spent on a pet be a dollar lost on a bretheren that needs it?

Thank you for considering this.

Any opposing views with appropriate refutations are welcomed.

God bless,
D.
Click to expand...
maybe pet shop owners and suppliers are people/bretheren trying to make a living.🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top