What is the impact on faith or Catholic teaching if Neanderthals interbred with humans?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Neanderthals had, on average, larger brain craniums than modern humans. There’s evidence that they buried the dead and practiced religious rites. I personally think they had souls. They were are very close cousins genetically - perhaps Adam and Eve predate the divergence of our two species.
 
Differentiating between humans and Neanderthals is a matter of modern semantics. In biology (so far as I, not a biologist, understand it), if two animals can mate to produce fertile offspring, they are of the same species. A cat and a dog are not the same species because they cannot produce offspring. A horse and a donkey are not the same species because they cannot produce fertile offspring. A “human” and a “Neanderthal” seem to have been able to mate and produce fertile offspring. Differentiating between the two scientifically has merit, but theologically I think it is splitting hairs.

The general (but not as universal as we sometimes think) consensus is that all living things have souls. Whether Neanderthals had immortal or mortal souls, whether the “humans” of that time had immortal or mortal souls - their offspring would have had a soul if all living things have souls (whether it was mortal or immortal). But souls aren’t biological entities that “pass on” immortality from person to person. God infuses immortality into the human soul.
 
GEddie said:
And we can only guess, in any case, as souls do not fossilize, and leave no trace via the head size or other bodily parameter.

If they could breed with human life, would that not make them human? Isn’t that how species are defined?
Click to expand...
Strange that the two would even be compatible? I know in the past Russian scientists tried and tried to create offspring from a human female and male gorilla, If I remember correctly they tried just about everything they could think of and it never worked.

But there is some neanderthal DNA in our genes today, so I guess at one time, it was successful, but still strange 2 different species could create offspring. (if neanderthal were in fact a different species)

I believe the Nephilim were totally different though, that was something God allowed the fallen angels to do of, but we could never figure out the ‘logistics’ of how that came to produce offspring…some things we are just not meant to understand imo.
 
dshix said:
To be clear, all living things “have souls”. The difference between us and other creatures is that we have spiritual, immortal souls, whereas animals and plants have material, mortal souls. They lack reason, conceptual intelligence, or moral knowledge.

See this interesting Catholic Answers article on the subject.
Click to expand...
Ehhhh but that’s a traditional way of saying it, from Aristotle on through Aquinas. It seems a bit unscientific to put it that way.
 
catholic1seeks said:
Ehhhh but that’s a traditional way of saying it, from Aristotle on through Aquinas. It seems a bit unscientific to put it that way.
Click to expand...
Is it ‘scientific’ to say that humans have souls? If so, then exactly how might science measure or observe a human soul? 😉
 
Gorgias said:
Is it ‘scientific’ to say that humans have souls? If so, then exactly how might science measure or observe a human soul? 😉
Click to expand...
The essential Christian understanding/belief of what it means for humans to have souls is for humans to have a spiritual component.

In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human *life *or the entire human person. But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him, that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.

-Catechism #363

When I say that the traditional understanding of all living things having souls is “unscientific,” its because this understanding of soul relating to some notion of how a living thing is in fact living. Seems like biology replaces that traditional understanding.

The human soul is unscientific in that it is spiritual and not observable.
 
Faith = trust.

Neanderthals interbreeding with humans would have zero impact on my faith.

I can only speak for myself. I would still trust God.

-Tim-
 
TimothyH said:
Faith = trust.

Neanderthals interbreeding with humans would have zero impact on my faith.

I can only speak for myself. I would still trust God.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
Faith also means the substance of revelation and the teachings of the Church
 
Faith1960 said:
Is that Neanderthal?
Click to expand...
Yes, homo neanderthalis is Neanderthal Man.

Useless trivia – homo neanderthalis is named for the Neander Valley (“thal” in German, pronounced like the English word “tall”) just east of Düsseldorf. This is where the first remains of this species were found.
 
I don’t understand how dismissive people can be of how this idea would affect the faith.

Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalis are not the same thing, to suggest that both were true men and ensouled by God with human souls is a radical thought. Keep in mind that this thought has huge ramifications for the doctrine of original sin. To suggest that both of these species were essentially the same in terms of their status as human beings, it necessarily follows that Adam and Eve had to be their common ancestor, and in order for this to be the case Adam and Eve would have had to have been of a third species from which homo sapiens and homo neanderthalis came from.

This sounds absurd on the surface of it and I don’t see how any of this can be reconciled with the teachings of the Church. So for those of you confident that this idea has no affect on your faith, where are you coming from on this? I don’t see how you can accept this as scientific fact and reconcile it with Church teaching on original sin.
 
Barricade said:
To suggest that both of these species were essentially the same in terms of their status as human beings, it necessarily follows that Adam and Eve had to be their common ancestor, and in order for this to be the case Adam and Eve would have had to have been of a third species from which homo sapiens and homo neanderthalis came from.
Click to expand...
I don’t mean to dismiss your point because I think it is a good one worth discussing, but I do think it’s worth pointing out that it has not been conclusively determined whether the Neanderthal is a separate species altogether. Many think it is a subspecies.

I think as Catholics all we can say is that there were two recognizably-human, made in God’s image, common ancestors which were the first to which God gave souls. It is difficult to judge that the existence of Neanderthal has an effect on this belief when studies have not determined for sure whether they are a human subspecies or a different species.
 
Barricade said:
Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalis are not the same thing, to suggest that both were true men and ensouled by God with human souls is a radical thought. Keep in mind that this thought has huge ramifications for the doctrine of original sin.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t really have ‘huge ramifications’, though – at least not necessarily.

In this discussion, it’s important to distinguish between statements that are theological in their basis and those that are scientific.

You seem to recoil at the notion of an ensouled human (a theological thought) that is not a member of homo sapiens sapiens (a scientific distinction). So, let me ask you: of what genus and species were Adam and Eve? What is your source for your answer? (See how tricky it gets when you mix science and theology and try to make them address questions in the other’s bailiwick? 😉 )
To suggest that both of these species were essentially the same in terms of their status as human beings, it necessarily follows that Adam and Eve had to be their common ancestor
Click to expand...
No it doesn’t. If they interbred, it might be the case that an (ensouled) human interbred with an (unensouled) hominin (e.g., Neanderthal). Their offspring – we would expect – be ensouled. There’s no theological difficulty or impact on the doctrine of original sin there.

Scientists aren’t certain whether we and Neanderthals share DNA due to interbreeding or from a common ancestor. Neither would seem to present a problem to the doctrine of original sin: those whom God ensouled would have children who were ensouled.
, and in order for this to be the case Adam and Eve would have had to have been of a third species from which homo sapiens and homo neanderthalis came from.
Click to expand...
So, if there were a common ancestor, why would it be unthinkable that God ensouled that common ancestor?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top