This is the brunt of my question…What is the measurement for declaring #7 ensouled but #8 not ensouled if their inner states are nearly identical?The first eight are ‘human’, and have immortal souls. The last is ‘non-human’, and does not have an immortal soul.
What “inner states”?What is the measurement for declaring #7 ensouled but #8 not ensouled if their inner states are nearly identical?
I’ll bite: why is that not convincing enough?You could say “Becuase #7 is a human and has a soul”, but that isn’t convincing enough.
What kind of ‘proof’ would you accept? Certainly you’re not looking for physical, empirical ‘proof’ of a non-physical entity, are you?What proof is there that the human has a soul?
Not “faith only”. You could read up on Aquinas and his discussions of what makes a human soul distinct.It seems this is a conclusion that can only be based on faith.
As Thomists understand, all things have a principle of form, which in loving things is called a soul. The argument for the immortality of human beings from a Thomist perspective is based in the operations human beings carry out which can not have a material explanation (and which has not been observed in any other kind). That operation being the ability to grasp universal concepts, and which if it existed in other living things we’ve encountered on Earth would be evidenced by those species having language, ethics, philosophy, and so on.You could say “Becuase #7 is a human and has a soul”, but that isn’t convincing enough. What proof is there that the human has a soul? It seems this is a conclusion that can only be based on faith.
What they are thinking, feeling, experiencing first hand.What “inner states”?
A person in a vegetative state or a fetus doesn’t do any of these though. If they still have a immortal soul, then why cant an animal?The argument for the immortality of human beings from a Thomist perspective is based in the operations human beings carry out which can not have a material explanation (and which has not been observed in any other kind). That operation being the ability to grasp universal concepts, and which if it existed in other living things we’ve encountered on Earth would be evidenced by those species having language, ethics, philosophy, and so on.
Umm… how do you know what animals are “thinking” or “feeling”, or in what way they’re “experiencing”? Aren’t you making a whole lot of wild assumptions there?What they are thinking, feeling, experiencing first hand.
Sure, but they’re not self-conscious, and that’s the decisive thing for having what you call a “spiritual soul”. (That’s my answer to your question in the thread title.)It has been admitted that animals are conscious,
No. The human birth itself shows that the principle of self-consciousness is present. A “vegetative” human (likely) has no thoughts, but self-consciousness does not require thought.would that mean humans born in a perpetually vegetative state dont have spiritual souls?
But he does give them eternal life. As for fearing death, humans fear it because they’ve forgotten their immortality, and they’ve forgotten their immortality as a result of sin, which they deliberately chose.(Bonus question: Why would God create a conscious creature that fears death and not give them eternal life?)
Show us any Church teaching that states animals do not feel pain. What an individual theologian says is not relevant as you mentioned the Church.Excellent questions. Because of the issues you raise, many Christian theologians insist animals feel no pain and are not conscious (self-aware) and therefore there is no conflict.
This was one of theological reasons I am greatly frustrated with the Church.
Claiming animals are not self-aware or do not feel pain is beyond the pale to me, and grossly immoral (in my opinion). I believe it is a grave sin to arbitrarily injure, kill otherwise inflict suffering on another living thing. According to these theologians these acts are not inherently sinful in and of themselves.
A much more moral approach is to believe animals are conscious and self-aware and do persist in the afterlife just as humans do. That’s what I think anyway.
Not as such, on a personal basis. Just answering the question asked.Are your defending Thom18?
I didn’t address “atheists and non-Christians”, just the differences between animals and humans.They made the claim that atheists and non-Christians are spiritually inferior to Christians.
I think there’s a subtle point here: “same cognitive ability” makes a number of important assumptions which I’m not sure we’re acknowledging. In traditional Catholic theological approaches, rationality is characteristic of human souls (and is not present in non-humans). The question, then, becomes does “awareness of others” (whatever that means, precisely) or “self-awareness” (again, we need greater definition here, don’t we?) imply rationality as such?Why does an animal have the same cognitive ability as a person (ie, being aware of themselves and others) but not then have a soul?
No; I would not say that this is the crux of the distinction.The answer is because animals are unaware of God
Again, we’d have to distinguish and frame up an answer in terms of rationality itself, as such.This is in reference to cognitive ability.