Would dogs enjoy heaven?

  • Thread starter Thread starter markeverett49
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
markeverett49 said:
Actually, all material things are subject to the ravages of time. Death is the dissolution of a body into parts.
All the things you mention as being immaterial but not spiritual are things it requires an intellect to grasp. They are not sense particulars; it is our grasp, such as it is, of such things which shows us our minds are not wholly material. Nothing in the behavior of dogs suggests a grasp of such things.

Yes, dog souls are material. If they are not immaterial–and hence immortal–they are material. There’s no third option here! Angels have been called “minds without bodies,” and so they are. We are a mix of mind and body. Dogs are all body, no mind.
Click to expand...
Again, I’m not denying anything you say here (although, I’m not sure about dogs having no minds…).

I’m just looking for a reasonably clear definition of what “soul” actually means.

Also, I wouldn’t use this argument: “Yes, dog souls are material. If they are not immaterial–and hence immortal–they are material”, since that’s the point to be proved.
 
jonathan_hili said:
Again, I’m not denying anything you say here (although, I’m not sure about dogs having no minds…).

I’m just looking for a reasonably clear definition of what “soul” actually means.

Also, I wouldn’t use this argument: “Yes, dog souls are material. If they are not immaterial–and hence immortal–they are material”, since that’s the point to be proved.
Click to expand...
Aristotle called the soul the first actuality of a naturally organized body. That is far clearer than it may seem at first sight to someone who hasn’t spent much time with Aristotle.

The Catechism refers to the soul as “the spiritual principle in man.” (Dogs have no such spiritual principle.) The Catechism section on man—#355-368 is good in this regard.

Edward Feser’s book “The Last Superstition” provides background on the metaphysics of Aristotle and Aquinas.
 
markeverett49 said:
Aristotle called the soul the first actuality of a naturally organized body. That is far clearer than it may seem at first sight to someone who hasn’t spent much time with Aristotle.

The Catechism refers to the soul as “the spiritual principle in man.” (Dogs have no such spiritual principle.) The Catechism section on man—#355-368 is good in this regard.

Edward Feser’s book “The Last Superstition” provides background on the metaphysics of Aristotle and Aquinas.
Click to expand...
True. And that’s why for Aristotle the soul forms the body. Now, something which forms matter cannot itself be material.

As for the Catechism, well, this is a different understanding of “soul” to Aristotle.

Which are you going with?
 
markeverett49 said:
God, through an act of divine providence, could put the corpse of a dog in heaven, of course, though as dogs do not have immortal souls, it’s hard to see how they would enjoy it.
Click to expand...
And what about the new Heaven and Earth? What is all of creation “waiting for”? To simply cease to exist when it all dies? Do you seriously think that’s an argument that will hold up with anybody?
 
devoutchristian said:
So to be clear, you do agree that animals cannot experience Heaven before the Resurrection?
Click to expand...
Don’t know. Neither does the Church. Do you claim to know with certainty?

Edit: What do you think all of creation is “waiting for”? Oblivion?
 
Lochias said:
Don’t know. Neither does the Church. Do you claim to know with certainty?

Edit: What do you think all of creation is “waiting for”? Oblivion?
Click to expand...
It is logically impossible for a purely physical creature to enjoy a purely spiritual pleasure.
 
devoutchristian said:
It is logically impossible for a purely physical creature to enjoy a purely spiritual pleasure.
Click to expand...
  1. A soul, in and of itself, cannot be said to be purely physical.
  2. You have refused to answer my question, leading me to believe that you have no suitable answer.
 
Lochias said:
  1. A soul, in and of itself, cannot be said to be purely physical.
  2. You have refused to answer my question, leading me to believe that you have no suitable answer.
Click to expand...
An animal soul is no way spiritual, you should read Aquinas on this.
 
I don’t think dogs would enjoy my dwelling place in heaven. Because there would be a lot of cats enjoying what every they want there. :cool:
 
Lochias said:
  1. A soul, in and of itself, cannot be said to be purely physical.
    .
Click to expand...
Of course it can. You are thinking of the immaterial souls of human beings and thinking ANYthing with a soul must have THAT kind of soul. This is mistaken. If that is how you understand souls, then in that sense, dogs do not have them at all.

I second the suggestion that you read Aquinas on this.
 
markeverett49 said:
Of course it can. You are thinking of the immaterial souls of human beings and thinking ANYthing with a soul must have THAT kind of soul. This is mistaken. If that is how you understand souls, then in that sense, dogs do not have them at all.

I second the suggestion that you read Aquinas on this.
Click to expand...
Tell me what an animal’s soul feels, looks and tastes like.
 
markeverett49 said:
Like almost everything else, it tastes like chicken!

You might enjoy this short article posted by the CA staff.

catholic.com/quickquestions/do-animals-have-souls-like-human-beings
Click to expand...
The CA staff are entitled to their opinions, as is everyone else. The Church itself has declared that we can’t know with certainty what happens to animals in the afterlife. What we DO know of the nature of God, logic, Scripture, and common sense all point to the conclusion that it is the height of arrogance and foolishness to simply assume that God’s creation is simply dead and gone when it dies upon the earth. God is not wasteful, He is not wanton.

An animal like a cat or a dog is a beautiful rendering of God’s love itself, and I rest assured in my own opinion that they are not gone forever when they leave us here. I don’t know for sure if we’ll see them in Heaven, but I know they’re not finished.
 
jonathan_hili said:
I know dog souls are not immortal, but I don’t think it’s the “immateriality” of the soul that makes it immortal. For example, Aristotle believed the soul was immaterial but he didn’t really believe in immortality of the soul because of its conjoined nature with the body. Similarly, Aquinas had difficultly in dealing with the issue.

If the soul is “the first principle of living things”, what does this mean? Do you mean “the thing that makes it alive”?
Click to expand...
My understanding is that the soul is the animating principle of the body. This is why when the soul departs from the body, the body dies and immediately begins to decay.
 
Lochias said:
An animal like a cat or a dog is a beautiful rendering of God’s love itself, and I rest assured in my own opinion that they are not gone forever when they leave us here. I don’t know for sure if we’ll see them in Heaven, but I know they’re not finished.
Click to expand...
The Church teaches that humans are the only creatures God made for Himself. We are the only creatures made in His image and likeness. Male and female created He them. Many take this to mean that in the uniting of husband and wife, with an openness to children, humans most closely resemble God.

The reason I made the OP the way I did —“Would dogs enjoy heaven?”—was to point out the difference between us and them: we have rational souls, intellects, and they do not. Their souls do not survive the deaths of their bodies.
 
markeverett49 said:
The Church teaches that humans are the only creatures God made for Himself. We are the only creatures made in His image and likeness. Male and female created He them. Many take this to mean that in the uniting of husband and wife, with an openness to children, humans most closely resemble God.

The reason I made the OP the way I did —“Would dogs enjoy heaven?”—was to point out the difference between us and them: we have rational souls, intellects, and they do not. Their souls do not survive the deaths of their bodies.
Click to expand...
What is all of creation waiting for?
 
Lochias said:
So, what’s it made of, then? What does an animal soul feel like?
]
Click to expand...
I agree with this being an important question. Whenever someone says animal souls are material in the sense of literally being physical, I want to ask similar questions; if the animal soul is a physical thing, science should be able to find it. If animal souls are physical, then there should be something in animals, that you could actually see and touch, something that, on the other hand, you couldn’t find in humans (because if we don’t have physical souls, yet animals do, then there should be some extra physical “thing” animals have that we don’t. So it couldn’t be their brains, as we humans have brains and don’t have physical souls. It couldn’t be “just the sum total of their bodies” because we humans have a sum total of our bodies, and we don’t have physical souls. Nor could it simply be the fact that their bodies are animated, because super advanced robots could be animated and we wouldn’t say they had souls.

So, as Lochias does, I too must ask: If animal souls are physical, what are they, what do they look like, and where are they “located” in the animal? These questions ought not be unreasonable, at least in theory, if the animal soul is something physical, because we can and do discern such answers with other physical things all the time.

I personally do not think any kind of soul, animal or human, can be something “made of parts” that can decompose. Such a thing simply makes no sense to me: If a soul could be made of parts, then that means a soul could, in theory, be “built” by putting the right parts together. You could “build” a soul just as you might build a house, were that true, and I think most of us would shrink back from that idea. Unless animals are not really anymore “alive” than a computer program; but then the catechism says we ought not be needlessly cruel to them, and something no more alive than a computer could not “feel” nor experience cruelty. So to me, it simply makes no sense to say that animal souls are “made of parts”; and only something “made of parts” can “decay” (which is to have those parts disintegrate).

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top