Would we be "us" no matter which sperm fertilized the egg?

[afthomercy]

I want to put across my thoughts on today’s featured Q&A, which can be found at this link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7673984#post7673984

I feel that the respected staff apologist has missed out an important nuance whilst answering the question. First, he should have clarified that the rule about the body-soul is particular to the human person, and not to the divine or angelic persons. Second and more pertinent, is the fact that it is not a random sperm that fertilises the egg, although it appears on surface to be so. Each sperm and egg that unite into an actual zygote have been visualised by God from the begining of time, and have been fashioned by Him in time, to go up to make the person He intends to bring into the world. “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I dedicated you, a prophet to the nations I appointed you.” Jeremiah 1:5

Hence the question can never be whether we would be “us” no matter which sperm fertilized the egg. The respected apologist has answered that “We would be an entirely different person if the sperm or egg had united with another.” While that is technically true, the fact is that there is NEVER any question of another sperm and egg fertilising to bring “us” into existance. The question is invalid to begin with, because which specific gametes will participate in a particular fertilisation have been sovereignly predetermined by God.

Human nature is comprised of body and soul, and the body is the sum total of the genes. The genes are determined by the gametes which participate in fertilisation. If the gametes were randomly selected and conscious divine intervention came in only at the time of infusion of the soul, then God would have no control over the nature of the person coming into existance, which is a fallacy!

 

[SonCatcher]

The apologist was speaking to the human intellect that lives within time and travels through it linearly. Future events are unknown to us since we are temporal beings. Therefore, the event of fertilization is random to us.

He did not limit God’s foreknowledge since he did not address it.

 

[vz71]

While that is technically true, the fact is that there is NEVER any question of another sperm and egg fertilising to bring “us” into existance. The question is invalid to begin with, because which specific gametes will participate in a particular fertilisation have been sovereignly predetermined by God.

Predestination anyone?

 

[inocente]

The question is invalid to begin with, because which specific gametes will participate in a particular fertilisation have been sovereignly predetermined by God.

Human nature is comprised of body and soul, and the body is the sum total of the genes. The genes are determined by the gametes which participate in fertilisation. If the gametes were randomly selected and conscious divine intervention came in only at the time of infusion of the soul, then God would have no control over the nature of the person coming into existance, which is a fallacy!

God sovereignly predetermines to bring about birth defects? Think I’ll go with the apologist’s answer thanks. Anyway why would God control our coming into existence and then drop the reigns by giving us free will?

 

[SonCatcher]

God sovereignly predetermines to bring about birth defects? Think I’ll go with the apologist’s answer thanks. Anyway why would God control our coming into existence and then drop the reigns by giving us free will?

Birth defects, like all disease, are an effect of a fallen world. Like everything else throughout time, God has foreknowledge of everything but does not directly will that evil (including disease and defects) occur. God’s sovereignty is not in question here. Neither is free will.

 

[afthomercy]

God allows birth (genetic) defects to happen, but He probably compensates the affected individuals in visible or invisible ways. For example, the intellect, mind, will, talents etc., etc. are powers of the soul. He may ‘power up’ these faculties whist fashioning the soul in the case of some of these individuals, eg. Hellen Keller. Another way in which He could be compensating these individuals could be through a ‘softer’ final judgement.

I’m pretty sure that He gets into the act much before the actual union of gametes. Not only He selects the gametes, He also orders the placement of genes on them to achieve the desired characteristics in the person coming into existance.

I reflected a lot about the Incarnation (today is the feast day), and I feel that He ordered the genes on the Blessed Virgin Mary’s eggs in a particular way just so as to achieve the virgin birth. My speculations on this topic can be found at this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7686761#post7686761, please jump directly to post #25 therein. Of course, these are only speculations, as such things are beyond certainty. God is slowly transferring genetic knowledge to us and it is surely comforting to find the new threads of knowledge to be in sync with our core beliefs. :dancing:

HAPPY FEAST OF THE INCARNATION-ANNUNCIATION TO ONE AND ALL!!

 

[Bunker_Man]

Well, seeing as how brains are essentially just advanced biological calculators which obviously as a physical object itself doesn’t have any more free will than an arm or even a table, yes, we’d probably still be “us,” but we might have different properties.

 

[Gregory_I]

So, if we rephrase the question, are you asking: “WOuld GOd have chosen to give “me” the same particular soul and ego regardless of what sperm had been fertilized?”

He may have had the particular soul in mind, but soul and body are a composite hypostatic unity, and are really not to be considered apart from each other, so it seems a little untenable to ask the question. So…no. I think not.

 

[inocente]

Birth defects, like all disease, are an effect of a fallen world. Like everything else throughout time, God has foreknowledge of everything but does not directly will that evil (including disease and defects) occur. God’s sovereignty is not in question here. Neither is free will.

The OP says “which specific gametes will participate in a particular fertilisation have been sovereignly predetermined by God”, that God micro-manages fertilization to bring a given person into existence. Any defects present would therefore be sovereignly predetermined by God.

Then if God has control over “the nature of the person coming into existence” free will is very much brought into question, since God would have controlled the whole nature of the person and free will would only be relative to that control.

We know the sun will rise tomorrow without having to control it. God has foreknowledge without controlling us.

 

[SonCatcher]

The OP says “which specific gametes will participate in a particular fertilisation have been sovereignly predetermined by God”, that God micro-manages fertilization to bring a given person into existence. Any defects present would therefore be sovereignly predetermined by God.

Then if God has control over “the nature of the person coming into existence” free will is very much brought into question, since God would have controlled the whole nature of the person and free will would only be relative to that control.

We know the sun will rise tomorrow without having to control it. God has foreknowledge without controlling us.

Friend, we are arguing the same side. You brought up the problem of birth defects (not the OP) as part of your refutation but did not address that problem in itself. I took the liberty to fill that void; that is all.

 

[LemonAndLime]

The question has a very straightforward and simple answer.

God is all-knowing, therefore he already knows which “sperm” will fertilise the egg.

We’re only given our soul after conception, it’s not something given to the egg which the sperm then makes whole.

So your soul will always be your soul, as it was given to you at the moment of conception.

I really don’t understand why this question is being made out to be complicated.

 

[afthomercy]

Well, seeing as how brains are essentially just advanced biological calculators which obviously as a physical object itself doesn’t have any more free will than an arm or even a table, yes, we’d probably still be “us,” but we might have different properties.

Just digressing from the OP to point out that free will is embedded in the soul and not in the brain/body. A good allegory would be the hardware and software in a computer. If the body of the human being is the hardware, then the soul is the software or operating system (OS). At the exact moment when the wiring of the zygote is completed (handshake between egg and sperm), God loads the OS (soul) and now the unit is powered. Unlike in a factory situation, each hardware and software is unique, or you could say that each software is tailormade for the hardware (or vice versa). Remove the soul and what you have left is a dead body!

 

[inocente]

Friend, we are arguing the same side. You brought up the problem of birth defects (not the OP) as part of your refutation but did not address that problem in itself. I took the liberty to fill that void; that is all.

Ooops - I confess to being in argumentative mood and hoping someone would support the OP.

 

[afthomercy]

The question has a very straightforward and simple answer. God is all-knowing, therefore he already knows which “sperm” will fertilise the egg. We’re only given our soul after conception, it’s not something given to the egg which the sperm then makes whole. So your soul will always be your soul, as it was given to you at the moment of conception. I really don’t understand why this question is being made out to be complicated.

God’s foreknowledge is not in question. Also, we’re all on the same page as to the point of infusion of soul, viz. at fertilisation. Our speculation concerns what happens just before the fertilisation. Two things are possible:
(a) God allows the gametes to be selected randomly. However this calls into question His control over the nature of the person coming into existance.
(b) God micro-manages the gamete selection process, going to the extent of not only hand-picking the gametes, but also moulding them according to His design for the person coming into existance. However some people see this as a nullification of the free-will of the person coming into existance.
I would go with (b), because free-will comes into play only after the individual comes into existance, but before that the Creator is unfettered in choosing the ingredients that go into the making of that individual.
The original question (would “we” be us no matter which sperm fertilised the egg) becomes tenable under (a) and untenable under (b).

 

[SonCatcher]

God’s foreknowledge is not in question. Also, we’re all on the same page as to the point of infusion of soul, viz. at fertilisation. Our speculation concerns what happens just before the fertilisation. Two things are possible:
(a) God allows the gametes to be selected randomly. However this calls into question His control over the nature of the person coming into existance.
(b) God micro-manages the gamete selection process, going to the extent of not only hand-picking the gametes, but also moulding them according to His design for the person coming into existance. However some people see this as a nullification of the free-will of the person coming into existance.
I would go with (b), because free-will comes into play only after the individual comes into existance, but before that the Creator is unfettered in choosing the ingredients that go into the making of that individual.
The original question (would “we” be us no matter which sperm fertilised the egg) becomes tenable under (a) and untenable under (b).

On (a): how could the apparent randomness of gamete selection invalidate the nature of the person? I do not think that God would accidentally infuse a human zygote with a non-human soul.

On (b): could “micro-management” of the fertilization process be an overruling of the free will of the parents?

Actually, I don’t see how either alternative affects the validity of the original question. If (b) were the case, God could choose to make a different person by selecting different gametes while (a) does not impact the question at all.

 

[afthomercy]

On (a): how could the apparent randomness of gamete selection invalidate the nature of the person? I do not think that God would accidentally infuse a human zygote with a non-human soul.

Nowhere am I even remotely suggesting that God could be so daft as to “accidentally” infuse a human zygote with a non-human soul. By “nature” I mean it as “personality”. Each gamete pair has the potential to give a different personality to the incoming individual. So if God lets randomness take over in gamete selection, then it implies that He has ‘dropped the reins’ in fashioning the personality of the incoming individual.

On (b): how could “micro-management” of the fertilization process be an overruling of the free will of the parents?.

I’m not refering to the free will of the parents here, but of the new individual. I felt that Inocente was suggesting this angle in post #9 above. Anyway, free will is not the main point and let’s not pursue it.

If (b) were the case, God could choose to make a different person by selecting different gametes…

You’re actually agreeing with me now! Yes, God chooses each individual by selecting different gametes. I have gone one step further said that not only does He hand-pick the gametes, He tweaks them here and there to achieve His precise purposes. If gamete selection is so deliberate, then the original question (Would “we” be us…) becomes untenable.

while (a) does not impact the question at all.

I hope you will review your conclusion in the light of my clarifications

 

[SonCatcher]

Nowhere am I even remotely suggesting that God could be so daft as to “accidentally” infuse a human zygote with a non-human soul. By “nature” I mean it as “personality”. Each gamete pair has the potential to give a different personality to the incoming individual. So if God lets randomness take over in gamete selection, then it implies that He has ‘dropped the reins’ in fashioning the personality of the incoming individual.

The whole “nature vs. nurture” debate comes into play here, too. Personality seems to be impacted not only by genetic makeup, but also the environment in which the child is raised, including while in the womb. Besides, I understand the question to have been about soul, not personality.

I’m not refering to the free will of the parents here, but of the new individual. I felt that Inocente was suggesting this angle in post #9 above. Anyway, free will is not the main point and let’s not pursue it.

Actually, it does seem to me that the free will of the parents plays a huge role in the conception of the child since they are the ones who chose the circumstances of conception.

You’re actually agreeing with me now! Yes, God chooses each individual by selecting different gametes. I have gone one step further said that not only does He hand-pick the gametes, He tweaks them here and there to achieve His precise purposes. If gamete selection is so deliberate, then the original question (Would “we” be us…) becomes untenable.

The allegation of untenability even in this case reminds me of the ancient cartographer who was alleged to have written “here there be dragons” on the edge of his map just because that was the extent of his knowledge. Even if it were the case that God forcefully cause 2 gametes to join at the exclusion of others, it does not mean we cannot ask the question whether our soul would be the same had different gametes been chosen.

I hope you will review your conclusion in the light of my clarifications

I don’t see any reason to even in that light, thank you.

 

[greylorn]

I want to put across my thoughts on today’s featured Q&A, which can be found at this link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7673984#post7673984

I feel that the respected staff apologist has missed out an important nuance whilst answering the question. First, he should have clarified that the rule about the body-soul is particular to the human person, and not to the divine or angelic persons. Second and more pertinent, is the fact that it is not a random sperm that fertilises the egg, although it appears on surface to be so. Each sperm and egg that unite into an actual zygote have been visualised by God from the begining of time, and have been fashioned by Him in time, to go up to make the person He intends to bring into the world. “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I dedicated you, a prophet to the nations I appointed you.” Jeremiah 1:5

Hence the question can never be whether we would be “us” no matter which sperm fertilized the egg. The respected apologist has answered that “We would be an entirely different person if the sperm or egg had united with another.” While that is technically true, the fact is that there is NEVER any question of another sperm and egg fertilising to bring “us” into existance. The question is invalid to begin with, because which specific gametes will participate in a particular fertilisation have been sovereignly predetermined by God.

Human nature is comprised of body and soul, and the body is the sum total of the genes. The genes are determined by the gametes which participate in fertilisation. If the gametes were randomly selected and conscious divine intervention came in only at the time of infusion of the soul, then God would have no control over the nature of the person coming into existance, which is a fallacy!

Your entire thesis neglects an essential element. What are the properties of the soul, and how might they be interwoven with characteristics of the brain? Nothing can be addressed until this issue is well-resolved.

 

[4Horsemen]

Your entire thesis neglects an essential element. What are the properties of the soul, and how might they be interwoven with characteristics of the brain? Nothing can be addressed until this issue is well-resolved.

Without an immortal soul, which is the seat of the intellect, will and imagination, the body along with the brain, is merely a mechanistic structure that is material but is given form by the soul. The brain is like a record, tape, cd, dvd that records events but does not reason or intellectualize about these events. The body is a machine. It doesn’t have volition in and of itself. Although the brain records memories, it has no imagination to understand what it is recording. It is the soul that interprets man’s thoughts–profound or profane.

 

[greylorn]

Without an immortal soul, which is the seat of the intellect, will and imagination, the body along with the brain, is merely a mechanistic structure that is material but is given form by the soul. The brain is like a record, tape, cd, dvd that records events but does not reason or intellectualize about these events. The body is a machine. It doesn’t have volition in and of itself. Although the brain records memories, it has no imagination to understand what it is recording. It is the soul that interprets man’s thoughts–profound or profane.

Some aspects of these assertions are correct. Others are not, and some are in between.

The problem with conventional versions of soul-brain duality such as this is that they do not account for the behavior of animals. Critters at all levels, from worms to chimpanzees, exhibit a considerable amount of volition. It seems reasonable to assume that human bodies share the characteristics of their animal predecessors, except for a brain-level linkage to soul, and that human bodies therefore have plenty of volition all by themselves.

In support of this, one might argue that the tendency of humans to procreate with as many partners as possible is the consequence of the body’s inherent volition to do so; and that the inhibitory component of man comes from soul.

There have been many cases in neurological lore which are indicative of human bodies without soul, but these are never recognized by scientists or religionists at face value.

The evidence from this supports your claim about the brain’s limitations. However, it appears that brains w/o souls are often good enough to convince observers that they are fully functional human beings. (e.g. The Soul of Anna Klane)

Your notion that the body is given form by the soul is incorrect and contrary to common sense. There are a few billion different kinds of critters in the world, still living. Unless you want to join the new-age nitwits and attribute a soul to every housecat, dung beetle, and rock on the planet, you might want to back off from that assertion. It does not make either scientific or religious sense.

While I accept the idea of a mental mechanism which exists in humans independently of the human body, I’ve done a bit of study and research on their interrelationship and find it quite a bit more complex than the outline you’ve offered.

One simple conclusion which you may come to appreciate in time, is that the ideal soul-brain relationship involves quite a lot of intense, interrelated duty-sharing. By itself, the brain pretty much clunks along, like a toolbox sitting in the trunk of a car. Only when the soul fully engages the power of its brain (pulling out that toolbox and putting its contents to work) does the full power of a human being emerge.

Regrettably, this occurs rarely.

The other side of this is, of course, what does the soul do without a brain? I propose that 99.999999% of them (us) go completely unconscious.