Animal souls

[Simon Anders]

“ Originally Posted by Simon Anders
Perhaps we will find out through this that there is little interest in dicussion of religion but just in trying to score points against the opponents. ”

Leopold99
english law, and possibly a whole slew of others, is based on humans having a soul placed there by a god.

are you really willing to say "i'm nothing more than an animal?"

I took this response as saying that animals do not have souls, but humans do.

my reponse to this was:

2) my guess is you are assuming, for some reason, that I am an atheist.
3) given that I am, however, a pagan, rather than a Christian or other monotheist, my answer will still be different on that latter question. You're perhaps never had a dog as a pet.

and I received this in response:

Leopold:
yes, i have. with all the human/ pet bonding attached.
i can say for certain an animal can't even approach the intellectual prowess of humans much less match it.

So, having a soul is related to intellectual prowess. Does IQ determine if one has a soul or not? What is the cut off point?

How did you bond with something soulless?

 

[leopold]

So, having a soul is related to intellectual prowess.

i never suggested this. i apologize if you took it as such.

 

[Simon Anders]

i never suggested this. i apologize if you took it as such.

What did you mean then?

 

[leopold]

you suggested that there would be little interest in religion other than "scoring points"
i simply stated that english law, and possibly others, is based on religion.
to me that implies a big chunk of humanity. it also implies a lot of interest.

 

[Simon Anders]

you suggested that there would be little interest in religion other than "scoring points"
i simply stated that english law, and possibly others, is based on religion.
to me that implies a big chunk of humanity. it also implies a lot of interest.

Ah, OK, we've been talking past each other. I actually said...

Perhaps we will find out through this that there is little interest in dicussion of religion but just in trying to score points against the opponents.

Then the religious forum could gently be put to rest, whether it is reborn, turns into nothingness or lives happily in cyber heaven.....

On the other hand, then religion could be discussed without falling into the same deadlock.

[emphasis added now]

And I meant interest here at Sciforums. A glance at the threads in Relgion will find that a lot of the threads have atheism vs. theism as a topic. So perhaps here there isn't much other interest in Religion except this topic. Personally I am interested other than this topic so I hope by separating the wheat from the chaff there will still be a Religious forum.

 

[lightgigantic]

So, having a soul is related to intellectual prowess. Does IQ determine if one has a soul or not? What is the cut off point?

How did you bond with something soulless?

If it is symptomized by IQ, does that mean intelligent people have more soul or are more spiritual? Does that mean intellectually challenged people or babies have no soul? Does that make Alzheimers a soul destroying affliction?

The word "soul" is bandied around in many different contexts. As a general introduction though, it is often agreed to be what an entity brings to wager on the table of eternity. As such, its kind of absurd to try and define it by characteristics that are so obviously temporary.

The soul is actually characterized by life. Anything that is alive has a soul.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Of course my kittycats have souls. Why not?

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Does everything that exists have soul?
1111

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Not shoes, they have sole.

 

[CheskiChips]

Jewish sources state that there are 4 levels of souls.

- Things like matter, rocks, dirt.
- Things like trees, grass, etc.
- Birds Fish, Mammals...generally all of these things.
- Humans.

However the only difference between the last two is the latter has an added part. All four have 'nefesh', however only the last has 'neshama' which literally means breath. Meaning the only difference between the animals and humans in the most basic sense is communication. Even in the Torah it says rocks have souls when discussing Jacob laying down and rocks resting beneath him.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

I guess the christian bible suggests that, as well. Jesus did say that if they made the following crowds near Jerusalem be quiet, the very rocks would begin to cry out.

Be weird to find out rocks are sentient, wouldn't it?

 

[phlogistician]

If it is symptomized by IQ, does that mean intelligent people have more soul or are more spiritual?

Clearly not. My IQ rates me as a genius, yet I am a mechanist, and think spirituality is diversionary bullshit.

 

[Enmos]

Jewish sources state that there are 4 levels of souls.

- Things like matter, rocks, dirt.
- Things like trees, grass, etc.
- Birds Fish, Mammals...generally all of these things.
- Humans.

However the only difference between the last two is the latter has an added part. All four have 'nefesh', however only the last has 'neshama' which literally means breath. Meaning the only difference between the animals and humans in the most basic sense is communication. Even in the Torah it says rocks have souls when discussing Jacob laying down and rocks resting beneath him.

Animals don't communicate ?

 

[swarm]

The Aristotelian/Thomistic account of the soul is part and parcel of Natural Philosophy. It makes use, therefore, of the notions of matter and form, potency and act. Aristotle defines the soul as the act of a natural body with the capacity for life; and as the first act of a natural organic body. Soul is thus the formal cause of the animal, the efficient cause of its motions, as well as its final cause. The body cannot be the principle that accounts for life, since a body, when deprived of life, is still a body, but not alive. The body is matter to the soul, and soul is form or act to the potentiality of the body. Moreover, the matter, i.e. the constituents that make up the body, are constantly changing while the animal persists. The animal's form or functional organization, i.e. organization of material parts by which an animal accomplishes its vital functions, remains the same. This form is the animal's soul.

There is a hierarchy of vital functions, and thus of different kinds of souls. First of all, there is the vegetative soul which accounts for the functions of nutrition and reproduction. Plants have only this kind of soul. Next, there is the sensitive soul, by which higher animals perceive and respond to their environment. This kind of soul, for some animals, also includes the power of local motion. Finally, there is the rational soul, by which humans are able to use speech and have abstract thoughts. In all of the higher kinds of organisms, the functions that were performed by lower kinds of souls are performed by the higher. Thus, there is only one soul in any particular animal even though it is has the same vegetative capacities as plants. The vegetative functions, which are performed by a plant's soul without sensitive functions, are also performed by the sensitive soul. Likewise, the rational soul is the principle also of sensitive and vegetative functions of human beings. Thus there is a hierarchy of souls and of vital functions, such that the higher souls subsume the lower, but the lower vital functions are necessary for there to be higher ones. The higher are never found without the lower, but the lower are found without the higher. Moreover, there is an interaction between the capacities that characterize higher and lower souls: a lion uses sight to find food, and moves toward the lamb it spies, which it then eats and digests so that it may chase other prey.
http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/soul.html

 

[Simon Anders]

If it is symptomized by IQ, does that mean intelligent people have more soul or are more spiritual? Does that mean intellectually challenged people or babies have no soul? Does that make Alzheimers a soul destroying affliction?

These were the kinds of questions I was raising.

The soul is actually characterized by life. Anything that is alive has a soul.

And I have trouble finding dead things. Just stuff that has been so packed down and contorted it is in a coma.

 

[Simon Anders]

Clearly not. My IQ rates me as a genius, yet I am a mechanist, and think spirituality is diversionary bullshit.

You seem, then, to have been diverted: ie. your participation in the thread.

 

[cosmictraveler]

There's no God, no heaven, so there can't be any souls.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

IF there is a being that created everything, everything would've been created from the essence of that being. Thus everything would be made of soul. Higher & lower forms of it are only human concepts. Different things simply have different forms & functions.
We can have a statue, a box, a bicycle & a robot, all made of metal, all with different forms & functions. The statue is unmoving yet aesthetic, the box can be opened & closed, the bicycle can be operated by human power & the robot can be enabled to operate on its own. Yet they are all made of the same basic substances.
1111

 

[lightgigantic]

There's no God, no heaven, so there can't be any souls.

how - erm - convenient ....

IF there is a being that created everything, everything would've been created from the essence of that being.

that's correct

Thus everything would be made of soul. Higher & lower forms of it are only human concepts.

true again

Different things simply have different forms & functions.

or to put it another way, differences are only evident on the bodily platform. On the platform of the soul, there is no difference between an ant, a whale and the president.

We can have a statue, a box, a bicycle & a robot, all made of metal, all with different forms & functions. The statue is unmoving yet aesthetic, the box can be opened & closed, the bicycle can be operated by human power & the robot can be enabled to operate on its own. Yet they are all made of the same basic substances.
1111

Actually stranger, I am genuinely impressed by your line of thought ( for a change ....)

 

[Simon Anders]

Animals certainly do have souls.

The more soul you have the closer to the animal kingdom you are. This is why black people are traditionally associated with having a surfeit of soul.

Soul is the appetite for life.

Whites are more soulless, being further away from nature. Science itself is evidence of that mind which is disassociated from and above the natural world.

Isaac Newton could only have been a white man.

Interesting theory. Thus the closer to nature you are, the more you have a non-corporeal part of your Self.
I could swear there is a contradiction in there, but then I'm not racist.