When do you get a soul? & related questions.

[Dinosaur]

I am an atheist who is curious rather than looking for an argument. I intend to resist urges to make posts disagreeing with points of view expressed here. I do not always manage to resist temptation.

There was a recent news item relating to Catholic Church attitudes relating to abortion. The Pope was quoted as claiming that the Catholic Church had no opinion about when a human being received a soul.

The article caused me to wonder about the theist position on various related issues.

• When does god give a soul to a human being ? Do other religions have a position on this question ?
  
  
• Might god decide to not give a soul to some individuals? For example: A baby born with a brain lacking the frontal cortex.
  
  
• Does god give souls to any animals such as chimpanzees, dogs, squirrels ? If not: Could he confer a soul on an animal?
  
  
• If science managed to clone a human being, would the clone have a soul?
  
  
• Similar to the previous question: If a scientist managed to construct a viable human being (a la Doctor Frankenstein) would it have a soul? The answer to this question might be different from the same question about a clone.
  
  
• If science managed to build a Star Trek transporter, would the soul be reconstructed along with the body or would it travel independently of the transporter technology ? Perhaps it would be lost ?
  
  
• The Star Trek transporter was capable of making multiple copies of a human being. If such a device made a copy, would god provide an additional soul? Would the two copies share the same soul? Would the copy not have a soul?

BTW: I do not believe that science will ever be capable of building a Star Trek transporter. Those who want to take issue with this opinion, please start a thread in one of the science-oriented forums.

While writing the above, a thought occurred to me about the Catholic position on when a soul is conferred. The Catholic Church directs that in the event of serious problems during child birth, the baby be saved if a choice must be made. With modern medical technology, this is a very trivial issue: A choice is hardly ever required.

I think the emphasis on saving the baby rather than the mother is based on the concept of original sin. The baby has never been baptized to erase the burden of original sin, condemning the soul to hell or purgatory or some such punishment. To be consistent, the Catholic Church should adopt the view that the soul is conferred during the birth process. Otherwise, the proper sacrament (baptism, I think) could be performed prior to labor to erase (forgive?) the original sin in the event that the baby died before being baptized.

 

[takandjive]

Hmm, I don't think you're looking for a deist's views on this, are you?

 

[Xylene]

Doctor Michael Newton, in his reincarnation-related work with hypnotic subjects, suggests that humans first gained souls about 170,000 years ago...he wrote a couple of books, 'Destiny of Souls' and 'Journey of Souls' if you're interested to look them up. He goes ito a lot of detail about the nature of the soul, including answering all the questions you asked.

Here's a link: http://www.newtoninstitute.org/

 

[Michael]

[*]Might god decide to not give a soul to some individuals? For example: A baby born with a brain lacking the frontal cortex.

nope, no soul for such a baby.

[*]Does god give souls to any animals such as chimpanzees, dogs, squirrels ? If not: Could he confer a soul on an animal?

No animals do not have souls. Yes, the Gods can do anything even give an animal a soul (we are animals by the by)

[*]If science managed to clone a human being, would the clone have a soul?

Yes, no different than a twin.

[*]Similar to the previous question: If a scientist managed to construct a viable human being (a la Doctor Frankenstein) would it have a soul? The answer to this question might be different from the same question about a clone.

If the personality and memories are new, then yes they have a new soul. If the brain is the same and the body made up of peaces then no new soul.

[*]If science managed to build a Star Trek transporter, would the soul be reconstructed along with the body or would it travel independently of the transporter technology ? Perhaps it would be lost ?

The soul travels with the personality.

[*]The Star Trek transporter was capable of making multiple copies of a human being. If such a device made a copy, would god provide an additional soul? Would the two copies share the same soul? Would the copy not have a soul?[/list]BTW: I do not believe that science will ever be capable of building a Star Trek transporter. Those who want to take issue with this opinion, please start a thread in one of the science-oriented forums

each personality has a new soul and as those personalities diverge those souls go with them.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

IF we "have" souls which enable us to live on after death, it's not having a soul but the soul is the person having a body in which to experience this world.

IF others "have" souls, there's no reason to think clones wouldn't/might not. Same as many other ridiculous ways people think clones may be different from other humans.

IF I believed in souls, I'd strongly suspect the body & soul are connected at conception.

It's not a matter of a body being given a soul but a soul being given a body.

 

[swarm]

Actually the official Catholic position before they started coveting the anti abortionists was the soul entered at the "quickening" around the 3rd month. You can read the Summa for the details, though if you've read Aristotle its just a rehash with a xtian white wash.

Having an abortion before the quickening wasn't a crime against a person, for what that's worth.

 

[cosmictraveler]

When do you get a soul?

When you ever go to a James Brown concert , you always got soul.

 

[Dinosaur]

The following is a concept that never occurred to me.

It's not a matter of a body being given a soul but a soul being given a body.

It suggests a few more questions.

The above suggests that the soul existed prior to the body.

• Does the soul have any personality, consciousness, memory, et cetera prior to being assigned to a body?
  
  
• Does the soul exist for only an instant prior to being assigned to a body? Does it exist for days, weeks, years prior?

 

[Cris]

The question needs to be asked -

If the body is responsible for personaility, memory, comunication, reason, thinking, identity - i.e. all the things we know the brain provides, then of what value is a soul whether it is assigned to a body or a body is assigned to a soul?

If the soul does nothing then isnt that the same as if it doesn't exist, which seems to be the rather obvious conclusion.

 

[lightgigantic]

I am an atheist who is curious rather than looking for an argument. I intend to resist urges to make posts disagreeing with points of view expressed here. I do not always manage to resist temptation.

There was a recent news item relating to Catholic Church attitudes relating to abortion. The Pope was quoted as claiming that the Catholic Church had no opinion about when a human being received a soul.

The article caused me to wonder about the theist position on various related issues.

• When does god give a soul to a human being ? Do other religions have a position on this question ?
  
  
• Might god decide to not give a soul to some individuals? For example: A baby born with a brain lacking the frontal cortex.
  
  
• Does god give souls to any animals such as chimpanzees, dogs, squirrels ? If not: Could he confer a soul on an animal?
  
  
• If science managed to clone a human being, would the clone have a soul?
  
  
• Similar to the previous question: If a scientist managed to construct a viable human being (a la Doctor Frankenstein) would it have a soul? The answer to this question might be different from the same question about a clone.
  
  
• If science managed to build a Star Trek transporter, would the soul be reconstructed along with the body or would it travel independently of the transporter technology ? Perhaps it would be lost ?
  
  
• The Star Trek transporter was capable of making multiple copies of a human being. If such a device made a copy, would god provide an additional soul? Would the two copies share the same soul? Would the copy not have a soul?

BTW: I do not believe that science will ever be capable of building a Star Trek transporter. Those who want to take issue with this opinion, please start a thread in one of the science-oriented forums.

While writing the above, a thought occurred to me about the Catholic position on when a soul is conferred. The Catholic Church directs that in the event of serious problems during child birth, the baby be saved if a choice must be made. With modern medical technology, this is a very trivial issue: A choice is hardly ever required.

I think the emphasis on saving the baby rather than the mother is based on the concept of original sin. The baby has never been baptized to erase the burden of original sin, condemning the soul to hell or purgatory or some such punishment. To be consistent, the Catholic Church should adopt the view that the soul is conferred during the birth process. Otherwise, the proper sacrament (baptism, I think) could be performed prior to labor to erase (forgive?) the original sin in the event that the baby died before being baptized.

In christianity the notion of having a soul seems to be something like a passport for eternal life (expect the real work to begin when looking at getting a visa however).

Other ideas tend to take the view that soul is synonymous with life. So anything that has live has a soul. In that sense it is kind of like the most intrinsic blueprint of your individuality that goes beyond corporeal similarity and star trek scenarios.

IOW the word of "soul" is subject to a host of semantic issues, as James Brown, Nina Simone etc clearly illustrates .....

As for the issue of saving the baby, that seems to be more tied to the principle that justice is meant for the protection of the weak .... since vocal protests are not something usually associated with those of us living in the womb.

 

[Cris]

lg,

Other ideas tend to take the view that soul is synonymous with life. So anything that has live has a soul. In that sense it is kind of like the most intrinsic blueprint of your individuality that goes beyond corporeal similarity and star trek scenarios.

I know that is your particular perspective but it doesn't explain what a soul does or what it contributes to life. It still seems to be a void entity.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

The following is a concept that never occurred to me.It suggests a few more questions.

“
It's not a matter of a body being given a soul but a soul being given a body.
”

The above suggests that the soul existed prior to the body.

• Does the soul have any personality, consciousness, memory, et cetera prior to being assigned to a body?
  
  
• Does the soul exist for only an instant prior to being assigned to a body? Does it exist for days, weeks, years prior?

-=-

IF there's reincarnation, the soul must exist prior to the body.

The vast majority of soul believers say the soul is eternal yet never speak of before existence of the body (except for reincarnation) but eternal is always having existed as well as always existing into the future. 1 exception that comes to mind is the KJV god saying "I knew you before you were in the womb".

The soul would be the essence of the person & the core of consciousness. At the moment, I won't guess how much of 1's character & personality is due to the soul & how much is due to the body.
Imagine if you were dying & had the option of loading your consciousness into a robot. Some time later that robot is beyond repair so you a are transplanted into another robot.

 

[Hapsburg]

I believe that all living things, from the smallest prokaryote to the most complex animal, have a soul, which exists in two ways: a non-physical spirit and its physical manifestation, bioelectric energy. Thus, I am of the opinion that the soul commences physical manifestation when the living thing in question begins, well, living.
And I leave it at that; there is so much contention around the question of "when life begins", that I have stopped caring for an answer.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

-=-

LOL How ironic!
So many times posters should say "I believe" or "I am of the opinion" yet I finally see it in a thread predicated on IF.

 

[Cris]

But what the heck do you think a soul does that the brain doesn't?

 

[lightgigantic]

lg,

I know that is your particular perspective

Actually it is a particular perspective of a spiritual discipline that has many millions of advocates. I just happen to agree with it since it makes sense.

but it doesn't explain what a soul does or what it contributes to life. It still seems to be a void entity.

Its kind of like what a body does to a shirt or what a hand does to a glove. Commonly we attribute action to the "shirt" or "glove" of our existence but these things are actually void. We commonly experience this when an entity dies. Everything is there in a dead body minus a soul, hence the dead do not contribute due to their void nature.

 

[Cris]

Lg,

Actually it is a particular perspective of a spiritual discipline that has many millions of advocates. I just happen to agree with it since it makes sense.

You know, I hope, that the number of people who believe something has zero bearing on whether it is true or not. Are you saying you believe the idea because many others believe it (sheeplike)? It would seem so. But it doesn’t make sense; it makes a claim for something for which we cannot verify, at the very least.

“ but it doesn't explain what a soul does or what it contributes to life. It still seems to be a void entity. ”

Its kind of like what a body does to a shirt or what a hand does to a glove. Commonly we attribute action to the "shirt" or "glove" of our existence but these things are actually void. We commonly experience this when an entity dies. Everything is there in a dead body minus a soul, hence the dead do not contribute due to their void nature.

Not a very good analogy and doesn’t explain what a soul does or how it does it or why it is even necessary.

A dead body is fundamentally different to a live version. It is the same distinction to a flashlight being turned off or on. The primary difference is that the components of a flashlight do not rapidly deteriorate when turned off as do the cells in something dead. Neither need any magical soul component to function. Or are you claiming that if a soul re-enters a dead body it would come back to life? If so can you quote any examples?

 

[lightgigantic]

Lg,

You know, I hope, that the number of people who believe something has zero bearing on whether it is true or not. Are you saying you believe the idea because many others believe it (sheeplike)? It would seem so. But it doesn’t make sense; it makes a claim for something for which we cannot verify, at the very least.

I'm simply saying that it is not something I have whipped up.

For instance if you started talking about the theory relativity, I wouldn't start talking about "your idea of relativity" ....... unless of course I wanted to suggest that you were putting a spin on it or something .

As for the means of verifying it, there are certainly details on how to go about it. As for all knowledge based claims however, persons who lie outside the prescriptive descriptions don't meet with a whole lot of success.

Not a very good analogy and doesn’t explain what a soul does or how it does it or why it is even necessary.

Well a glove on a bench cannot do nearly as much as a glove on someone's hand. Of course when the glove is in action, we might reference it as the "the glove is doing A, B, C", but actually it is commonly understood that the hand is. Similarly, when we say "the body is doing A, B, C", it is commonly understood that they are doing it in an "alive" state and hence the whole soul thing comes in to play.

A dead body is fundamentally different to a live version.

sure
in ways fundamentally inaccessible to empirical investigation

It is the same distinction to a flashlight being turned off or on.

not really because you can empirically establish what a flashlight requires in order to come to the "on" stage, and what is specifically happening in the "off" stage.
This is why no great philosophical discourses are required when we turn a light switch on or off.
This is clearly not the case when life turns "off"

The primary difference is that the components of a flashlight do not rapidly deteriorate when turned off as do the cells in something dead. Neither need any magical soul component to function.

If life could be turned on and off like a light switch, what you are saying would make sense. Offering some sort of excuse why it is not possible, even in a controlled environment, simply means that the phenomena is not controlled and remains unapproachable by standard empirical means.

In the absence of any empirical data to suggest exactly what is happening when life turns "off", or what life requires in order to remain "on", its not clear how you are offering anything less "magical".

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

-=- -=-

Somehow, I thought this thread wasn't about whether there are souls.

 

[CutsieMarie89]

The only mention I've heard of the soul entering the body was the quickening story, whic was already mentioned.