How to reconcile evolution with the soul?

[Sentosa]

This thread is intended for people who believe in both the soul and evolution.

How do you reconcile the soul with Darwin's ideas? At what point in evolutionary history did the soul come about? Does a soul exist in other animals? Where is the soul located specifically? Inside the animal? Outside?

 

[alexandriaisburning]

This thread is intended for people who believe in both the soul and evolution.

How do you reconcile the soul with Darwin's ideas? At what point in evolutionary history did the soul come about? Does a soul exist in other animals? Where is the soul located specifically? Inside the animal? Outside?

It depends on what you mean by "the soul". If you're talking about the soul in a dualistic sense (e.g., differentiating who I am materially from who I am immaterially), it's questionable whether this is a valid concept (either philosophically or biblically). However, I've always reconciled the "other-than-materialness" of humanity with the incarnation of Christ, viewing that moment in history as the nexus of the emergence of the "soul" in humanity (a nexus which has retro- and prospective consequences).

 

[Hoghead1]

I think mind and matter are one, not two separate realities. Once separated, it has proved impossible to get them to interact. So I believe all things, in all their aspects, consist exclusively of minds or souls or psyches.

 

[Papias]

This thread is intended for people who believe in both the soul and evolution.

Sounds good. It's worth noting that most of those who support evolution believe in souls. With around 60% of the US supporting evolution, and only about 5% being atheists, a very strong majority of evolution supporters believe in souls.

How do you reconcile the soul with Darwin's ideas?

It's very easy. I'll get into details below, but in general, you can get the answer to all those and more by just asking yourself "how do I reconcile the soul with pregnancy?". The answers are usually very similar.

Also, the conclusion of evolution is fully in agreement with the idea of a soul. Evolution doesn't make any soul questions harder, at all, and most questions about the soul are exactly the same if one rejects evolution and believes in creationism.

At what point in evolutionary history did the soul come about?

I don't know. I'd guess around australopithicenes, some 2 million years ago, but it's a guess. The bottom line is that at some point, God decided to divinely bring about the soul.

At what point in gestational history did your soul come about? When you were a 4 month fetus? or a 6 week embryo? Or at conception? What stage of conception (which is a multi-step process itself)? If before brain formation (say ~ 5 months), then how could there be soul without a brain? Where would it be? The bottom line is that at some point, God decided to divinely bring about the soul.

Does a soul exist in other animals?

I don't know. Traditional Christian doctrine is that only humans have souls. Note that evolution has no bearing on this question. Christians asked this 500 years ago as well. Whether God created by poofing animals into existence, or by evolving them, either way He may or may not have given them souls, and either way the questions about their souls are the same.

Where is the soul located specifically? Inside the animal? Outside?

It doesn't make any sense to ask where the soul is, since there is no evidence for the soul anyway. We believe in souls purely out of faith, as per Hebrews 11.

Note also that this question is exactly the same for humans, and exactly the same regardless of evolution. So for humans, assuming one is a creationist, then:
Where is the soul located specifically? Inside the human? Outside?
See? No difference.

Did that help?

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Hoghead1]

Interesting questions, Sentosa. As I mentioned, I am a panpsychist and therefore believe that animals have souls, as does all of matter. Even atoms have tiny minds. I have been critical of traditional Chritianinity and Western thought for ascribing the soul exclusively to humans. I am reminded here of Descartes, who thought animals were mere soulless, feelngless machines. I believe that attitude has been responsible for much exploitation of the environment. I argue panpsychi9sm fits well with evolution, for two reasons. First, there is no hard-and-fast dividing line between the organic and the inorganic, the living and the nonliving. Secondly, what is the case at the top of teh scale is also the case at the bottom, though to a significantly lesser degree. We have been so busy extending mechanical principles up the scale, to explain things, that we have forgotten to extend psychological principles down the scale, to equally explain things.
Where is the soul? I would identify the soul with the entire organism. Mind and matter are one, in my metaphysic. For higher organisms, I would say that if you want to see the would, it is the size and shape of the nervous system and brain. I also think it important to consider whether we are talking of a soul (singular) or souls (plural). I think a tree consists of souls, but has no brain, no dominant member in charge. It is more like a leaderless democracy. Organisms with brains consist of souls, the cells, for example, but also have one soul in charge. So there is no tree spirit, but there are tree spirits.

 

[ViaCrucis]

This thread is intended for people who believe in both the soul and evolution.

How do you reconcile the soul with Darwin's ideas? At what point in evolutionary history did the soul come about? Does a soul exist in other animals? Where is the soul located specifically? Inside the animal? Outside?

I don't think there's much room for the idea of the Platonic soul in Christianity. By the Platonic soul I mean the idea that we are, in essence, enfleshed souls--souls encased in a material frame. Instead Christianity would speak instead of the ensoulment of the body. We aren't souls in bodies, we are fully integrated living creatures. The soul describing several ideas: in its most basic sense the soul describes the function of being alive (as opposed to being a dead corpse), both the Hebrew word nephesh and the Greek word psuche describe the concept of breath. This is often described as the "animal soul" when philosophical terms are employed. The concept of the soul also carries with it a sense of our intellect, reason, our will, and our emotions. It describes the human creature as something more than merely animal, what has been called the "rational soul" in philosophical discourse.

Exactly when "ensoulment" happened in biological history is probably not a question that can ever be truly answered. We might say that when our hominid ancestors developed a more profound theory of mind, and could conceptualize the idea of something as truly other as, partly, indicating this idea of "the soul". It is this sense of the truly other that not only allows us to grasp that other people have independent reasoning faculties other than our own, it's what allows us to grasp the idea of God, of a mind truly alien to our own. God is the ultimate Other; as the Holy, the truly numinous.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

This thread is intended for people who believe in both the soul and evolution.

How do you reconcile the soul with Darwin's ideas? At what point in evolutionary history did the soul come about? Does a soul exist in other animals? Where is the soul located specifically? Inside the animal? Outside?

I tend to favor the idea that having a soul is what happens when an entity such as a human being becomes aware of eternity, morality, and the ideas of life and death. Therefore, there has to be some language development and a degree of intelligence to support these notions.

 

[JackRT]

Interesting questions, Sentosa. As I mentioned, I am a panpsychist and therefore believe that animals have souls, as does all of matter. Even atoms have tiny minds. I have been critical of traditional Chritianinity and Western thought for ascribing the soul exclusively to humans. I am reminded here of Descartes, who thought animals were mere soulless, feelngless machines. I believe that attitude has been responsible for much exploitation of the environment. I argue panpsychi9sm fits well with evolution, for two reasons. First, there is no hard-and-fast dividing line between the organic and the inorganic, the living and the nonliving. Secondly, what is the case at the top of teh scale is also the case at the bottom, though to a significantly lesser degree. We have been so busy extending mechanical principles up the scale, to explain things, that we have forgotten to extend psychological principles down the scale, to equally explain things.
Where is the soul? I would identify the soul with the entire organism. Mind and matter are one, in my metaphysic. For higher organisms, I would say that if you want to see the would, it is the size and shape of the nervous system and brain. I also think it important to consider whether we are talking of a soul (singular) or souls (plural). I think a tree consists of souls, but has no brain, no dominant member in charge. It is more like a leaderless democracy. Organisms with brains consist of souls, the cells, for example, but also have one soul in charge. So there is no tree spirit, but there are tree spirits.

Interesting questions, Sentosa. As I mentioned, I am a panpsychist and therefore believe that animals have souls, as does all of matter. Even atoms have tiny minds. I have been critical of traditional Chritianinity and Western thought for ascribing the soul exclusively to humans. I am reminded here of Descartes, who thought animals were mere soulless, feelngless machines. I believe that attitude has been responsible for much exploitation of the environment. I argue panpsychi9sm fits well with evolution, for two reasons. First, there is no hard-and-fast dividing line between the organic and the inorganic, the living and the nonliving. Secondly, what is the case at the top of teh scale is also the case at the bottom, though to a significantly lesser degree. We have been so busy extending mechanical principles up the scale, to explain things, that we have forgotten to extend psychological principles down the scale, to equally explain things.
Where is the soul? I would identify the soul with the entire organism. Mind and matter are one, in my metaphysic. For higher organisms, I would say that if you want to see the would, it is the size and shape of the nervous system and brain. I also think it important to consider whether we are talking of a soul (singular) or souls (plural). I think a tree consists of souls, but has no brain, no dominant member in charge. It is more like a leaderless democracy. Organisms with brains consist of souls, the cells, for example, but also have one soul in charge. So there is no tree spirit, but there are tree spirits.

Your POV sounds very much like that of Pere Tielhard de Chardin in his book "Phenomenon of Man"

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

oops double post

 

[Colter]

This thread is intended for people who believe in both the soul and evolution.

How do you reconcile the soul with Darwin's ideas? At what point in evolutionary history did the soul come about? Does a soul exist in other animals? Where is the soul located specifically? Inside the animal? Outside?

The immortal soul is a phenomenon that comes about as the result of a conscious mind choosing to do the will of God. The soul is within man just like the spirit of God.

 

[Thursday]

This thread is intended for people who believe in both the soul and evolution.

How do you reconcile the soul with Darwin's ideas? At what point in evolutionary history did the soul come about? Does a soul exist in other animals? Where is the soul located specifically? Inside the animal? Outside?

Adam and Eve were the first human bodies with souls.

Scripture speaks of it here:

Gen 2:76
Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.



I believe that this is the creation of the first human soul.

 

[-57]

Adam and Eve were the first human bodies with souls.

Scripture speaks of it here:

Gen 2:76
Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.



I believe that this is the creation of the first human soul.

I believe that also. It's biblical.

Some of the posters above also need to explain original sin and how we received our sin nature. Once again they have to go outside of the bible for answers.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

"There are two biblically plausible views on how the human soul is created. Traducianism is the theory that a soul is generated by the physical parents along with the physical body. Support for Traducianism is as follows: (A) In Genesis 2:7, God breathed the breath of life into Adam, causing Adam to become a “living soul.” Scripture nowhere records God performing this action again. (B) Adam had a son in his own likeness (Genesis 5:3). Adam’s descendants seem to be “living souls” without God breathing into them. (C) Genesis 2:2-3 seems to indicate that God ceased His creative work. (D) Adam's sin affects all men—both physically and spiritually—this makes sense if the body and soul both come from the parents. The weakness of Traducianism is that it is unclear how an immaterial soul can be generated through an entirely physical process. Traducianism can only be true if the body and soul are inextricably connected.

Creationism is the view that God creates a new soul when a human being is conceived. Creationism was held by many early church fathers and also has scriptural support. First, Scripture differentiates the origin of the soul from the origin of the body (Ecclesiastes 12:7; Isaiah 42:5; Zechariah 12:1; Hebrews 12:9). Second, if God creates each individual soul at the moment it is needed, the separation of soul and body is held firm. The weakness of Creationism is that it has God continually creating new human souls, while Genesis 2:2-3 indicates that God ceased creating. Also, since the entire human existence—body, soul, and spirit—are infected by sin and God creates a new soul for every human being, how is that soul then infected with sin?

A third view, but one that lacks biblical support, is the concept that God created all human souls at the same time, and “attaches” a soul to a human being at the moment of conception. This view holds that there is sort of a “warehouse of souls” in heaven where God stores souls that await a human body to be attached to. Again, this view has no biblical support, and is usually held by those of a “new age” or reincarnation mindset."

How are human souls created?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

"There are two biblically plausible views on how the human soul is created. Traducianism is the theory that a soul is generated by the physical parents along with the physical body. Support for Traducianism is as follows: (A) In Genesis 2:7, God breathed the breath of life into Adam, causing Adam to become a “living soul.” Scripture nowhere records God performing this action again. (B) Adam had a son in his own likeness (Genesis 5:3). Adam’s descendants seem to be “living souls” without God breathing into them. (C) Genesis 2:2-3 seems to indicate that God ceased His creative work. (D) Adam's sin affects all men—both physically and spiritually—this makes sense if the body and soul both come from the parents. The weakness of Traducianism is that it is unclear how an immaterial soul can be generated through an entirely physical process. Traducianism can only be true if the body and soul are inextricably connected.

This view is becoming more understandable as we advance in computer technology. The soul for many of us is not a new kind of material, but rather a phenomenon . . . an emergent property of an adequately complex information handling system, such as the human brain.

Those who discuss "ghosts" in a serious way have defined "ectoplasm" as the stuff of which ghosts are made.

Viewing the soul as an emergent phenomenon means . . . there is no such thing as ectoplasm.

 

[-57]

The weakness of Creationism is that it has God continually creating new human souls, while Genesis 2:2-3 indicates that God ceased creating.

The ceasing of creation is in reference to the first six days.