The Immortal Soul

[rsjac]

I am writing a report about theistic evolution and how people incorporate fact and science into their religious beliefs, and I have a question about the immortal soul.

A few of the more traditional creationists I have spoken to refuse to accept the scientific theory of evolution because it makes them part of the swarm of animal life- they see nothing that clearly defines us as having a soul, and so the fundamental pillar of christian belief is put into doubt for them.

However, I have talked to others who accept evolution, and believe that He created the exact environment required for life to start. The precise conditions, along with mutational and environmental constants, that would create life. Some believe that along the way life was influenced to create humans etc, while others believe that God knew that we would evolve from beasts eventually.

However, for these theistic evolutionists I can find little evidence of reference to the immortal soul. I would really like some input from anyone who knows about this.

A couple of the options as I see them would be:
-That God gave us the immortal soul when he saw fit
-That when God saw that humans had evolved sufficiently, he gave us our immortal souls around 10,000BC. This coincides with the Agricultural revolution in human history, and as God created us to care over the rest of his creation=capturing and breeding animals, eventually creating livestock.
-That everything has a soul, but only humans have a heaven
-That the immortal soul was also part of the metaphorical account of genesis, and that with intelligence, and therefore faith, comes the acceptance into the afterlife.

If anyone could find reference points to any statements they post either to other internet articles, or to a book or a speech of some kind, that would be really great for me.

Thanks
rsjac

 

[gluadys]

I am writing a report about theistic evolution and how people incorporate fact and science into their religious beliefs, and I have a question about the immortal soul.

A few of the more traditional creationists I have spoken to refuse to accept the scientific theory of evolution because it makes them part of the swarm of animal life- they see nothing that clearly defines us as having a soul, and so the fundamental pillar of christian belief is put into doubt for them.

However, I have talked to others who accept evolution, and believe that He created the exact environment required for life to start. The precise conditions, along with mutational and environmental constants, that would create life. Some believe that along the way life was influenced to create humans etc, while others believe that God knew that we would evolve from beasts eventually.

However, for these theistic evolutionists I can find little evidence of reference to the immortal soul. I would really like some input from anyone who knows about this.

A couple of the options as I see them would be:
-That God gave us the immortal soul when he saw fit
-That when God saw that humans had evolved sufficiently, he gave us our immortal souls around 10,000BC. This coincides with the Agricultural revolution in human history, and as God created us to care over the rest of his creation=capturing and breeding animals, eventually creating livestock.
-That everything has a soul, but only humans have a heaven
-That the immortal soul was also part of the metaphorical account of genesis, and that with intelligence, and therefore faith, comes the acceptance into the afterlife.

If anyone could find reference points to any statements they post either to other internet articles, or to a book or a speech of some kind, that would be really great for me.

Thanks
rsjac

This is one of the things for which there is no "theistic evolution" position. That is why all of the points you have named are held by some TEs. Generally a TE will hold much the same position on the soul as whatever denomination they belong to, though some, like myself, will have an idiosyncratic conception of the soul .

The only denomination I know of that has set out a doctrine pertaining to evolution and the soul is the Roman Catholic church which has a clear position that the soul is not a product of evolution. Rather each soul is a unique creation made at the time of conception.

I expect the basic reason for TEs being relatively silent on the issue is that evolution is unequivocally about the material nature of humanity and our relationship as animals with other animals and living beings on earth. Even in living humans there is no physical indication of the existence of the soul. There is certainly no visible remnant of a soul in fossils. So there is no empirical evidence which would guide discussions on any possible evolution of the soul.

But there is also absolutely no question that as theists we do accept the concept of soul and do not think of humans as purely material beings with no spiritual dimension to their lives here and hereafter.

 

[callmeMurph]

A couple of the options as I see them would be:
-That God gave us the immortal soul when he saw fit
-That when God saw that humans had evolved sufficiently, he gave us our immortal souls around 10,000BC. This coincides with the Agricultural revolution in human history, and as God created us to care over the rest of his creation=capturing and breeding animals, eventually creating livestock.
-That everything has a soul, but only humans have a heaven
-That the immortal soul was also part of the metaphorical account of genesis, and that with intelligence, and therefore faith, comes the acceptance into the afterlife.

I think at this point in time I would have to agree with most of these. I believe God gave us a soul when He saw fit. When humans had evolved sufficiently and at the right time (that He chose) around the neolithic era. I believe that He chose Adam and Eve to create a covenant with them, like He did with Abraham. I think some creatures are soul-like but they don't have a heaven. I believe that all humans are given a soul at conception, or rather their soul is created at conception and they are given a body.

I know some people would say that Adam and Eve didn't exist, I'm not sure if they did, but I would like to think they did. I certainly don't think they were the only humans around at the time. I don't think they were the first humans, but I do think they were the first couple that God revealed himself to. I'd like to think that the people that Cain was afraid of were other people that were around at the time. I know some people take these stories less literally and I'm kind of hesitant to hold the view that I do. I don't really know much about the culture back then but from what I've heard up til now it sounds reasonable.

If anyone could find reference points to any statements they post either to other internet articles, or to a book or a speech of some kind, that would be really great for me.

Thanks
rsjac

These links might be helpful:
At what point in the evolutionary process did humans attain the “Image of God”? | The BioLogos Forum
How does the Fall fit into evolutionary history?  Were Adam and Eve historical figures? | The BioLogos Forum

This is one of the things for which there is no "theistic evolution" position. That is why all of the points you have named are held by some TEs. Generally a TE will hold much the same position on the soul as whatever denomination they belong to, though some, like myself, will have an idiosyncratic conception of the soul .

I agree, there are a lot of different views and I think some of us, like myself could like one option one day and another the next. I'm still looking into it so I'm not totally sure what I believe. So I'm not sure how it happened but the thing that is important is that I believe it did and that we have souls.

Even in living humans there is no physical indication of the existence of the soul. There is certainly no visible remnant of a soul in fossils. So there is no empirical evidence which would guide discussions on any possible evolution of the soul.

I read a book called Evolutionary Creation where the author's position (or at least I think this is his position) was that the soul evolved along with us. I think he based it on how human culture developed by looking at tools, jewelry, clothes, etc. I don't think I would agree with this though (at least not at this point in time).

 

[shernren]

Good resources would be the BioLogos Foundation, Francis Collins' The Language of God, Ken Miller's Finding Darwin's God. Those represent the more conservative side of TE - Denis Lamoreaux may have something slightly more unconservative to add.

The two bigger issues are actually:

1. What is the soul? If you are a dualist, you believe that the human soul is something fundamentally separate from the human biological makeup - in which case God really is at liberty to insert a soul into the human race whenever, wherever He wants.

However, you may instead be a physicalist (emergent or non-reductive being the major flavors) or a constitutionalist; these people believe that the human soul is in some way a consequence of the human biological makeup, in much the same way that, say, a program running in a computer is reflected in the actual distribution of electrons in the computer's "brain". In that case, the soul is not "inserted" by divine fiat but is rather generated by the increasingly complex brain structures that evolve in humanity's ancestors.

2. How do humans get a soul? (This is no mere academic theology; where you stand on this will influence your stand on abortion.) Of course, if you are a physicalist, the entire idea is nonsense to you. If you are dualist, however:

If you believe in either "creationism" (that every soul is separately and spontaneously created by God at the moment of ensoulment - whenever that is!) or "pre-existence" (souls have been hanging around from eternity waiting to be inserted into new bodies as they're created by reproduction), then the first ensoulment of humanity won't pose a problem for you. Hey, if God can stuff those souls in whenever He wants in 2000 AD, what's stopping Him from doing that in 10,000 BC?

If you believe in "traducianism", however - that souls are spiritually generated from their parents' souls just as their bodies are physically generated from their parents' bodies (this weighs in on your view of original sin) - and if you believe in a literal first pair, then evolution may feel a bit ad hoc. Consider that Adam and Eve, if they evolved, must have been members of a species with many other members. Suppose God gave them souls, but nobody else. Adam and Eve's children get souls naturally (via traducianism); but their nieces and nephews have no souls - with identical biological makeup and every chance of hybridization!

 

[CryptoLutheran]

As a Christian who doesn't believe in the "Immortal Soul"--or at least, I reject the Platonic view of the soul--the issue of when "it" is created is going to be a bit different for me then someone who embraces the normal view of the soul.

The relationship between body and soul, as opposed to a more Neo-Platonist idea of the soul inhabiting the body, is more like bringing flour and water together to make bread. There's something holistic about the human person, and trying to create a soul-body dualism doesn't quite work without violating the basic unity of human personhood.

I don't think there was necessarily some special moment when suddenly our ape-like ancestors suddenly went from soul-less animal to Imagio Dei; rather the process by which we slowly grew into awareness meant a sense of morality, a sense of right and wrong, and therefore a responsibility beyond what the rest of creation bears. We, more than any other animal, have the special privilege and duty to bear the Image and Likeness of God, and more than any other animal share in Him the Life and Glory of Himself. Not by "accident" of course, this in the timing and good purposes of the Creator.

There is an interesting line of thought, in fact, among some of the ancient Eastern Fathers (if I recall correctly) who said something to the effect that when God created man in His image and likeness, it was--in fact--in the image and likeness of the Word made flesh, Jesus Christ. Such that Adam was created in the likeness of Christ--this follows the thoughts of Irenaeus that the Word would have become flesh even had there not been a fall, the Incarnation was not a divine afterthought, it was the Divine purpose for all creation. Therefore, "all things were created by Him and for Him". Thus, in some sense the Logos Ensarkos is not a deviation or mutation of the "normal state" of Him, but is itself the "normal state".

Without trying to get too out there.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[gluadys]

As a Christian who doesn't believe in the "Immortal Soul"--or at least, I reject the Platonic view of the soul--the issue of when "it" is created is going to be a bit different for me then someone who embraces the normal view of the soul.

The relationship between body and soul, as opposed to a more Neo-Platonist idea of the soul inhabiting the body, is more like bringing flour and water together to make bread. There's something holistic about the human person, and trying to create a soul-body dualism doesn't quite work without violating the basic unity of human personhood.

I don't think there was necessarily some special moment when suddenly our ape-like ancestors suddenly went from soul-less animal to Imagio Dei; rather the process by which we slowly grew into awareness meant a sense of morality, a sense of right and wrong, and therefore a responsibility beyond what the rest of creation bears. We, more than any other animal, have the special privilege and duty to bear the Image and Likeness of God, and more than any other animal share in Him the Life and Glory of Himself. Not by "accident" of course, this in the timing and good purposes of the Creator.

There is an interesting line of thought, in fact, among some of the ancient Eastern Fathers (if I recall correctly) who said something to the effect that when God created man in His image and likeness, it was--in fact--in the image and likeness of the Word made flesh, Jesus Christ. Such that Adam was created in the likeness of Christ--this follows the thoughts of Irenaeus that the Word would have become flesh even had there not been a fall, the Incarnation was not a divine afterthought, it was the Divine purpose for all creation. Therefore, "all things were created by Him and for Him". Thus, in some sense the Logos Ensarkos is not a deviation or mutation of the "normal state" of Him, but is itself the "normal state".

Without trying to get too out there.

-CryptoLutheran

Yes, since the OP was asking about resources, I didn't want to get into the discussion of whether there is an immortal soul. But I, too, reject that concept, at least in its Platonic view. We too often treat the soul as a "ghost in the machine" --which to my way of thinking devalues the body as "machine". This is where a lot of sub-conscious Gnosticism creeps into Christianity.

I agree with the view that we are more holistic beings than this view suggests. I like the way Genesis 2:7 speaks of the "soul" as neither the body, nor the spirit, but the unity of body and spirit which makes a living creature.

Very interesting view from the Eastern church. We could do with a lot more awareness of their theology.