When did the soul evolve?

Dooey Jo · Post by **Dooey Jo** » 2006-05-28 05:37pm

Pretty simple question. At what point in human evolution is the soul supposed to have emerged? Are there pre-stages to a fully working soul (perhaps only a little bit immortal)?

I thought about this, because certain people, such as the Catholic Church, believe both in a mystical soul (which only human beings possess), and evolution. So then I figured that they must also believe that God at some point decided that "yeah, they're good enough images of myself now" and installed a soul. Of course, that would mean that all contemporary H. sapiens (or whenever) that were a little bit less like God did not get a soul, which would suck for them, and the first ones to get into heaven would probably be a wee bit pissed that many of their friends and family couldn't join them for that reason...

Post by **Coyote** » 2006-05-28 07:15pm

Probably subscribing to the idea that Adam and Eve were the first "true humans" to actually evolve into homo sapiens, and so they were the ones ot have a soul. It would seem to fit the requirements; since apparantly no other humans were worth talking about, yet people of "other tribes" were mentioned (when later some of their sons took wives from "other tribes").

If Adam and Eve were supposed to be the first people to recognise the primacy of God and worship God, then from the point of view of the theologians they were the ones that completed that last step in evolution.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-05-28 08:41pm

But since Adam and Eve existed thousands of years apart, how much soul would the descendents of Eve who did not breed with those of Adam's lineage have?

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2006-05-28 11:43pm

Define soul.

What are the soul's observable characteristics?

Anyone attempting to answer "When did the soul evolve?" with anything resembling a scientific rigour had better be able to answer those first.

Jack Bauer · Post by **Jack Bauer** » 2006-05-29 12:17am

There's also the school of thought that the word "soul" as seen in Aramaic in the Old Testament means an actual living being i.e. a man IS a soul, rather than has a soul.

Post by **Coyote** » 2006-05-29 01:44am

Hipper brings up a good point. For the sake of argument, is the "soul" the mystical, invisible energy source that animates a flesh-covered bag of meat and water? Or the part of the "inner esence" that connects Man to God, or with Nature?

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2006-05-29 02:20am

I would dispute the notion that all non-human animals lack souls (I would dispute the notion of souls, but I digress). As far as I know, there are animals in both versions of the afterlife. You'd answer this riddle by stating that every living thing has a soul, or "spirit energy". But just as there are degrees in complexity and sophistication of life itself, there are degrees of complexity and sophistication for their corresponding souls. A plant's soul would likely be inconsequential, while you could probably extrapolate a more and more powerful soul proportional to intelligence. Eventually reaching H. sapiens, the angels/demons, Satan and then God.

Anyone attempting to answer "When did the soul evolve?" with anything resembling a scientific rigour had better be able to answer those first.

Again, I should start by saying that I don't subscribe to dualism. If there is such a thing as a "soul" it's a function of the brain and it is most certainly not immortal. As technology advances, however, it may become necessary to define a person's being as something independent of their body. Their consciousness, the sum of their memories, etc.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2006-05-29 11:44am

Darth Raptor wrote:
Anyone attempting to answer "When did the soul evolve?" with anything resembling a scientific rigour had better be able to answer those first.
Again, I should start by saying that I don't subscribe to dualism. If there is such a thing as a "soul" it's a function of the brain and it is most certainly not immortal. As technology advances, however, it may become necessary to define a person's being as something independent of their body. Their consciousness, the sum of their memories, etc.

Why call it a soul when biological explanations suffice, then?

Honestly, if you ask me there simply is no such thing, but if you're going to explore the evolution of the soul you need to at least verify that it's a thing that exists, yes?
If functions of the brain meet your criteria for defining "soul", why burden those pre-existing, observed, and explained functions with the term "soul"?

Dooey Jo · Post by **Dooey Jo** » 2006-05-29 12:40pm

For the purposes of this thread, let's say that a soul is

dictionary.com wrote:The spiritual nature of humans, regarded as immortal, separable from the body at death, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state.

(It can be measured by PKE-meters

)

The problem, as I see it, is that evolution is a gradual process, whereas a soul is a binary condition (you either have it or you don't, there can be no middle stages). If morality is supposed to come from a mystical divine source through the soul, it gets even more problematic...

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2006-05-29 01:01pm

Frank Hipper wrote:If functions of the brain meet your criteria for defining "soul", why burden those pre-existing, observed, and explained functions with the term "soul"?

Personally, *I* wouldn't, because I dislike the mystical connotations the term has. However, if the brain's functions could be preserved as they're transferred from one brain to another, or to an artificial system, we'll need a new word. Call it what you like: "Ghost", "net", "essence", "being", whatever.

Dooey Jo wrote:The problem, as I see it, is that evolution is a gradual process, whereas a soul is a binary condition (you either have it or you don't, there can be no middle stages). If morality is supposed to come from a mystical divine source through the soul, it gets even more problematic...

Where exactly are you getting the notion that non-human animals lack souls? Is it part of the Church's official doctrine?

Dooey Jo · Post by **Dooey Jo** » 2006-05-29 02:17pm

Darth Raptor wrote:Where exactly are you getting the notion that non-human animals lack souls? Is it part of the Church's official doctrine?

It is, as far as I know. I haven't heard of any Christian groups, Catholic or otherwise (I picked them as an example because they don't reject evolution like certain protestant groups), that believe that animals also have souls (though there are some Christians that don't believe in a soul at all, but that God remembers all good believers and will someday recreate them (it's like the Trek transporter

) ). There are other religions that do, of course, and the question probably is not a problem to them.

Post by **Coyote** » 2006-05-29 02:43pm

Unless there's been recent changes, I believe it is the official stance of the Catholic Church that animals do not have eternal souls, and (I believe) are incapable of sin. The stance changes from church to church; I think some churches out there do include animals in the afterlife.

I think that, simply for the sake of argument and the purposes of this thread, we're going to act on the assumption that the soul as a supernatural/spiritual entity is real and comes into existence when certain criteria are met.