Frankly, the extract is not substantively different from the quote in the NYT.
At least the Nature editors knows that they’re swimming in deep water. Someone should send them a lifeguard, they’re drowning and don’t know it.
“I guess I will wait while you find me a definition of the human soul that doesn’t explicitly state that the soul is spirit.”
That’s easy. Look at Aristotle’s definition: “the soul is the form of a living thing.” He goes on to recognize the soul as having “vegetative,” “sensitive,” and “rational” parts. One advantage of his approach is that it still seems to work in the context of evolutionary theory: that is, it recognizes the genetic relationship between humans and other organisms. The disadvantage, for theologians, is that this concept of “soul” is no longer purely religious, but can even be adopted by secular thinkers.
Yes, and as the article mentions, Aquinas picked up on Aristotle’s definition, and I’m not going to argue with either Aristotle or Aquinas on that point. But the article is talking about the human soul, and specifically the human soul as understood by religion. \
I think, also, that you’ll find that those who purport to speak on behalf of science are more hostile to the idea of an “evolved” soul than theologians are. Theologians, clearly, have long accepted the idea- think Ken does?
“But the article is talking about the human soul, and specifically the human soul as understood by religion.”
As I interpreted it, the article was talking about whether or not the existence of soul was something that made human beings fundamentally different from all other organisms. I was merely pointing out that the soul doesn’t have to be seen that way at all. We can recognize the human soul as having its roots in functions already observable among other organisms–especially the “vegetative” and “sensitive” functions of soul (which are clearly shared with other organisms), which in turn serve as a kind of infrastructure for the “rational” function.
“I think, also, that you’ll find that those who purport to speak on behalf of science are more hostile to the idea of an ‘evolved’ soul than theologians are.”
I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “‘evolved’ soul.” I would take the term “evolved” as implying a genetic link between human soul and the souls of other organisms; that is, human beings didn’t suddenly acquire some totally new faculty entirely unrelated to their forebears. Unfortunately IMO, a lot of science writers are hostile to Aristotle in general, so they might tend to shy away from his terminology. But I do think that Aristotle’s thinking on the subject is much more compatible with modern science’s view of our species.
the article was talking about whether or not the existence of soul was something that made human beings fundamentally different from all other organisms. I was merely pointing out that the soul doesn’t have to be seen that way at all.
I don’t think that’s true, actually. Only humans have a rational soul, in Aristotle’s conception of things.
We can recognize the human soul as having its roots in functions already observable among other organisms–especially the “vegetative” and “sensitive” functions of soul (which are clearly shared with other organisms), which in turn serve as a kind of infrastructure for the “rational” function.
I’m afraid I’m not following. Certainly we can see that there is that hierarchy to things. I am unclear as to what you think the implications of that are.
I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “‘evolved’ soul.”
That was a poor choice of wording on my part. I meant to say that I don’t think any theologians are going to be bothered overmuch by the idea that there exists a continuum, as it were, of souls. It has no bearing on whether or not the human soul is unique, or if it’s spiritual, or if it’s immortal, or reflective of God’s image, or anything else.
** But I do think that Aristotle’s thinking on the subject is much more compatible with modern science’s view of our species. **
Than what?
“I’m afraid I’m not following. Certainly we can see that there is that hierarchy to things. I am unclear as to what you think the implications of that are.”
I didn’t want to get into a long exposition here (that’s on my website), but I regard conceptual consciousness (as in human beings, but possibly also in at least some other primates) as a function that builds upon the perceptual consciousness that we share with other higher animals. In my view, the former is inconceivable (no pun intended) without the latter.
“I don’t think any theologians are going to be bothered overmuch by the idea that there exists a continuum, as it were, of souls. It has no bearing on whether or not the human soul is unique, or if it’s spiritual, or if it’s immortal, or reflective of God’s image, or anything else.”
If there’s a continuum, surely that would detract from the notion that the human soul is unique, or from the idea that only humans are created in God’s image?
"But I do think that Aristotle’s thinking on the subject is much more compatible with modern science’s view of our species.
Than what?"
Than the views of some fundamentalist religious thinkers. I recognize, of course, that there is no single monolithic view among religious thinkers on the subject, so Vatican theologians (some of whom have made an effort to open their eyes to evolutionary science) may look at it rather differently than some Protestant fundamentalists. Come to think of it, perhaps that in itself could be credited in part to Aristotle’s continuing influence on Catholic theology.
I didn’t want to get into a long exposition here (that’s on my website), but I regard conceptual consciousness (as in human beings, but possibly also in at least some other primates) as a function that builds upon the perceptual consciousness that we share with other higher animals. In my view, the former is inconceivable (no pun intended) without the latter.
I don’t think we disagree on that, but I’m not sure that it’s relevant to the question, either. Yes, the animal soul must perform the functions of the vegetative sould, and the human soul must perform the functions of the animal and vegetative souls.
If there’s a continuum, surely that would detract from the notion that the human soul is unique, or from the idea that only humans are created in God’s image?
I think not. Surely we agree, by way of example, that there exists a continuum of intelligence in the natural world. Does that mean that human reason is not qualitatively unique? I don’t think it means that at all. I certainly don’t think that because there exists a hierarchy of souls, in the Aristotlean sense, that the human soul is not created in God’s image. The logic doesn’t track.
(that’s on my website)
You seem to know a lot about music. Please answer this one question for me. In Willy Wonka the 1970s-ish movie, Willy Wonka plays a musical password to enter his candy paradise. One of the visitors (Mike TV’s mom) says that the password is Rachmaninoff. Was she right?
(that’s on my website)
You seem to know a lot about music. Please answer this one question for me. In Willy Wonka the 1970s-ish movie, Willy Wonka plays a musical password to enter his candy paradise. One of the visitors (Mike TV’s mom) says that the password is Rachmaninoff. Was she right?
From imdb.com:
The musical code for entering the Chocolate Factory played by Wonka is identified by Mrs. Teevee as “Rachmaninoff” when it is clearly the opening strains of Motzart’s “Marriage of Figaro”.
Welcome to the Twilight Zone.
The quote above is far more clearer and less contentious when read in the article, that is why I posted the piece in full.
In addition, discussing opinions of what is or isn’t the soul is meaningless in the context of that article, as it describing the scientific merits of the existance of the “soul”, and the consequences of basing opinions of such issues on religious beliefs.
Repeatedly stating your differing opinion to something will not make it any less true.
I have no idea, since I never saw the movie. Despite all my Rachmaninoff research, that’s one cultural reference I never heard about!
as it describing the scientific merits of the existance of the “soul”, and the consequences of basing opinions of such issues on religious beliefs.
Why would “science” address this?
Repeatedly stating your differing opinion to something will not make it any less true.
I know, which is why the following remains incorrect:
The quote above is far more clearer and less contentious when read in the article
The fact is that the NYT managed to convey the meaning of the editorial accurately, and the editorial is not any less contentious than the quote in the Times. If you think otherwise, and care to defend your opinion, we can run through the exercise of parsing the editorial line by line. You game?
In addition, discussing opinions of what is or isn’t the soul is meaningless in the context of that article, as it describing the scientific merits of the existance of the “soul”,
Are you kidding me? Do I need to parse *that *line for you to show you how nonsensical it is?