When did the soul evolve?

[Oleron]

Someone has probably thought of this question before but I'm interested in knowing at what point in human evolution the soul appeared.

As far as I'm aware, most philosophies/religions (apart from the reincarnation crowd) indicate that humans are special among all life because man has an immortal soul.

So if man has a soul but the ancient common ancestor between man and the apes did not, when did the soul evolve? Homo Habilis? Homo Erectus? Did the Neanderthals have souls?

 

[evildave]

It evolved like religions evolved, but long after many religions began. Various people thought "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if people had an 'immortal soul'? And hey! We could claim it's tormented or rewarded in an 'immortal' fashion, too. And then heavens and hells and soul selling and all manner of things were applied to the fictional construct.

 

[Stitch]

Someone has probably thought of this question before but I'm interested in knowing at what point in human evolution the soul appeared.

As far as I'm aware, most philosophies/religions (apart from the reincarnation crowd) indicate that humans are special among all life because man has an immortal soul.

So if man has a soul but the ancient common ancestor between man and the apes did not, when did the soul evolve? Homo Habilis? Homo Erectus? Did the Neanderthals have souls?

I expect this is part of the reason for religious objection to evolution as this question arises.

I suppose however, you could consider the point of self awareness the point of soul emergence (but that assumes other animals are not self aware).

 

[wittgenst3in]

Excellent question.

If a theist expresses shock at my belief that human consciousness (sp?) dissapears after death (particularly after messy deaths), I usually ask a similar one. Namely: Do pets survive death? If yes how about worms? If no, why not? Don't try and argue that they're not really alive, anyone who has had a pet can attest as to just how much like humans they are.

The best metaphor I have found to explain this to people is one that I think was originally used by the Gautema Bhudda.

See the match in my hand? See the flame? {blow} Where did it go? But how can it suddenly dissapear?

It hasn't buggered off somewhere else, it's just gone.

 

[The Cats Venm]

Re: Re: When did the soul evolve?

I expect this is part of the reason for religious objection to evolution as this question arises.

I suppose however, you could consider the point of self awareness the point of soul emergence (but that assumes other animals are not self aware).

I think that the idea of the soul emerged at the point that we, as a species, began to think about philosophy.

Perhaps other animals believe themselves to have a soul as well.

 

[Oleron]

The group I had in mind when I was thinking of this was the intelligent design crowd.
As far as I know, this ID term spans a wide range of theories.

At one end of the spectrum there are the young earthers who believe a literal Genesis. From the point of view of the soul this is consistent. From virtually every other point of view it is abject nonsense.

At the other end of the spectrum there are those who agree that Genesis is, at best, a metaphor. Some of these guys seem to accept the reality of evolution quite readily but insist on a guiding intelligence for the process.

It is this belief that puzzles me. When the reality of evolution is accepted, there must have been a point at which the soul appeared in a living creature. It must have been handed out by god when the first creatures reached a certain point in their development. In reality this means that one day a creature was born and got given a soul but his father and mother were soul-less. Does this strike anyone as ridiculous?

The soul can't have evolved. You cannot have half a soul. It is supernaturally present or not present.

Have these progressive xians led their belief into a logical blind alley? Does this mean that evolution really can't be made to fit in with a xian belief in the immortal soul?

 

[Iacchus]

Everything has a spirit. The spirit has always been with us.

 

[Anders]

Everything has a spirit. The spirit has always been with us.

Unless you are talking about a modell for things we can't explaine, I would need to see some evidence of the claim that we have a spirit.

 

[Oleron]

Everything has a spirit. The spirit has always been with us.

Soul, Spirit, whatever you want to call it. It seems logically consistent that if everything has a soul then my point is moot. But do you mean everything ? Even rocks and non-living matter? Or just living organisms?

If you mean living and non-living matter then the soul/spirit must be in some way connected to the smallest indivisible constituent of matter - we're at a sub-quark level here. This seems, well, unnecessary.

If you mean just living organisms, that leaves the question of the definition of life. The earliest 'life' was probably not much more than self-replicating molcules. Did they have a soul?
I guess that there isn't really a distinction between living and non-living matter anyway. Living matter is just non-living matter in a certain arrangement.

 

[apollo13]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Everything has a spirit. The spirit has always been with us.

you aren't seriously suggesting that you made (still less won) your point on this thread (or its predecessor) are you?

 

[Iacchus]

Soul, Spirit, whatever you want to call it. It seems logically consistent that if everything has a soul then my point is moot. But do you mean everything ? Even rocks and non-living matter? Or just living organisms?

If you mean living and non-living matter then the soul/spirit must be in some way connected to the smallest indivisible constituent of matter - we're at a sub-quark level here. This seems, well, unnecessary.

If you mean just living organisms, that leaves the question of the definition of life. The earliest 'life' was probably not much more than self-replicating molcules. Did they have a soul?
I guess that there isn't really a distinction between living and non-living matter anyway. Living matter is just non-living matter in a certain arrangement.

No, I mean everything. Sort of like the way a hand fits into a glove. If you understand this, then it becomes an all or nothing proposition.

 

[Iacchus]

you aren't seriously suggesting that you made (still less won) your point on this thread (or its predecessor) are you?

Am merely using the word "spirit" within context of the definition I gave in that thread. So what's your point?

 

[Oleron]

No, I mean everything. Sort of like the way a hand fits into a glove. If you understand this, then it becomes an all or nothing proposition.

I'm not sure I do understand. You're painting your picture with broad strokes.
My point is that, when the question of a soul is analysed in terms of what we have learned about the material universe, logic seems to reveal some fundamental questions and inconsistencies.

 

[apollo13]

Iacchus:

I take your point about your definitions.

However, the comments you made in that thread do seem to represent little more than your personal beliefs and aren't particularly well supported by any actual third party evidence.

why should I give your definition any credibility?

 

[Iacchus]

It is this belief that puzzles me. When the reality of evolution is accepted, there must have been a point at which the soul appeared in a living creature. It must have been handed out by god when the first creatures reached a certain point in their development. In reality this means that one day a creature was born and got given a soul but his father and mother were soul-less. Does this strike anyone as ridiculous?

And, while I would go so far as to say everything has a spirit, I think only human beings are capable of acknowledging God. In fact, at least it's plausible to me, there very well could have been an original fall from the Garden of Eden. And the evidence of this? The fact that we are totally out of sync with nature.

 

[Iacchus]

Iacchus:

I take your point about your definitions.

However, the comments you made in that thread do seem to represent little more than your personal beliefs and aren't particularly well supported by any actual third party evidence.

why should I give your definition any credibility?

Look up the word "soul" in the dictionary and tell me if it doesn't coincide with one of the definitions I gave for "spirit."

 

[Iacchus]

I'm not sure I do understand. You're painting your picture with broad strokes.
My point is that, when the question of a soul is analysed in terms of what we have learned about the material universe, logic seems to reveal some fundamental questions and inconsistencies.

All I'm saying is that either everything has a spiritual aspect or it doesn't. That there can be nothing in-between. In fact it's very much like the relationship between matter and energy, if not one and the same.

 

[Mercutio]

Look up the word "soul" in the dictionary and tell me if it doesn't coincide with one of the definitions I gave for "spirit."

You win--argument by Webster's?

Yup...Webster's has "spirit" as a synonym for "soul".

It also has "fairy" as a synonym for "pixy". Does that mean that both exist?

 

[Mercutio]

All I'm saying is that either everything has a spiritual aspect or it doesn't. That there can be nothing in-between. In fact it's very much like the relationship between matter and energy, if not one and the same.

Actually, it seems that you are not saying that either it does or it does not; you are asserting that it does.

Everything has a spirit. The spirit has always been with us.

And you are asserting that without any evidence whatsoever. You know I do not click on your links, but let me guess--it is another of your threads, in which you advance this same notion and are thoroughly trounced. Again. Your evidence for "An original fall from the garden of eden" is "the fact that we are totally out of synch with nature"? Hmmm....yeah, that might be the simplest explanation...

 

[Iacchus]

You win--argument by Webster's?

Yup...Webster's has "spirit" as a synonym for "soul".

It also has "fairy" as a synonym for "pixy". Does that mean that both exist?

No, the reason why I brought this up was in an attempt to maintain consistency. Which, is one of the first things necessary in order establish credibility, don't you think? He asked why he should give any credibility to my definition?