When did the soul evolve?

[Filip Sandor]

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?

Well let's think about this for a moment..

If a limited number of Souls existed in the Universe there would likely come a time in the future (if not already past) when Soul-less creatures would be born basically "dead" into the world, once the Soul pool has run dry. From a philosphical and scientific point of view it would not make sense for this to occur in my opinion because there is no logical or intuitive formula that can determine how many Souls exist or should exist and why. Such a idea is so far detached from ordinary reasoning that it has no real place in our common sense, which makes it all the more less believable.

The next most logical assumption would be that there are an infinite number of Souls in existence. From a scientific point of view this makes more sense because the rules of physical life wouldn't suddenly change for no apparent reason and everything could continue to evolve, all physical bodies would have a Soul to 'connect' to. The down-side to this theory in my opinion is that there would also be an infinite number of Souls that would never be incarnated. Mathematically speaking infinity may cancel out infinity, but in reality, at any point in time spreading infinitely into the future, there would be an infinite number of Souls 'lost' in a void (or whatever..) never being able to incarnate. Somehow this point of view just seems unfair and wrong, bringing into question the any purpose of a Souls evolution at all. This point of view is probably more difficult to accept than the latter point of view of a limited number of Souls.

If there is such a thing as the Soul then maybe there is only one. Maybe this one Soul is expressing itself through all living things and even what we might call 'non-living things', seeing a unique view of every perspective that is offered to it through the physical world.

Perhaps this could offer an explination to why we all feel 'separated' as individuals. It would also eliminate the need to explain when a Soul began to evolve since it would be much like a seamless evolution of the one Soul.

 

[Bleever]

We have an immortal soul but it's not something bestowed upon us by some deity somewhere. In the mass of spiritual communications no one has ever reported ever being able to find any kind of such deity because it never existed.
The more enlightened ones sooner and eventually all find immortality is rather just another step in the evolutionary process of nature. The stupendous power innate within the atom itself is the driving force behind evolution. From the very advantageous position of being 'dead' electricity pioneer Prof. Michael Faraday makes a case for evolution as the atoms tumultuous journey from the primeval firemist of nebulous dust clouds to biological man then uses the analogy as the next step in the ultimate crowning apex of nature—spiritual man.

Out of the darkness of the real chaos and night, blazes forth the beacon light that illumines the boundaries of eternal space, and wheeling and circling through the trackless void for countless ages, the suns and systems proceed upon their course, obedient to the laws of balance that the tiny atoms of which they are composed, have imposed upon them. Go where they may, they never pass before the sphere of atomic forms, and do what they will, they are ever subject to that subtle but intangible power that directs and controls their movements with masterly vigor throughout the cycles of eternal being, whether in their evolutionary processes from the primitive fire mist, or during the periods when they bear the harvest of immortal satellites, they are within the province of the power which the atom has to enter or depart from a world or its inhabitants. The atom alone has the claim to enter at duration of form; it alone has the power to enter and dominate all other forms.

It exercises this power without any master except force, and to force alone is it innate, or subject. Whether force possessed it as is contemporaneous with it may not be certainly assured by the wisdom of man, but probably force which impels the atom upon its course with unerring precision, may precede it in the province of creative evolution. It is possible that beyond the atom is an intelligence that has imbued it with these properties and powers, but if it is so much beyond the province of human mentality as to be outside the range of definite thought, it remains for human ignorance to be silent in its presence.
Evolutionary Unfoldment

Now we are nearing the point where the spiritual analogy appears. It is a very wonderful analogy, so wonderful that we almost hesitate to put it into words. Yet Nature is reverent; and it is her voice to which you listen. There is another kind of life, of which, science, as yet, has taken little cognizance. It obeys the same laws. It builds up an organism into its own form. It IS THE SPIRITUAL LIFE. When man becomes a spiritual being the process is Natural.
Evolutionary Immortality Triumphing As The Missing Link In Evolution

 

[Oleron]

Very poetic, Bleever.

So what you are saying is that man will ultimately evolve to become 'spiritual man'?
And your evidence for this is the dictation of a dead Prof?

Hardly convincing, don't you think?

I mean, if I said to you on an internet message forum that I could channel the dead spirit of Al Jolson, would you believe me?
Even if I supplied an mp3 of me doing a few bars of "Mammee"?

 

[Dr Adequate]

That's just a masterpiece of meaninglessness.

The atom must move somewhere all the time, and the compounds of the elements must furnish it with a range of different capacities of expression. This enables the physical form to exist as a form or concretion of powers that reflects the action of the atoms in the form upon some of their different planes of expression. Coming into these relations in a form, they naturally correlate with the elements in proximate relations, and a new form ensues; having, in itself, a little different action from the others from which it springs. The planet holds these powers subject to certain modifications of its own inherent energy ; and, by the power of magnetic induction, keeps them in form long after they have vanished from the visible realm, but they are not, as you might suppose, dissipated in the universal ether. As sentient forms upon a higher plane, they exist; but, were it not for the influences of the planet, they could not exist as independent entities.

I guess it looks like science if you don't know any science except from reading low-quality pop science. I suppose that's the point.

 

[Beerina]

How about this one:

The soul is that factor which influences how strongly a synapse fires, and makes 'free will' something other than a convincing illusion.

A soul has to function by some mechanism -- and that has its own physics. So far, all I can conceive of is determinism and randomness (and it's questionable if randomness has any effect on consciousness). The very concept of some "soul", making decisions independent of both randomness and determinism is nonsensical. Pray tell, what else could there possibly be?

 

[Hawk one]

Re: Re: When did the soul evolve?

I was right! Someone has thought of this before - no less than Richard Dawkins!



I just read this here

Honestly, I did not steal this!

Nice one Dicky, just what I was thinking...

Of course, he wasn't really thinking about it in the context of this thread's debate. He was merely explaining a quote from the Vatican that was often used (by religions and science alike). Assumedly, the Pope is staying off science by f.ex. saying "It could all have happened the way you scientists describe. God would of course still have a finger in it, but God could do it any way he wanted, so we'll accept that there's evidence that God did it this way." Then Dawkins goes on to argue that they (the church) do, despite claiming to lay off science, still step in on it. There is nothing that suggests that Dawkins actually believes in the "injection of the soul" himself. He was just saying that other people (i.e the Catholic Church) did.

But anyway, that was partially off topic (and perhaps I misread you, Oleron. You may have been aware of all my points, but I read it as if you were trying to say that Dawkins supported your stand.) . As one that not believes in an immortal soul at all, and merely think of what I have as a conciousness, or self-awareness if you like, I don't have a problem at all with how this can have evolved.

 

[Oleron]

Well, OK, maybe he is making a slightly different point to the one I am making.

However I like to see this article as indisputable proof that I am as smart, if not smarter, than Richard Dawkins.

I don't see how anyone can argue with that.

 

[rustypouch]

Check out this article for a good idea of where soul came from.