# Evolution/Introduction of the Soul **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 20, 2006, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-introduction-of-the-soul/349211 "2006-03-20T23:08:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-introduction-of-the-soul/349211/21 "2006-03-21T12:58:29Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Legal. If a fetus has a soul, how can you justify allowing it to be killed for no reason? That would involve religion being blatantly interjected into secular life. The American government (at least outwardly) doesn’t concern itself with souls because we are not supposed to be guided by religious ideas. However, if we were, we could just toss reincarnation into the mix and assume the soul moved on to another shell. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-introduction-of-the-soul/349211/22 "2006-03-21T14:22:33Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Interesting. Let us, for a moment, take this back to Earth 5 billion years ago where, perhaps in some clay layer or lipid base near a thermal vent, the first life which had **no** previous life appeared. Was _its_ soul ‘waiting for that to happen’, or did it appear along with the first life, before which there were no souls _anywhere_ (either in or out of spacetime)? I’m not sure the question is relevant to the concept. If I understand it correctly souls aren’t waiting for anything since time itself is an illusion. Souls always existed as in timeless. How much of your proposal is the best \*theory \*we have? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-introduction-of-the-soul/349211/23 "2006-03-21T14:44:36Z")
If I may take your second question first: > [@cosmosdan](#): > > How much of your proposal is the best _theory_ we have? The [fossil record](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution) shows **no** life before around 4 billion years ago. Given what we know about Earth \>4 bn years ago, the absence of life on Earth then is as true a fact as the Earth’s _roundness_. A lifeless Earth 5 billion years ago is a _fact_, not a “theory” (whatever your understanding of that word might be). So even though we’re still speculating **how** that first life appeared then, _there is no question **that** it did_. > [@](#): > > If I understand it correctly souls aren’t waiting for anything since time itself is an illusion. Souls always existed as in timeless. So the soul has nothing to do with _anything_ going on on Earth, be that the genesis of life from self-replicating molecules or me having my head cut off? How, then does the soul ‘progress’? That implies that it must somehow “enter” or “invest” a physical entity (like the first life): that there must be some difference between the soul before the physical entity’s birth and the soul after, yes? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-introduction-of-the-soul/349211/24 "2006-03-21T15:32:03Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > If I may take your second question first:The [fossil record](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution) shows **no** life before around 4 billion years ago. Given what we know about Earth \>4 bn years ago, the absence of life on Earth then is as true a fact as the Earth’s _roundness_. A lifeless Earth 5 billion years ago is a _fact_, not a “theory” (whatever your understanding of that word might be). So even though we’re still speculating **how** that first life appeared then, _there is no question **that** it did_. Several things. First I’ll confess my ignorance about such things but even with my very limited knowledge a couple of questions occur. This is a fact based on what we know so far correct? Science does discover new things that sometimes shows what we thought was true 50 years ago is not actually true based on new knowledge and evidence. Correct? According to the concept I’m speaking of the evidence of linear time is part of the illusion. > [@](#): > > So the soul has nothing to do with _anything_ going on on Earth, be that the genesis of life from self-replicating molecules or me having my head cut off? How, then does the soul ‘progress’? That implies that it must somehow “enter” or “invest” a physical entity (like the first life): that there must be some difference between the soul before the physical entity’s birth and the soul after, yes? That’s not it exactly. The soul has something to do with things on earth in that it, or we have created this illusion and maintains it by a reluctance to surrender to our spiritual existence. Speaking in terms of successive lives, yes, our degree of surrender to the spiritual changes in the course of our lives and that has an effect on the details of the next life. No time to read your link this morning but thanks and I will read it later. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-introduction-of-the-soul/349211/25 "2006-03-21T15:41:56Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > This is a fact based on what we know so far correct? Correct, as is the Earth not being flat or the Holocaust actually happening. > [@](#): > > Science does discover new things that sometimes shows what we thought was true 50 years ago is not actually true based on new knowledge and evidence. Correct? Correct, it does. But sometimes science confirms again and again and again and again what we have known for centuries, such that one might as well believe one lives in the Matrix as believe that that fact will be overturned. > [@](#): > > According to the concept I’m speaking of the evidence of linear time is part of the illusion. OK, if time is an illusion, how _should_ we say things like “The solar system formed 5 billion years ago” or “Life appeared 4 billion years ago” or even “I was born in 1973”? > [@](#): > > The soul has something to do with things on earth in that it, or we have created this illusion and maintains it by a reluctance to surrender to our spiritual existence. So there must have been a **first** “deluded entity”, before which there were only rocks and proteins and things which simply could not _be under_ the illusion, yes? > [@](#): > > Speaking in terms of successive lives, yes, our degree of surrender to the spiritual changes in the course of our lives and that has an effect on the details of the next life. So the soul must “invest” the first lifeform capable of supporting it in order to start making these changes, yes? ---
**Author:** ![coffeecat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coffeecat/32/3405_2.png) [@coffeecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coffeecat)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-introduction-of-the-soul/349211/26 "2006-03-21T15:52:04Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > What I am really trying to get at is how evolution can be justified with a belief in a soul. It is not a trick question. I am not looking for a “gotcha.” I am curious about the thought processes; the reasoning, if you will. The creation of the soul could be like a phase transition. Sometimes gradual changes do add up to a sudden change in properties. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-introduction-of-the-soul/349211/27 "2006-03-21T16:23:12Z")
> [@coffeecat](#): > > The creation of the soul could be like a phase transition. Sometimes gradual changes do add up to a sudden change in properties. How do you come to your understanding of what a soul is, where it comes from, etc.? I’m not trying to be snarky, but convince me that you haven’t just made it up. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-introduction-of-the-soul/349211/28 "2006-03-21T16:23:28Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Remember the parable of the body? Can the hand say “I’m different from the body?” The hand has no mind to be seperate _with_. If it did have a miniture brain of it’s own with it’s own sentience, it could and would be a different being than the body. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > If I’m understanding the concept correctly, rather than God creating the Universe we did when we believed we were separate. Time and space are illusions we created in order to reinforce the separate from God, belief. > > I think evolution is an appropriate term for our spiritual growth. We progress over a series of physical lifetimes to lose our illusion of separateness. The circumstances of our birth, our own personality and intelligence are a reflection of the progress we did or did not make in our previous life. Actually, that sounds more like decay than spiritual growth; a collapse and loss of the self to something else. Honestly, it sounds like you think we all get assimilated by God-Borg. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > I’m not sure the question is relevant to the concept. If I understand it correctly souls aren’t waiting for anything since time itself is an illusion. If time and space and all are illusions, then why are they consistent for everybody ? Assuming souls actually existed, going by the descriptions they seem to work like immaterial recording devices. When we die they carry a copy of our brain state off to some other realm/next life/whatever. If they are sent forth by some hypothetical God, they could have appeared first at any arbitrary time and place. For that matter, they could have been given only to some people and not others; that’s one of the dangers in believing in souls; deciding that people you don’t like have none and you do. If they are natural, then it’s just as plausible that _everything_ has a soul, from people down to rocks and peanut butter sandwiches. Of course, a rock soul would be ‘blank’, not having a mind to record. So here’s my view : Since we have no data, even if we assume souls exist and work as advertised, we have no way at all to know when or where or why they first appeared. For that matter we don’t know that we _have_; perhaps we are soulless, and the souls won’t arrive till next Wednesday. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-introduction-of-the-soul/349211/29 "2006-03-21T19:42:46Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > If time and space and all are illusions, then why are they consistent for everybody ? They aren’t. They aren’t even consistent for the same person at different coordinates and velocities. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-introduction-of-the-soul/349211/30 "2006-03-21T20:06:12Z")
I think one problem people run into when talking about souls is that they come to word “have.” “Have” implies ownership or possession (and stories of people selling souls do not help). But you _are_ your soul. Your body is a temporary thing; you will get a new and better one, much mroe suited to your eternal role. It, too, is a part of you, and not to be lightly cast aside. But it is not _all_ of you. It is not a blank slate or a memory chip. It simpy is the sum total of your being. It was before your parents named you, and will be after. But pondering its complexities is pointless, except as a trivial intellectual excercise. Understanding is not required. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-introduction-of-the-soul/349211/31 "2006-03-21T20:12:40Z")
> [@smiling bandit](#): > > I think one problem people run into when talking about souls is that they come to word “have.” “Have” implies ownership or possession (and stories of people selling souls do not help). > > But you _are_ your soul. Your body is a temporary thing; you will get a new and better one, much mroe suited to your eternal role. It, too, is a part of you, and not to be lightly cast aside. But it is not _all_ of you. It is not a blank slate or a memory chip. It simpy is the sum total of your being. It was before your parents named you, and will be after. > > But pondering its complexities is pointless, except as a trivial intellectual excercise. Understanding is not required. Once again I have to ask… how do you come to have this knowledge about what the soul is and this body which is more suited to your eternal role? What is your eternal role? If you want to speak of some religious revelation that is beyond science, fine. Just don’t link it to the material world in any way. ---
**Author:** ![Dob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b2d939/32.png) [@Dob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dob)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-introduction-of-the-soul/349211/32 "2006-03-21T20:20:57Z")
I dont think people are truly born with souls, just the capicity to have one. Your soul is defined by your life, and the things that happen to you, or you do to yourself. Dont know what exactly makes me think that, but for some reason it fits in my view of things. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-introduction-of-the-soul/349211/33 "2006-03-21T20:28:46Z")
> [@bandit](#): > > Your body is a temporary thing; you will get a new and better one, much mroe suited to your eternal role. Made of what? And was it still made of that before my conception? What happened to what it was made of _at my_ conception? > [@](#): > > It, too, is a part of you, and not to be lightly cast aside. If I got rid of it and kept only my body (and mind if necessary, although I consider my mind to be a function of my body), _how would I know_? > [@](#): > > It simpy is the sum total of your being. It was before your parents named you, and will be after. Why did my soul have to wait for my body to be born? Have other souls blown their entire chance on Neanderthal miscarriages? > [@](#): > > But pondering its complexities is pointless, except as a trivial intellectual excercise. Understanding is not required. Kind of like how I can’t understand how the Earth could be flat? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-introduction-of-the-soul/349211/34 "2006-03-21T20:32:36Z")
> [@Dob](#): > > I dont think people are truly born with souls, just the capicity to have one. Your soul is defined by your life, and the things that happen to you, or you do to yourself. Dont know what exactly makes me think that, but for some reason it fits in my view of things. Not to be snarky or anthing, but that just sounds like something you made up. How would I distinguish that from something someone else made up, or how would you distinguish it from something I made up? What if I said I think souls don’t exist? How is that any less valid than what you just said? ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-introduction-of-the-soul/349211/35 "2006-03-21T21:03:28Z")
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal] For those theists who believe in evolution, the existence of a Creator/God, _and_ that humans possess a soul which differentiates them from all other animals: When and how did this soul first manifest? QUOTE] If you take religion out of the questions, it still a conundrum… We are currently self-aware (we’ll take that for granted so as not hijack the thread with a philisophical tangent)… At what point in our evolution did this occur ? At what point did we cease to be a bunch of self-replicating sludge, and become something that is aware that its a bunch of self-replicating sludge. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-introduction-of-the-soul/349211/36 "2006-03-21T21:47:01Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > They aren’t. They aren’t even consistent for the same person at different coordinates and velocities. If your referring to relativity, such changes occur according to predictable scientific laws, not the arbitrary behavior of an illusion. The relative time rate may change, but it does so according to the same rules for everyone; consistant, like I said. > [@smiling bandit](#): > > But you are your soul. No, we are are brain and body. If a soul exists at all, it can only be an addition of some sort. Assuming I have a soul and someone hit me with a soul destroying ray, I see no reason to believe I’d even notice. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-introduction-of-the-soul/349211/37 "2006-03-21T23:10:13Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > If you take religion out of the questions, it still a conundrum… We are currently self-aware (we’ll take that for granted so as not hijack the thread with a philisophical tangent)… At what point in our evolution did this occur ? At what point did we cease to be a bunch of self-replicating sludge, and become something that is aware that its a bunch of self-replicating sludge. If consciousness were defined as a thing it might be a conundrum, or if it were exlusive to humans perhaps. I see consciousness as a function of brain power; there is no contradiction in claiming that some animals have more of it than others. I know of no Christians, for example, who would claim that a dog has a part of a soul, distinguishable from a human soul only by how much of it it has. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-introduction-of-the-soul/349211/38 "2006-03-21T23:23:33Z")
…when I’m in “coldsleep”. I should explain…upon my physical death, my body will be cooled to -150 degrees C, and maintained for 500 years. I expect to be revived sometime around 2606 AD (I will probaly be one of the wealthiest men in the world-I have a trust fund). Where was my soul during those 5 centuries? ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-introduction-of-the-soul/349211/39 "2006-03-21T23:59:03Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > If consciousness were defined as a thing it might be a conundrum, or if it were exlusive to humans perhaps. I see consciousness as a function of brain power; there is no contradiction in claiming that some animals have more of it than others. IMO there still has to be a distinct cut-off point at somewhere between us and an ameoba. Organism-X is self-aware Organism-Y is not. Organism-Z may have better problem solving skills and have more sophisticate, more esoteric, emotions than Organism-X (and may be able to think more deeply about these differences), but they are both self-aware. Whether this X/Y cut-off point in the primates, or rodents, or invertibrates, or between man and everything else, is mute point. But there has to be once. > [@Contrapuntal](#): > > I know of no Christians, for example, who would claim that a dog has a part of a soul, distinguishable from a human soul only by how much of it it has. Maybe you should talk to more dog-loving christians. I know some that would be shocked with idea a binary 0 or 1 soul, and the implication that would mean dogs do not have a soul. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-introduction-of-the-soul/349211/40 "2006-03-22T00:24:21Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > IMO there still has to be a distinct cut-off point at somewhere between us and an ameoba. Organism-X is self-aware Organism-Y is not. Organism-Z may have better problem solving skills and have more sophisticate, more esoteric, emotions than Organism-X (and may be able to think more deeply about these differences), but they are both self-aware. Whether this X/Y cut-off point in the primates, or rodents, or invertibrates, or between man and everything else, is mute point. But there has to be once. Why does there have to be one? How do you know that an amoeba is not self-aware? Perhaps it would help if you defined self awareness. Actually, it is really pointless unless you are stating that God imbues creatures with a self-awareness at some point in their development. > [@](#): > > Maybe you should talk to more dog-loving christians. I know some that would be shocked with idea a binary 0 or 1 soul, and the implication that would mean dogs do not have a soul. There may be some people who identify as Christians and also believe that dogs have souls, but I assure you that no Christian dogma supports such an assertion; quite the opposite, actually. It is the soul that differentiates humans from animals, and was one of the conditions of the OP. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-introduction-of-the-soul/349211.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-introduction-of-the-soul/349211.md?page=3)