# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-introduction-of-the-soul/349211/41 "2006-03-22T00:29:29Z")
From a mormon background, it’s clearly stated that the souls predate the body -and the entire creation of the earth. At some unstated point they come down and ‘possess’ the fetus; before this time the fetus is a blob of mechanically developing cells; after this point the fetus is a baby. This point could be conception, it could be three months, six, eight, the moment of birth; I’ve never heard an authorotative figure. Could be their eighth birthday, for all I know. Logically, the point at which the upright apes started being issued human souls is unknown. The only clue, I believe, is that by that point man was supposed to be in ‘god’s own image’, which I presume rules out when we were invertebrate fish (but you never know). You could just assume that at some point God looked down and said, “yeah, those arthropoids are looking developed enough; everybody queue up and get ready to cram yourself into some fetuses.” Regardless of what development the species underwent after that point, the souls would have remained pretty much the same; they’re eternal, after all. This is all of course based on an LDS framework, ymmv. I’m willing to discuss other alternatives, but note that if something’s not metaphysical, then you’re misusing a horribly loaded word if you call it a soul. (Ie: a mind that is a symptom of the brain is not a soul.) ---
**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 22, 2006, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-introduction-of-the-soul/349211/42 "2006-03-22T00:31:08Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > 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. They don’t have a mind to be self aware _with_, or a brain to have a mind in the first place. > [@Contrapuntal](#): > > It is the soul that differentiates humans from animals, and was one of the conditions of the OP. That’s simply not true. We have far more complex a culture; even smart animals have barely any. We have language, much greater intelligence, sophisticated tool use, greater creativity; we are different in many, many ways. You could take away our hypothetical souls and give them to animals instead ( or just destroy them ), and we’d still be just as different. ---
**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, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-introduction-of-the-soul/349211/43 "2006-03-22T00:33:21Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Logically, the point at which the upright apes started being issued human souls is unknown. The only clue, I believe, is that by that point man was supposed to be in ‘god’s own image’, which I presume rules out when we were invertebrate fish (but you never know). You could just assume that at some point God looked down and said, “yeah, those arthropoids are looking developed enough; everybody queue up and get ready to cram yourself into some fetuses.” Regardless of what development the species underwent after that point, the souls would have remained pretty much the same; they’re eternal, after all. So the children would have souls but their parents not? At least at first? The first humans were born to beasts? Do Mormons accept evolution? ---
**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, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-introduction-of-the-soul/349211/44 "2006-03-22T00:43:44Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > They don’t have a mind to be self aware _with_, or a brain to have a mind in the first place. Well that seems to me to be begging the question. Unless you are stating that the existence of a brain is _prima facie_ evidence of self awareness. > [@](#): > > That’s simply not true. We have far more complex a culture; even smart animals have barely any. We have language, much greater intelligence, sophisticated tool use, greater creativity; we are different in many, many ways. You could take away our hypothetical souls and give them to animals instead ( or just destroy them ), and we’d still be just as different. Once again, from the top. The assumptions I make are that, from a religious standpont, humans are differentiated from animals by the existence of their souls. For the purposes of this discussion, said souls exist, and are not hypothetical. I am not really intertested in the myriad other ways humans and animals are different. I am interested in the rationale that a Christian might use to reconcile evolution and the soul. Is that one of your areas of expertise? Are you a Christian? Have you had a similar discussion with a Christian? I only ask so that hijacks about whether souls exist can be avoided. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-introduction-of-the-soul/349211/45 "2006-03-22T00:55:19Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > So the children would have souls but their parents not? At least at first? The first humans were born to beasts? Do Mormons accept evolution? This isn’t the sort of thing that comes up in sunday school too often, so it’s anybody’s guess what your average mormon believes about it. It _is_ stated that souls predate the creation of the earth, which basically leaves you two options: 1. Evolution happened and at some point sould started being inserted into animals: the scenario I presented above. This would, yes, imply that some humans had animal parents. or: 1. God created human bodies out of dirt pre-formed for the first souls to enter: the garden of eden thing. I suspect that most mormons go for option 2, and none go for option 1. (The balance would be drawn from the wide pool of people who don’t bother two hard with making science reconcile with religion, while simultaneously accepting both to whichever degree they find comfortable.) ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-introduction-of-the-soul/349211/46 "2006-03-22T01:07:18Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Well that seems to me to be begging the question. Unless you are stating that the existence of a brain is _prima facie_ evidence of self awareness. I’m not sure about that, but the reverse seems reasonable statement. Based on current scientific knowledge concerning the human brain it seems reasonable to suggest that my self awareness is the result of my brain. Therefore it equally follows that the point where an animal no longer has an organ that could reasonably be described as a brain, is point that that animal can no longer be described as self aware. The opposite does not have to be true (if all mail boxes are blue, it doesn’t mean everything thats blue is a mail box). ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-introduction-of-the-soul/349211/47 "2006-03-22T01:21:10Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > I’m not sure about that, but the reverse seems reasonable statement. Based on current scientific knowledge concerning the human brain it seems reasonable to suggest that my self awareness is the result of my brain. Therefore it equally follows that the point where an animal no longer has an organ that could reasonably be described as a brain, is point that that animal can no longer be described as self aware. The opposite does not have to be true (if all mail boxes are blue, it doesn’t mean everything thats blue is a mail box). ( Noting that this is a sidetrack: ) No, your logic is wrong here. Just becuase you do things one way doesn’t mean that everything does things your way. The fact that you use scuba gear to swim underwater doesn’t mean that, because fish dont, that fish don’t swim. Or to put it another way, just because everything that you recognize as a mailbox happens to be blue, doesn’t mean that everything red out there isn’t a mailbox. ---
**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 22, 2006, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-introduction-of-the-soul/349211/48 "2006-03-22T01:54:05Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Well that seems to me to be begging the question. Unless you are stating that the existence of a brain is _prima facie_ evidence of self awareness. No, just a basic necessity. > [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Once again, from the top. The assumptions I make are that, from a religious standpont, humans are differentiated from animals by the existence of their souls. For the purposes of this discussion, said souls exist, and are not hypothetical. I was granting that assumption, which is why I wrote “hypothetical” and not “nonexistent”. > [@Contrapuntal](#): > > I am not really intertested in the myriad other ways humans and animals are different. I am interested in the rationale that a Christian might use to reconcile evolution and the soul. What’s to reconcile ? As I said, assuming an intelligent agency is involved ( such as a god )and that souls exist, when and where they appear is purely arbitrary. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-introduction-of-the-soul/349211/49 "2006-03-22T01:59:24Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Correct, as is the Earth not being flat or the Holocaust actually happening. > 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. I am skeptical but cannot argue the point. What occurs to me is in the light of throwing terms around about 10s of thousands, millions and billions of years we are using a science that is very recent. There could be things left as yet undiscovered that will drastically change what we now hold as fact. > [@](#): > > 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”? While we are operating within the illusion we use terms like “I was born in 1973” or On the 18th of April in 1775 Paul Revere etc." Life appeared 4 billion years ago doesn’t mean much to me but I won’t argue the point. > [@](#): > > 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? No, there was no before. > [@](#): > > So the soul must “invest” the first life form capable of supporting it in order to start making these changes, yes? No, The life form didn’t exist prior to the soul. The physical body does not wait for the appropriate soul to inhabit it. The physical is a reflection of the souls illusion of separateness. ---
**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, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-introduction-of-the-soul/349211/50 "2006-03-22T02:29:47Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > No, just a basic necessity. Can you offer any evidence for that other than your assertion? > [@](#): > > What’s to reconcile ? As I said, assuming an intelligent agency is involved ( such as a god )and that souls exist, when and where they appear is purely arbitrary. I’m not sure you are in the spirit of the discussion. Are you speaking as a Christian? Or theist? That is where my question was directed. I am not sure you are qualified to answer. Feel free to reject the premise if you like, but one wonders what you are doing here if that is the case. **griffin1977** , a second request for you to define self awareness, if you please. ---
**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, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-introduction-of-the-soul/349211/51 "2006-03-22T02:31:44Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > No, The life form didn’t exist prior to the soul. The physical body does not wait for the appropriate soul to inhabit it. The physical is a reflection of the souls illusion of separateness. I assume by this you mean that the soul and life form are created at the same time? At what point on the continuum of evolution did this begin to occur? ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-introduction-of-the-soul/349211/52 "2006-03-22T02:31:57Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > **griffin1977** , a second request for you to define self awareness, if you please. The definition at wikipedia seems reasonable: > [@](#): > > Self-awareness is the ability to perceive one’s own existence ---
**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, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-introduction-of-the-soul/349211/53 "2006-03-22T02:44:05Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > The definition at wikipedia seems reasonable: By what mechanism do you determine that a particular animal is self-aware? ---
**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 22, 2006, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-introduction-of-the-soul/349211/54 "2006-03-22T02:48:06Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > By what mechanism do you determine that a particular animal is self-aware? Biologists usually use something like the mirror test. Can an animal recognize itself in a mirror, or does it just think the reflection is another animal? Chimps are self aware, as are bonobos. Dolphins, too, IIRC. ---
**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, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-introduction-of-the-soul/349211/55 "2006-03-22T02:53:36Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Biologists usually use something like the mirror test. Can an animal recognize itself in a mirror, or does it just think the reflection is another animal? Chimps are self aware, as are bonobos. Dolphins, too, IIRC. I am sure that is a handy rule of thumb for biologists, but how can it be definitive, at least as regards the definition offered by **griffin**? If self awareness is essentially an internal phenomenon, how can humans know that _any_ other animal is self aware? The best that can be said is that some behaviors mimic behaviors we recognize in ourselves as being a function of self awareness. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-introduction-of-the-soul/349211/56 "2006-03-22T03:09:09Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > I am sure that is a handy rule of thumb for biologists, but how can it be definitive, at least as regards the definition offered by **griffin**? If self awareness is essentially an internal phenomenon, how can humans know that _any_ other animal is self aware? The best that can be said is that some behaviors mimic behaviors we recognize in ourselves as being a function of self awareness. Umm exactly hence why this is a conundrum (if you could stick a probe in the animal and it would light up if it was self aware, it won’t be such a conundrum)… We are pretty certain we are self aware. And we have clues other sophisticate animals are could be self-aware. We are pretty sure absolutly primitive animals such as single cell organisms are not (again could be argued the other way but I think that 99.9% of scientists would be happy with that statement). Where in the evolution of life is the borderline ? ---
**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 22, 2006, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-introduction-of-the-soul/349211/57 "2006-03-22T03:18:01Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > I am sure that is a handy rule of thumb for biologists, but how can it be definitive, at least as regards the definition offered by **griffin**? If self awareness is essentially an internal phenomenon, how can humans know that _any_ other animal is self aware? The best that can be said is that some behaviors mimic behaviors we recognize in ourselves as being a function of self awareness. The mirror test won’t necessarily prove that an animal isn’t self aware, but I think we can say that if you “pass” the test, you are self-aware. I doubt, though, that there is a discontinuity between self-aware and non self-aware animals. Like most things in biologiy, there is almost certainly a continuum of self-awareness with differing degrees of that feature. ---
**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 22, 2006, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-introduction-of-the-soul/349211/58 "2006-03-22T03:25:27Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Can you offer any evidence for that other than your assertion? The fact that brain surgery, brain damage, neurodegenerative diseases, and the effest of drugs on the brain indicate that the mind/self awareness is a function of the brain. It does not come from a soul, whether or not one exists. > [@Contrapuntal](#): > > I’m not sure you are in the spirit of the discussion. Are you speaking as a Christian? Or theist ? Neither. > [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Feel free to reject the premise if you like, but one wonders what you are doing here if that is the case. I didn’t reject the premise, I’m simply pointing out the logical implications. > [@Contrapuntal](#): > > If self awareness is essentially an internal phenomenon, how can humans know that any other animal is self aware? We don’t of course; after all, I can’t be absolutely sure that anyone else is self aware, either. Since this is a view that is either pointless or dangerous ( because if you’re all _things_, I can do anything I want ) we simply dismiss it. We assume that since other people have the outward signs of self awareness, they have the inward reality. The same logic applies to animals. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-introduction-of-the-soul/349211/59 "2006-03-22T03:36:31Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > I assume by this you mean that the soul and life form are created at the same time? At what point on the continuum of evolution did this begin to occur? No that’s not what I mean. I’m trying to explain a concept that I am only beginning to understand myself. My apologies for a lack of clarity. The soul is timeless so was not created in that sense. Now it may be that the illusion of separateness and the “when” of that event begins the process of physical existence. I’m not sure I understand the question about evolution. Are you asking when in the scientific explanation of evolution did homo sapiens start having souls? Did mankind have souls before they walked upright? Is that the sort of question you’re asking? ---
**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, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-introduction-of-the-soul/349211/60 "2006-03-22T03:53:42Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > The fact that brain surgery, brain damage, neurodegenerative diseases, and the effest of drugs on the brain indicate that the mind/self awareness is a function of the brain. It does not come from a soul, whether or not one exists. A) function of the\* human\* brain. You have yet to connect this to the brains of other animals. 2) I never claimed awareness came from the soul, nor has anyone else. It is the analogy of awareness to the soul I am questioning, and again, in the context of a religious “quickening.” > [@](#): > > Neither. Are you speaking for Christians then? I am wondering what _they_ think. > [@](#): > > I didn’t reject the premise, I’m simply pointing out the logical implications. So you are pointing out that it happens, which is assumed in the OP. OK fine, it is arbitrary. That still says nothing about _when_ it happens. If your point is that it does not matter then I will have to ask you again why you are bothering. > [@](#): > > We don’t of course; after all, I can’t be absolutely sure that anyone else is self aware, either. Since this is a view that is either pointless or dangerous ( because if you’re all _things_, I can do anything I want ) we simply dismiss it. We assume that since other people have the outward signs of self awareness, they have the inward reality. The same logic applies to animals. After you have established that animals are self aware the same logic _might_ apply. So far all your reasoning has been in a circle. Humans can be reasonably certain that other humans are self aware because they can communicate with each other. There is no need to appeal to solipsism. All an animal can do is exhibit behavior that mimics self awareness in humans. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-introduction-of-the-soul/349211.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-introduction-of-the-soul/349211.md?page=4)