By Dave Jarvis
January 17, 2008
In response to my previous essay, I received an answer that quoted Professor John Haught's book on Evolution and Theology. I shall address the ideas contained therein to show how evolution still defies the existence of a soul.
Christian hope, first recall, looks toward the resurrection of the body and not the immortality of a soul that can be finally separated from the material world. The notion that we are composed of soul and body is sometimes interpreted in such a way as to make us humans look like alien spirits temporarily imprisoned in material bodies, waiting for death to release us to our true home "up above." But it is difficult to map this ancient (and rather Platonic) anthropology onto the new evolutionary picture of life. Perhaps, then, Darwinian science compels us now to reconsider what we mean by the "soul."
—John Haught, Theologian at Georgetown University
Remove the words that add no information to simplify and paraphrase:
Christian hope is about the resurrection of a body, not the immortality of a soul. Having both can be interpreted to make humans look like a soul imprisoned in a corporeal shell, awaiting death to release us (i.e., the soul). How does this ancient anthropology apply within the reality of evolution? Science compels us to reconsider what is meant by "soul".
I interpret this to mean that "soul" must be redefined with respect to evolution. He continues:
Instead of eliminating the notion of a human soul in order to make us humans fit seamlessly into the rest of nature, perhaps it would be wiser to acknowledge that there is something analogous to "soul" in all living beings. We humans have souls, of course, but in its own way so does every other living being. Here it is helpful to remember that the term "soul" is our English translation of the Latin anima, from which the word "animal" is derived. Soul has always meant an "animating principle," and so everything alive must in some way be "ensouled."
—John Haught, Theologian at Georgetown University
Which reduces to:
Consider that all living beings, including humans, have a "soul". The word "soul" is translated from the Latin word anima; the word "animal" is derived from anima. "Soul" always meant an "animating principle". Thus everything alive must be ensouled.
Cells, which are alive, consist of molecules; molecules are not alive. Ergo, molecules have no soul, whereas cells do. Yet cells form from non-living molecules -- a process called morphogenesis. I ask:
During morphogenesis, when is a cell bestowed a soul?
Professor Haught continues:
For centuries religious thinkers, including St. Thomas Aquinas, have been comfortable with this more democratic distribution of an animating principle throughout the domain of life. Aquinas spoke of a vegetative and animal soul along with the human. It was especially after Descartes (1596-1650) and the rise of mechanistic views of nature that people began to suspect that other living beings are "soulless."
—John Haught, Theologian at Georgetown University
Historical reverie adds no meaning to the answer. Continuing:
But even in a scientific age it is not too speculative to attribute an interior aspect to each living being. Maybe all living organisms have an aspect of "subjectivity" hidden from scientific objectification. In each of us this interiority would be associated with a distinctively human soul. But other living beings may possess a hidden "subjectivity" -- widely varying in the degree of experiential awareness -- where they are intimately touched by and participate in the divine Spirit whom we may refer to as Life-Itself.
—John Haught, Theologian at Georgetown University
Therein is a missing link. Professor Haught begins with the idea that all living entities (including cells) have a property that eludes scientific objectification. He then assigns this property to a human soul. Since a cell has a soul and humans are made from 100 trillion cells, then:
What is the process by which a distinctively human soul is assigned?
How does the human soul differ from the body's trillions of cell-souls?
I tried to reduce his words as follows:
All living entities have an aspect that eludes objectification. It is this aspect that is associated with a distinctive soul. Other living entities possess their own elusive aspects, all of which are managed and assigned by a Superior Being or Superior Beings.
But it does not make sense to me; it lacks concrete definitions and is rife with meaningless abstractions. Continuing:
Once we allow for this broader understanding of soul, we may interpret evolution as the momentous story of soul-emergence. Evolution is the adventure of life gradually becoming more conscious, centered, free, and capable of love--but also capable of great evil. This understanding allows us to move beyond the artifice of thinking that God abruptly "injects" prefabricated "souls" into our species or into our bodies at certain artificially defined points in evolution or embryogenesis. Instead we may understand the Spirit of God as present in all of life, animating each species in a manner proportionate to its characteristic mode of organic or informational complexity.
—John Haught, Theologian at Georgetown University
Reduction and reinterpretation:
Evolution imparts the emergence of the soul. Evolution causes life to become conscious, centered, free, and capable of love and evil. Souls are not assigned at artifically defined points during evolution or embryogenesis. Instead, souls are present in all living entities, and cause their animated behaviour.
My take:
Evolution is change in populations of organisms over generations. Offspring differ from their parents in various ways. When these differences are helpful, the offspring have a greater chance of surviving and reproducing, making the differences more common in the next generation. In this way, differences can accumulate over time, leading to major changes in a population.
—Wikipedia
Evolution says nothing about consciousness, love, evil, or freedom. Cyanobacteria has evolved for billions of years and still has no known consciousness. Mitochondria seem incapable of love. Ferns cannot seriously be classified as evil (unlike horsetail and dandelions). In other words, consciousness (et al.) is not a predestined consequence of evolution.
He concludes with:
The emergence of the human soul, then, would not be a glaring exception to this animating process, but instead a most intense exemplification of a general aspect of creation and evolution. This interpretation also leaves open the possibility of analogous developments in life elsewhere in the universe.
—John Haught, Theologian at Georgetown University
Professor Haught has deftly shown how souls are not assigned during evolution, but are intrinsic to all living entities. The following issues remain unaddressed:
Life began from the following chain of events:
Lifeless matter mutated, giving inert proto-life the ability to replicate. Eventually enough favourable mutations occurred, transforming the resulting object into a complete living entity. Which leads to the question:
When did lifeless proteins evolve sufficient life-like attributes to obtain a soul?
It is a convenient scapegoat to have an immaterial aspect that evades objective classification and empirical study. For something that is supposedly an intrinsic part of all living beings, why is its origin so difficult to ascertain?
The answer needs no soul searching.