Getting Ahead by Losing it All

Just when you thought reality could not get any more like the science fiction of the 1950’s and 60’s scientists in Russia and a surgeon from Italy have announced that the first head transplant will be happening early in 2017.

Actually they say it is a body transplant. They are giving the head a new body to control.

I have not heard any of the backlash or religious arguments yet – but I am sure they will come as we think about this. It is a most intriguing idea, one that has been around since we talked about cryogenically preserving brains and then giving them new bodies when the science caught up.

Just the idea that they call it a body transplant shows a bias. People are saying the head, and really they are saying the brain, is what makes us who we are.

Does it?

I don’t have a definitive answer to this, but there is a lot of argument and theory over the last thousand years that shows it is an important question. We could start with René Descartes who famously intoned, “Cogito, Ergo Sum” which means I think, therefore I am. In a nutshell Descartes was saying the only thing we can trust is our own mind – that is how we know we are alive, because we are thinking.

But what of this mysterious idea of the soul? Is there something about the human body, some physical and spiritual aspect that both connects us to God and survives after death? And if so, what is it and where is it?

In the ancient Greek world the soul was thought to be the home of the emotions, and of such concepts as right and wrong. Things like love and courage came from the soul while rational thought came from the mind. Later we would speak of emotions as being matters of the heart – so are brain and heart two separate parts of what makes a person who they are?

It was Thomas Aquinas sometime in the 1200’s who came up with the idea that the soul survives death – that it is somehow part of the divine, of God, and it is how we go on after we die. For Aquinas the soul was not a physical thing but a spiritual thing – maybe a spark of divine energy that exists in us for a while before returning to heaven?

Modern Neuroscience is convinced that everything we are and do and feel comes from the brain; that everything is rational thought and so something like love is actually just our brain doing a cost effect benefit analysis really quickly and telling us the reasons we should like this other person outweigh the reasons we should not. It is not a very romantic view.

I have heard it argued that the appendix is the soul. No one really knows why we have one. Of course, mine got inflamed and was removed so if that is true then I am in trouble.

Go ahead and do some research; every religion talks of the soul, every person struggles with what makes us unique… is it really just our brain? Can you put my brain into another body and still have me be Brett? If so I am choosing Channum Tating.

But what if it is more than that? Am I more than the sum of everything I think? Does my body, my heart, my emotions come from somewhere else? What if all the different pieces are what makes me me? What if the soul is in the heart? Or the stomach? Or anywhere else but the head?

 
I guess we will see in 2017….

Animals do have a soul

RELIGION TODAY - Published Saturday February 14th, 2009

I saw an e-mail the other day which was a battle between church signs on opposing sides of a busy street somewhere in the United States. It started when the Catholic church put up a line from a popular cartoon movie, "All dogs go to heaven."

Then, the Presbyterian church across the street put up "Only Humans Go to Heaven, read your Bible!" The debate went on like this:

"God loves all his creation, dogs included." "Dog's don't have souls; this is not open for debate."

"Catholic dogs go to heaven; Presbyterian dogs can talk to their pastor." "Converting to Catholicism does not magically grant your dog a soul."

"Free dog souls with conversion."

"Dogs are animals; there aren't any rocks in heaven either."

To which, the Catholic church finally put up "All rocks go to heaven."

It would have been incredibly funny to drive down the road each morning and read the new signs. I suspect the Catholic church would have been a lot more fun to attend; the Priest seems like he must have a good sense of humour.

But, it is an interesting question. Animals are clearly part of the created order. If we are Biblical literalists, then God made them first, as part of the whole package. If we are secular humanists, then human beings developed over time from a mutation in the ape gene pool. Either way, there is a pretty close relationship. Anyone who has ever been around any sort of animal -- dog, cat, lizard, horse, cow or bunny -- can't help but notice that they have their own personalities, their own quirks, their own independent thoughts and their own drives to exist, and reproduce. All hallmarks of determining if something is "alive" and "sentient" according to Star Trek.

The English word "soul" derives from a number of different words in the Old and New Testaments and is used in the Bible in a variety of ways. First, it is employed as a synonym for a living, breathing person. Moses wrote: "All the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls." (Exodus 1:5; cf. Deuteronomy 10:22). In legal matters also, the word soul was used to denote any individual. The Lord told Moses: "Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, 'If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which ought not to be done." (Leviticus 4:2).

Second, the word soul can be used to describe the physical form of life that both men and animals possess and that ceases to exist at death. In their Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Brown, Driver, and Briggs noted that the word "soul" (Hebrew nephesh) often is employed to mean "life principle" (1907, p. 659). In Genesis 1:20,24,30, God spoke of the nephesh hayyah--literally "soul breathers" or "life breathers" (often translated as "living creatures" or "life" --cf. Leviticus 11:10). The writer of Proverbs observed in regard to animals: "A righteous man regardeth the life (nephesh) of his beast; but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel." (12:10).

Thirdly, the word soul can be used to describe something that is immortal and thus never dies. In speaking of Rachel's death at the birth of her son, Moses wrote: "And it came to pass, as her soul was departing (for she died)." (Genesis 35:18). Hezekiah celebrated the fact that the soul survives the death of the body: "But thou hast in love to my soul (nephesh) delivered it from the pit of corruption." (Isaiah 38:17).

The question therefore becomes: Can the word "soul" be used correctly in referring to animals? The first definition obviously cannot apply to animals since animals are not persons. But the second definition most certainly would apply to animals. In Genesis 1:20,24, the identical Hebrew word is employed to speak of animals as "living creatures" (Hebrew nephesh hayyah).

But can the third definition be applied to animals? Do animals possess immortal souls that one day will inhabit heaven or hell? Religious columnist and Veterinarian Michael Fox wrote:

"There is indeed a kinship in the present diversity and evolutionary continuity of all life . . . It is more important today than ever before for human beings to be aware of their kinship with all life. It is essential for our survival that we have a strong reverence for all forms of life as our kin . . ."

Theologian Frank Hoffman wrote in his book, All Creatures Here Below:

". . .if the animal sacrifice is the precursor, or type of the final sacrifice of our Lord and Saviour, which is a mainstream Christian teaching, is God's Word not also telling us that animals do have souls? . . . Now then, why are we reluctant to accept the fact that animals do have souls? Because we are still trying to hold on to some of our pride, and perhaps our greed. If we do not accept the fact that animals have souls, then we may have a self-acceptable excuse for the way we treat the rest of God's creatures, which is not in accordance with God's desire, but ours."

So, I would wade into the argument with those U.S. Roman Catholics and declare, from what I have read and from personal experience, 'my dog, Jacob, has a soul.' And so does every other creature. Now, how are we going to treat them?