• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Do dogs have souls?

FreedomFromAll said:
So who exactly uses the definition that our body is our soul, and how does that relate to anything that known religions commonly assert?
Click to expand...

I didn't say that "our body" is our soul. I said that the form of humanity is what constitutes the soul. Our bodies are composed of matter and form. I am here specifically dealing with the form and not the matter.

Now as to the relevance, this is Thomistic metaphysics, so when prompted with the arguments of the saint, you have to understand his views. Thomistic theology had a big impact on the Catholic church.
 
phattonez said:
I didn't say that "our body" is our soul. I said that the form of humanity is what constitutes the soul. Our bodies are composed of matter and form. I am here specifically dealing with the form and not the matter.
Click to expand...
It depends on whose definition of soul you are using. If you are using the concept of a soul that it is some spirit that we have that is completely immaterial, then you are right, there is no proof of that. However, if the soul is the form of the matter that composes us, then it is plainly evident that we have a soul.

I am a little confused by what you exactly mean. Is it that the soul is the form of matter? Or is it that specifically the form and not the matter? The two sentence are contradictory in nature.


Now as to the relevance, this is Thomistic metaphysics, so when prompted with the arguments of the saint, you have to understand his views. Thomistic theology had a big impact on the Catholic church.
Click to expand...

Yes I know about thomasism and I already pointed out that it is theological philosophy. And I also told you that it requires faith to give it merit. Which devalues it as an logical rational.
There really isnt any relevance to your argument other than you have faith. Which is fine I respect that. If you have faith in the existence of souls then just say that. Dont try to pretend that me an Atheist is going to put any importance into any writings of faith. For example its a rare day when an evolutionist debating with an creationist will quot Darwin. Its not that we discredit Darwin's work, its just that in a debate against an creationist, the creationist is skeptical (to put it mildly) of Darwin's authority. Best to circumnavigate angles that will lead to derailing of the debate unless the information is undauntedly proven.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
It depends on whose definition of soul you are using. If you are using the concept of a soul that it is some spirit that we have that is completely immaterial, then you are right, there is no proof of that. However, if the soul is the form of the matter that composes us, then it is plainly evident that we have a soul.

I am a little confused by what you exactly mean. Is it that the soul is the form of matter? Or is it that specifically the form and not the matter? The two sentence are contradictory in nature.
Click to expand...

The view is Hylemorphism and Wikipedia has a decent article on it.

Hylomorphism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Essentially, the soul is our substantial form.

Yes I know about thomasism and I already pointed out that it is theological philosophy. And I also told you that it requires faith to give it merit. Which devalues it as an logical rational.
There really isnt any relevance to your argument other than you have faith. Which is fine I respect that. If you have faith in the existence of souls then just say that. Dont try to pretend that me an Atheist is going to put any importance into any writings of faith. For example its a rare day when an evolutionist debating with an creationist will quot Darwin. Its not that we discredit Darwin's work, its just that in a debate against an creationist, the creationist is skeptical (to put it mildly) of Darwin's authority. Best to circumnavigate angles that will lead to derailing of the debate unless the information is undauntedly proven.
Click to expand...

Thomism does not require faith. He deduced his principles from reason. If you are not going to tackle his arguments just let me know so that I won't waste my time.
 
Enola said:
All animals have souls. They don't need to believe in Christ. He didn't die for their sins because they have none to forgive. But they still have souls.
Click to expand...

That is the chief difference between humans and other creatures, isn't it? They're innocent.
 
phattonez said:
The view is Hylemorphism and Wikipedia has a decent article on it.

Hylomorphism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Essentially, the soul is our substantial form.



Thomism does not require faith. He deduced his principles from reason. If you are not going to tackle his arguments just let me know so that I won't waste my time.
Click to expand...

You can keep pretending that Thomasism lacks faith but the reality is that I do not have the faith that puts any creditably into his faith. So why dont you speak for yourself instead of hiding behind theories? Show me some facts.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
You can keep pretending that Thomasism lacks faith but the reality is that I do not have the faith that puts any creditably into his faith. So why dont you speak for yourself instead of hiding behind theories? Show me some facts.
Click to expand...

His arguments do not depend on faith. They are based on Aristotelian metaphysics. If you have a problem with that, that's fine. Just don't sit there and caricature Aquinas' work so that you don't have to deal with it.
 
phattonez said:
His arguments do not depend on faith. They are based on Aristotelian metaphysics. If you have a problem with that, that's fine. Just don't sit there and caricature Aquinas' work so that you don't have to deal with it.
Click to expand...
Lol Thats great but do you believe that dogs have souls or not?
 
phattonez said:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...7502-do-dogs-have-souls-9.html#post1060173801
Click to expand...

Ok thank you. The concept of an soul predates medieval times. Anyone in medieval Europe was getting their idea about a soul from the Bible. Religious text and some philosophers insisted that humans are separate from animals. Since the only real thing that makes humans distinct among the animal kingdom is our ability to reason, people use this trait as the bases of their argument.
But there are smart animals and not so smart animals. Intelligence varies among animals, yet they are all still the same magnitude of being animal.

Take dogs for example. There are smart dogs and stupid dogs. The intelligence level of the animal is not the deciding factor that points out that, hey this is a dog. Canines are categorized by genetics alone. Genetics is why cats cannot bread with dogs and make offspring. Genetics is what divides animals up into species. But there is a more specific division of animals, we call it classes.

Mammals, Birds, Fishes, Reptiles, Amphibians, Invertebrates. The first class mammals is divided into groups (the others as well but lets look at mammals). The animal group that humans falls under is primates. Within that group are species. Humans are a species of primates. Again it is genetics that set humans apart from other species of primates, not intelligence. But in the medieval times that set reasoning as an divider between other animals and humans it was heresy to even consider that humans are just another type of animals. You could get executed for heresy in medieval times.

So is reasoning considered a soul? Well do other animals reason?

Animal cognition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Reasoning and problem solving
Closely related to tool use is the study of reasoning and problem solving. It has been observed that the manner in which chimpanzees solve problems, such as that of retrieving bananas positioned out of reach, is not through trial-and-error. Instead, they were observed to proceed in a manner that was “unwaveringly purposeful.”[13]
It is clear that animals of quite a range of species are capable of solving a range of problems that are argued to involve abstract reasoning;[14] modern research has tended to show that the performances of Wolfgang Köhler's chimpanzees, who could achieve spontaneous solutions to problems without training, were by no means unique to that species, and that apparently similar behavior can be found in animals usually thought of as much less intelligent, if appropriate training is given.[citation needed] Causal reasoning has also been observed in rooks and New Caledonian crows.[15][16]
Click to expand...

Study: Dogs Show Reasoning Previously Only Seen in Humans | Fox News "What's surprising and shocking about this is that we thought this sort of imitation was very sophisticated, something seen only in humans," Brian Hare, a researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany, told the Post. "Once again, it ends up dogs are smarter than scientists thought."
Click to expand...

So then dogs do reason so therefor dogs have souls?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom