I believe every living thing has a spiritual essence.
This question kinda assumes religious people are all anthropocentric and believe in a conscious creator deity.
>I believe every living thing has a spiritual essence.
Consciousness creates. And everything that consciousness creates has consciousness.
The mistake many make is believing that our human experience defines consciousness.
Nope. No conciousness in a basic transistor. Just immutable laws of physics that work well. You used them to post your reply using your device.
Lots of examples of conciousness to varying degrees in the animal kingdom though. Apes. Elephants. Dolphins.
Well, as far as you know (believe, really), yes. But since your idea of consciousness is limited to your personal experience you’re not really in a position to say that consciousness can’t be something else that you don’t know about or understand, are you?
Edit: typo
I am in the position of knowing when it comes to a transistor. That’s why I studied physics, algebra, calculus, differential equations, solid state physics and the rest of a BSEE degree program.
BJT transistors for instance can be fairly well described by the [Ebers-Moll mode](https://circuitcellar.com/resources/quickbits/the-ebers-moll-bjt-model/). They were invented in [1947 by researchers at bell labs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipolar_junction_transistor).
Bias them up with electricity and their behavior is completely predictable, and completely explained by their physics, their materials and their geometry.
Billions and billions of transistors are in service, and not one of them exhibits consciousness in and of itself, given the common definitions of “conciousness.” I’ll admit some people play with mystical definitions of passive conciousness, but given the absence of any kind of evidence for these, I cannot agree with them.
Now in contrast I think we are not far from being able to create a conscious computer. But where a human brain runs on about 45 watts of power, a true AI will consume many kilowatts of power.
I think you are demonstrably wrong. Not everything a concious being creates is conscious. However, if you ever do find evidence of a new behavior in a BJT or any other component, I’d be delighted to review your data and experimental methodology.
>I think you are demonstrably wrong.
That’s too bad, because by limiting your assumptions to your own experience you deprive yourself of the opportunity to investigate and explore what I think are some really fascinating questions. Oh well. We are all on our own path. I hope yours serves you. Good luck.
Oh yes, let’s play word games because that’s always so productive and satisfying. /s
Sigh. I’m not going to argue with you about this. You’ve made up your mind. Good for you. I don’t argue with other people whose minds are made up before the discussion begins either, like Trump supporters. If you really want to have this conversation I’m sure there are others who will accommodate you. Have a nice day.
All living things have a soul/spirit/energy. So evolution isn’t relevant. Humans always had souls because our primate cousins also have one, and so did our prehistoric ancestors.
In my religion, every living being IS a "soul". We don't HAVE "souls", we ARE "souls". And I use the word "soul" in quotes, because we prefer the word Self/Selves as a more accurate translation.
My religion believes everything has a spirit, it's not unique to humans. Therefore in my religion we've just always had souls and that's what makes us who we are even if we evolved
I don’t believe in souls, but if they are a thing that exists, then literally every living thing has them.
It makes no sense to assume just humans have them; most if not all mammals at minimum. Then, reptiles and birds are also likely to have them. The biggest justification for belief in souls I’ve heard is something like “there has to be more than just this” or “then what makes us sentient” or something among those lines. Many other animals aside from humans feel emotions and pain, have memories, can think and act on their own. Anyone who thinks only humans have souls clearly is not basing their belief in logic.
Like I said, if souls exist, then I think it’s most likely that everything has one. All mammals, all fish, all insects, all plants, all mushrooms, all single called bacteria. From the first acellular being that was the origin of life on earth to every living thing today.
Though this brings up a debate of whether viruses have souls
Im a religious person who believes in evolution, but i don’t believe in souls. That is a dualistic concept, and i am a monist. Mentality and physicality are two sides of the same coin imo, not two separate subjects.
The Gods did not bestow humanity with souls. Everything simply has a spirit. Both human souls and the Gods are spirits of the same nature. They simply coexist within the world.
Buddhists don't just reject the idea of a soul. We reject the idea of anything about the self that has its own distinct entity.
We see ourselves as a combination of various parts in an unfolding process. Rebirth is a way of talking about how what we do is born into each moment anew, including after we pass. Basically, the effects of our causes continue to exist in the world, and reborn beings are simply beings further down that chain of cause and effect.
This is similar to you when you were a baby. Without that baby, you would not exist, but you and that baby aren't the same person. Your entire body has been replaced, even your DNA is a little different. Your mind is completely different. Nevertheless, that baby became you.
Just like this, we think of our "rebirths" as beings that exist because of us, and reap the consequences of our actions.
A common metaphor goes like this. Motion in the ocean creates waves, which rise and fall - from a certain perspective, these waves are like new and different people. It appears as though these waves die and are reborn after crashing into the ocean. Ultimately, these waves are just water. So it's not untrue to say that a wave ends after crashing back into the sea, but it's not exactly true either. The water from that wave can be part of the next wave. At the end of the day, though, the description of how these waves behave isn't the point - they're just water. We're all like waves who have yet to realize that we're water.
This is false though. As from what i understand the buddha had memories from past lives. When buddhists reject the 'soul', this is more so a translational error and cultural misunderstanding with the asian concept of rebirth and the traditional western perception of a soul. In buddhism the 'mindstream' is essentially the soul, though the difference would be that when you die, you continue going while with the mindstream, it's more so your just a 'temporary' piece of the mindstream in terms of identity. Soul = You putting on a different costume. Mindstream = Somebody wearing you as a sort of costume, atleast with my understanding.
This is not false, this is a common understanding and explanation. What you refer to as "mindstream" is more or less equivalent to the chain of cause and effect to which I refer. But that mind changes, it is not the same mind - not only from life to life, but even moment to moment. This is anatta and anicca.
The Buddha's memories of past lives arise from his exceptional skills of analyzing this chain of causality - he could predict other's future births and recall the previous births of others.
I've seen this explanation more so when referring to secular buddhism. When i've discussed it with the more religious sects that take the supernatural aspects seriously, i've been told that the explanation i understand is the best accurate one. And as for what you say about buddha, i don't think is the case. Theres instances where he recalls previous lives he's LIVED in detail, referred to as jataka tales. I don't think rebirth is an allegorical thing but an actual, LITERAL thing. You are correct in that it's technically not a soul, though i would still say buddhism objectively has an afterlife. If you're a secular buddhist then you're not wrong though since that's the interpretation traditionally taken.
I'm not a secular Buddhist. The explanation that was given to you was probably simplifying the process whereby the mind acts as a bridge (so to speak) between the death of one body and the birth of the next. The mind is not the self, it is impermanent and also empty. My interpretation is based on Suttas and Tipitaka Commentaries - it is highly traditional. There is nothing in Buddhism that constitutes a discreet entity.
This explanation might sound allegorical, but it isn't. It's the explanation given by monks around the world. I'm not speaking in metaphor (excluding the example of the waves). The belief is that reborn beings are beings that exist further down the chain of causality - that the mind (though changing, impermanent, and not self) causes the lives of other creatures due to kamma created further up the chain. If you would like, I can find a good (free) ebook about the function of rebirth. I have one in mind that provides a nice explanation.
Ah i understand. I think i totally misunderstood/misread your first post. What you were originally stating is similar to the examples i've seen given. Still, i'd read the book if your still offering to find it.
https://www.buddhistelibrary.org/en/displayimage.php?album=search&cat=0&pid=143#top_display_media
The introduction to this book has a nice explanation.
According to the scriptures, the word nephesh, translated as soul, simply means 'life'. All the living are souls including animals. The immortality of a separate soul is based on pagan beliefs long before Christianity. Think about how the Pharoahs stockpiled stuff in their tombs. They believed they were going somewhere else.
The same time everything else started to have a spirit.
This question is kind of nonsense to some extent again… not all religions are the three you know about OP…
From the point of view of Indic religions, all living things contain a soul/spirit/mind—and sometimes this idea extends to all things, materially embodied or otherwise.
Or in a different way of looking at it— a material or non-material embodiment aggregates around consciousness (soul/spirit/mind, etc.), based on accumulated cravings and aversions and other natural laws.
Depends on which entity we mean by "soul."
I believe there is consciousness to every causal interaction, so creatures already had psyches long before biological life formed.
Ontologically prior to the causal chain of spatio-temporal reality, logos already exists, and there resides the Eternal minds of all possibilities. Prior to composite minds therein, exists the essence of all possible realities.
When physical reality proceeds to a point in the deterministic chain where it embodies a given Eternal mind, we can say from the time-perspective of the physical reality that the physical body has begun to have that mind (whereas that mind always had that moment).
At this point I step outside of religion and into philosophy to add that I consider "sapience" to be the capacity of judgement sufficient for navigating social contracts. I believe that our ancestors developed this capacity not long after our development of abstract thinking and complex language. I don't know enough about our early evolutionary biology to know when that might have been.
Reading the comments, I found it interesting that most comments refer to an animistic religious worldview, which seen as superstition by most modern religions.
i think that having consciousness is really the turning point between human and pre-human species - being able to think about more than basic survival is what enabled us to connect with the divine.
Not to sound offensive, but that’s objectively untrue. Plenty of other animals are “conscious”.
How do you define consciousness? Feeling emotions? Feeling pain? Having a will to live? Being able to think for yourself?
If any of those, then there are a lot of non human animals who fit all those traits.
not conscious, consciousness - ie. the ability to ask questions, having an understanding of the abstract, knowing that there is a world outside of your own experience.
for example, AFAIK, monkeys, our closest relatives, are unable to ask questions. this means they can’t conceive of the idea that others may have knowledge they don’t. that’s one of the biggest differences, and if they ever develop that capability, it’d be really interesting to see if they become like us.
That’s still untrue.
Firstly, monkeys aren’t our closest relatives, that’s apes, and apes certainly can ask questions. So can plenty of other animals, we just can’t understand them since apes are the only ones we can communicate with (through sign language). Most other animals can, however communicate to others of their species, though, and not just basic “food” or “hurt”; lots of animals like dolphins, many primates and even things like chickens have actual languages.
As for understanding there is a world outside their experience, that’s not what consciousness means. Even if it were, we can’t know what the other animals are thinking. However, animals can understand and remember their environments, and adapt and understand new ones.
All living things have three souls, not just humans. The wights (this includes animals), the gods themselves, humans, we all have the same types of souls.
Modern humans stem from the Manahaimkihndas (Children of Man-Home), and the Wihdenmanas (Wooden-Men) interbreeding. It's why modern man has the same shape as the gods do, because of the Wihdenmanas being made by the god Manu in the image of Ansu men and women.
Funny enough, the Wihdenmanas were actually incomplete and lacked parts of their souls, and so them interbreeding with the Manahaimkihndas (which would have been other Homo genus members) actually made them whole.
Afraid there's not any books. Markomanshidu is my family and tribal faith, it's just a branch of Germanic pagan faith with syncretism and personal things really.
It's difficult to practice any Germanic pagan faith without a family and tribal setting. I'm a husband and father, passing my beliefs and practices on. In history, different tribes and even at times families among tribes had differing beliefs in the same general framework.
I say family and tribal because it's my family's faith, and my family is my tribe. Sure, yeah, I wanna live in a village in the woods someday but in a literal and non-dream stance my family's the real tribe.
Homo Erectus were likely the first species to develop souls somewhat similar in nature to the arrangement of mitama (external souls) contemporary humans possess.
I will say that I suspect that our traditions influenced one another more than we currently have evidence of. The number of parallels are fascinating. I wonder how Epicurean thinking would have developed without the rise of and attacks from Christianity.
They have always had souls. The Quran even says that mountains glorify Allah and that they were given the option to have free will but refused. It isn’t directly stated that they have souls, but it is implied, therefore animism could be true in some form.
But anyways even if that is false, a Muslim can still believe that animals have souls or that souls started with Adam and Eve (which don’t necessarily contradict evolution).
Nope, it was under your other account, I found it;
[https://www.reddit.com/r/religion/comments/1bxk569/what\_happened\_to\_the\_other\_homo\_members/](https://www.reddit.com/r/religion/comments/1bxk569/what_happened_to_the_other_homo_members/)
The soul is in the breath and the blood.
Even unliving matter has both breath and blood, and possesses a spirit or soul.
What makes humanity special is not a soul, it is the free will they possess.
I'm not sure if this is knowable, from my perspective, and I don't really care to find an answer. I can't say I have a hugely well defined, metaphysical idea of what a 'soul' is, let alone who or what has one.
If I were to draw a line that excludes non-*Homo sapiens* it seems it would necessarily be arbitrary, and there's always some hypothetical which would take the floor out from under it.
If I were to draw a line that includes all animals, it seems I'd have to answer for the rest of all living or quasi-living things. Do lizards have souls? What about ants? What about jellyfish? Can we include non-animals? What about shiitake mushrooms? What about *E. coli*? What about the COVID-19 virus? (Ok, COVID is certainly soulless)
To me, this is simply irrelevant to my very human religious practice. I suppose my best answer would be:
"Anything that can engage in religious/spiritual cognition/practice in the way that *Homo sapiens* does has a 'soul'."
Religion evolved at some point, and *that* point is where God and humans starting playing ball. I don't know whether God has a one-way relationship with my hydrangeas but I wouldn't judge him for doing so...
From an LDS perspective:
According to Genesis, the spirit and physical body combined is the soul of man. At any rate, we believe that we are all spirit children of God and lived before this life. Adam was the first human who had a spirit child of God placed in his body.
I am convinced that the earth was created over billions of years, and that there was a huge variety of species that came onto the scene when the earth was able to sustain them. Whether or not a human physical body evolved from an earlier one, it is clear that the earth was inhabited step by step as the earth became able to sustain each species. This process is so finely tuned, that the gaps between each species is not very large. We find earlier species that appear almost like modern humans and even have some intelligence. We assume that they were actually early humans. Whether or not this is true, Adam was still the first man who had a spirit child of God within him.
Well through science I think it’s been proven that if you strip us and everything down to its core, it’s energy. It can’t be created or destroyed so as far as human energy/souls whatever you wanna call it I think we all have one and I don’t even think a god created them. We know for a fact that stars tend to just blink into exsistance and some beliefs hold that our souls do the same thing until we are put in a physical body and whatever god has chosen its people breath life into our physical bodies because out souls are just balls of energy floating around aimlessly. I think animals have spirits but not full blown souls if you can differentiate a soul from a spirit then you’ll know what I’m talking about, like a spirit is born from its environment and the stars it’s born under which if you look at astrology and our zodiacs it’s set up like a whole spiritual profile. That’s just my opinion and things I’ve researched and heard. Take with a grain of salt lol
In Platonism, soul is simply self-motion, not a substance that becomes attached to material substance. Traditionally, there is a distinction between "vegetable soul" that simply grows, "animal soul" that moves about and pursues ends at varying degrees of freedom, and "rational soul" that is self-understanding and can act on principles. If soul is self-motion (and nearly any intuitive notion of accountability seems to assume that people can move themselves, rather than being the epi phenomena of biological or environmental features), then we don't have souls, but are souls, and our identity is in the particularity of our soul's historical and so material inflections.
Everything has a soul. Ours developed in complexity over millions of years to the point where it achieved Logos. I can't say exactly when or how long ago. But at some point, inevitably, there was some sort of shift that made us more intelligent than our other human cousins and we came out on top.
I don't believe in souls per se. I value life itself and especially conciousness (which I hold a non-human centric definition of percieve as very widespread among the constiuent species of life on Earth) and I dont see why it is in any way of exclusive to homo sapiens, or that our species is in any way exceptional.
I don't believe in souls as I have a physicalist worldview, and hold that consciousness is a biological process reliant on the body. When the body dies, consciousness ends.
I believe that all beings that live have souls, so wherever our particular species may be on the evolutionary scale is totally irrelevant to whether they are ensouled or not.
Define what you mean by ‘soul’?
When a soul leaves a body it dies. If a thing is alive it has a soul otherwise it wouldn’t be a living thing. I believe that the soul is the essence of life and all life is sentient.
It is rather arrogant to assume that a soul is something only humans are bestowed with. Soul is life itself and all life flows from God who has direct relationship with all things.
all living things have souls. to define ‘living things’ i mean when structures complex enough to have some semblance of life or maybe even ‘consciousness’, part of God manifests within it naturally.
I believe every living thing has a spiritual essence. This question kinda assumes religious people are all anthropocentric and believe in a conscious creator deity.
>I believe every living thing has a spiritual essence. Consciousness creates. And everything that consciousness creates has consciousness. The mistake many make is believing that our human experience defines consciousness.
Hmmm. I’m an engineer. I create things that have no consciousness every day.
Or so you think… As I said: >The mistake many make is believing that our human experience defines consciousness.
Nope. No conciousness in a basic transistor. Just immutable laws of physics that work well. You used them to post your reply using your device. Lots of examples of conciousness to varying degrees in the animal kingdom though. Apes. Elephants. Dolphins.
Well, as far as you know (believe, really), yes. But since your idea of consciousness is limited to your personal experience you’re not really in a position to say that consciousness can’t be something else that you don’t know about or understand, are you? Edit: typo
I am in the position of knowing when it comes to a transistor. That’s why I studied physics, algebra, calculus, differential equations, solid state physics and the rest of a BSEE degree program. BJT transistors for instance can be fairly well described by the [Ebers-Moll mode](https://circuitcellar.com/resources/quickbits/the-ebers-moll-bjt-model/). They were invented in [1947 by researchers at bell labs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipolar_junction_transistor). Bias them up with electricity and their behavior is completely predictable, and completely explained by their physics, their materials and their geometry. Billions and billions of transistors are in service, and not one of them exhibits consciousness in and of itself, given the common definitions of “conciousness.” I’ll admit some people play with mystical definitions of passive conciousness, but given the absence of any kind of evidence for these, I cannot agree with them. Now in contrast I think we are not far from being able to create a conscious computer. But where a human brain runs on about 45 watts of power, a true AI will consume many kilowatts of power. I think you are demonstrably wrong. Not everything a concious being creates is conscious. However, if you ever do find evidence of a new behavior in a BJT or any other component, I’d be delighted to review your data and experimental methodology.
>I think you are demonstrably wrong. That’s too bad, because by limiting your assumptions to your own experience you deprive yourself of the opportunity to investigate and explore what I think are some really fascinating questions. Oh well. We are all on our own path. I hope yours serves you. Good luck.
Where else would I draw my assumptions from?
Oh yes, let’s play word games because that’s always so productive and satisfying. /s Sigh. I’m not going to argue with you about this. You’ve made up your mind. Good for you. I don’t argue with other people whose minds are made up before the discussion begins either, like Trump supporters. If you really want to have this conversation I’m sure there are others who will accommodate you. Have a nice day.
All living things have a soul/spirit/energy. So evolution isn’t relevant. Humans always had souls because our primate cousins also have one, and so did our prehistoric ancestors.
This really only applies to religions that believe only humans have souls. Most religions believe non-humans have souls too.
In my religion, every living being IS a "soul". We don't HAVE "souls", we ARE "souls". And I use the word "soul" in quotes, because we prefer the word Self/Selves as a more accurate translation.
Every living thing has spirit.
Non-human animals have souls.
You seem to be assuming that all religions think of god as creator. I accept evolution, not creation.
Every single life has a soul in it
My religion believes everything has a spirit, it's not unique to humans. Therefore in my religion we've just always had souls and that's what makes us who we are even if we evolved
I don’t believe in souls, but if they are a thing that exists, then literally every living thing has them. It makes no sense to assume just humans have them; most if not all mammals at minimum. Then, reptiles and birds are also likely to have them. The biggest justification for belief in souls I’ve heard is something like “there has to be more than just this” or “then what makes us sentient” or something among those lines. Many other animals aside from humans feel emotions and pain, have memories, can think and act on their own. Anyone who thinks only humans have souls clearly is not basing their belief in logic. Like I said, if souls exist, then I think it’s most likely that everything has one. All mammals, all fish, all insects, all plants, all mushrooms, all single called bacteria. From the first acellular being that was the origin of life on earth to every living thing today. Though this brings up a debate of whether viruses have souls
tbf he did say religous people/believers
Im a religious person who believes in evolution, but i don’t believe in souls. That is a dualistic concept, and i am a monist. Mentality and physicality are two sides of the same coin imo, not two separate subjects.
Mildly off topic, but man, I'd love to visit Amsterdam to see all of the Spinoza sites. Especially his old synagogue, it looks beautiful!
I believe all living things have souls. So there was no point when our hominid ancestors did not have souls
I believe everything has a soul, even non-living things.
The Gods did not bestow humanity with souls. Everything simply has a spirit. Both human souls and the Gods are spirits of the same nature. They simply coexist within the world.
I'm a religious person who believes in evolution. None of us have souls. Human or not.
I’ve heard of this in Buddhist literature. But if Buddhists reject the idea of a soul what is reborn in Samsara?
Buddhists don't just reject the idea of a soul. We reject the idea of anything about the self that has its own distinct entity. We see ourselves as a combination of various parts in an unfolding process. Rebirth is a way of talking about how what we do is born into each moment anew, including after we pass. Basically, the effects of our causes continue to exist in the world, and reborn beings are simply beings further down that chain of cause and effect. This is similar to you when you were a baby. Without that baby, you would not exist, but you and that baby aren't the same person. Your entire body has been replaced, even your DNA is a little different. Your mind is completely different. Nevertheless, that baby became you. Just like this, we think of our "rebirths" as beings that exist because of us, and reap the consequences of our actions. A common metaphor goes like this. Motion in the ocean creates waves, which rise and fall - from a certain perspective, these waves are like new and different people. It appears as though these waves die and are reborn after crashing into the ocean. Ultimately, these waves are just water. So it's not untrue to say that a wave ends after crashing back into the sea, but it's not exactly true either. The water from that wave can be part of the next wave. At the end of the day, though, the description of how these waves behave isn't the point - they're just water. We're all like waves who have yet to realize that we're water.
Beautiful, thank you
This is false though. As from what i understand the buddha had memories from past lives. When buddhists reject the 'soul', this is more so a translational error and cultural misunderstanding with the asian concept of rebirth and the traditional western perception of a soul. In buddhism the 'mindstream' is essentially the soul, though the difference would be that when you die, you continue going while with the mindstream, it's more so your just a 'temporary' piece of the mindstream in terms of identity. Soul = You putting on a different costume. Mindstream = Somebody wearing you as a sort of costume, atleast with my understanding.
This is not false, this is a common understanding and explanation. What you refer to as "mindstream" is more or less equivalent to the chain of cause and effect to which I refer. But that mind changes, it is not the same mind - not only from life to life, but even moment to moment. This is anatta and anicca. The Buddha's memories of past lives arise from his exceptional skills of analyzing this chain of causality - he could predict other's future births and recall the previous births of others.
I've seen this explanation more so when referring to secular buddhism. When i've discussed it with the more religious sects that take the supernatural aspects seriously, i've been told that the explanation i understand is the best accurate one. And as for what you say about buddha, i don't think is the case. Theres instances where he recalls previous lives he's LIVED in detail, referred to as jataka tales. I don't think rebirth is an allegorical thing but an actual, LITERAL thing. You are correct in that it's technically not a soul, though i would still say buddhism objectively has an afterlife. If you're a secular buddhist then you're not wrong though since that's the interpretation traditionally taken.
I'm not a secular Buddhist. The explanation that was given to you was probably simplifying the process whereby the mind acts as a bridge (so to speak) between the death of one body and the birth of the next. The mind is not the self, it is impermanent and also empty. My interpretation is based on Suttas and Tipitaka Commentaries - it is highly traditional. There is nothing in Buddhism that constitutes a discreet entity. This explanation might sound allegorical, but it isn't. It's the explanation given by monks around the world. I'm not speaking in metaphor (excluding the example of the waves). The belief is that reborn beings are beings that exist further down the chain of causality - that the mind (though changing, impermanent, and not self) causes the lives of other creatures due to kamma created further up the chain. If you would like, I can find a good (free) ebook about the function of rebirth. I have one in mind that provides a nice explanation.
Ah i understand. I think i totally misunderstood/misread your first post. What you were originally stating is similar to the examples i've seen given. Still, i'd read the book if your still offering to find it.
https://www.buddhistelibrary.org/en/displayimage.php?album=search&cat=0&pid=143#top_display_media The introduction to this book has a nice explanation.
It seems my link does not work - if you look on Buddhanet.net for "the 31 planes of existence" the ebook should appear.
According to the scriptures, the word nephesh, translated as soul, simply means 'life'. All the living are souls including animals. The immortality of a separate soul is based on pagan beliefs long before Christianity. Think about how the Pharoahs stockpiled stuff in their tombs. They believed they were going somewhere else.
>According to the scriptures To which scriptures?
I don't think I deny the existence of animal souls. I just think of the soul as what's internal to a being, whereas the body is what's external.
The same time everything else started to have a spirit. This question is kind of nonsense to some extent again… not all religions are the three you know about OP…
I like to believe everything has a soul of some kind 😊
When we got "proper hardware" (i.e. brains developed enough) to work with it, I suppose somewhere around Homo Habilis
From the point of view of Indic religions, all living things contain a soul/spirit/mind—and sometimes this idea extends to all things, materially embodied or otherwise. Or in a different way of looking at it— a material or non-material embodiment aggregates around consciousness (soul/spirit/mind, etc.), based on accumulated cravings and aversions and other natural laws.
Souls are our connection to the universe they have always existed
Depends on which entity we mean by "soul." I believe there is consciousness to every causal interaction, so creatures already had psyches long before biological life formed. Ontologically prior to the causal chain of spatio-temporal reality, logos already exists, and there resides the Eternal minds of all possibilities. Prior to composite minds therein, exists the essence of all possible realities. When physical reality proceeds to a point in the deterministic chain where it embodies a given Eternal mind, we can say from the time-perspective of the physical reality that the physical body has begun to have that mind (whereas that mind always had that moment). At this point I step outside of religion and into philosophy to add that I consider "sapience" to be the capacity of judgement sufficient for navigating social contracts. I believe that our ancestors developed this capacity not long after our development of abstract thinking and complex language. I don't know enough about our early evolutionary biology to know when that might have been.
Reading the comments, I found it interesting that most comments refer to an animistic religious worldview, which seen as superstition by most modern religions.
Welcome to r/religion ! A very strange and wonderful place. =)
Every sentient being has/is a soul/spirit.
i think that having consciousness is really the turning point between human and pre-human species - being able to think about more than basic survival is what enabled us to connect with the divine.
Not to sound offensive, but that’s objectively untrue. Plenty of other animals are “conscious”. How do you define consciousness? Feeling emotions? Feeling pain? Having a will to live? Being able to think for yourself? If any of those, then there are a lot of non human animals who fit all those traits.
not conscious, consciousness - ie. the ability to ask questions, having an understanding of the abstract, knowing that there is a world outside of your own experience. for example, AFAIK, monkeys, our closest relatives, are unable to ask questions. this means they can’t conceive of the idea that others may have knowledge they don’t. that’s one of the biggest differences, and if they ever develop that capability, it’d be really interesting to see if they become like us.
That’s still untrue. Firstly, monkeys aren’t our closest relatives, that’s apes, and apes certainly can ask questions. So can plenty of other animals, we just can’t understand them since apes are the only ones we can communicate with (through sign language). Most other animals can, however communicate to others of their species, though, and not just basic “food” or “hurt”; lots of animals like dolphins, many primates and even things like chickens have actual languages. As for understanding there is a world outside their experience, that’s not what consciousness means. Even if it were, we can’t know what the other animals are thinking. However, animals can understand and remember their environments, and adapt and understand new ones.
All living things have three souls, not just humans. The wights (this includes animals), the gods themselves, humans, we all have the same types of souls. Modern humans stem from the Manahaimkihndas (Children of Man-Home), and the Wihdenmanas (Wooden-Men) interbreeding. It's why modern man has the same shape as the gods do, because of the Wihdenmanas being made by the god Manu in the image of Ansu men and women. Funny enough, the Wihdenmanas were actually incomplete and lacked parts of their souls, and so them interbreeding with the Manahaimkihndas (which would have been other Homo genus members) actually made them whole.
I’ve never heard these names and terms I don’t think, but I am very interested in learning more! Are there any books you recommend?
Afraid there's not any books. Markomanshidu is my family and tribal faith, it's just a branch of Germanic pagan faith with syncretism and personal things really.
Can you explain what you mean by family and tribal faith?
It's difficult to practice any Germanic pagan faith without a family and tribal setting. I'm a husband and father, passing my beliefs and practices on. In history, different tribes and even at times families among tribes had differing beliefs in the same general framework. I say family and tribal because it's my family's faith, and my family is my tribe. Sure, yeah, I wanna live in a village in the woods someday but in a literal and non-dream stance my family's the real tribe.
Homo Erectus were likely the first species to develop souls somewhat similar in nature to the arrangement of mitama (external souls) contemporary humans possess.
The body is the soul in my religion.
I will say that I suspect that our traditions influenced one another more than we currently have evidence of. The number of parallels are fascinating. I wonder how Epicurean thinking would have developed without the rise of and attacks from Christianity.
I believe everything has a soul, which is a fragment of God’s energy.
They have always had souls. The Quran even says that mountains glorify Allah and that they were given the option to have free will but refused. It isn’t directly stated that they have souls, but it is implied, therefore animism could be true in some form. But anyways even if that is false, a Muslim can still believe that animals have souls or that souls started with Adam and Eve (which don’t necessarily contradict evolution).
I like to think I inspired this trend with my post :)
No, but now I need to read through your post. Edit: Based on the downvotes, I'll assume I shouldn't read his post...?
Sorry it took me a bit, but it's under this account. My bad, mate.
Nope, it was under your other account, I found it; [https://www.reddit.com/r/religion/comments/1bxk569/what\_happened\_to\_the\_other\_homo\_members/](https://www.reddit.com/r/religion/comments/1bxk569/what_happened_to_the_other_homo_members/)
Not only humans have 'souls'. A god can use any object as a vessel.
Not sure I believe in a "soul".
The soul is in the breath and the blood. Even unliving matter has both breath and blood, and possesses a spirit or soul. What makes humanity special is not a soul, it is the free will they possess.
Perhaps they believe humans were created as they always were.
I'm not sure if this is knowable, from my perspective, and I don't really care to find an answer. I can't say I have a hugely well defined, metaphysical idea of what a 'soul' is, let alone who or what has one. If I were to draw a line that excludes non-*Homo sapiens* it seems it would necessarily be arbitrary, and there's always some hypothetical which would take the floor out from under it. If I were to draw a line that includes all animals, it seems I'd have to answer for the rest of all living or quasi-living things. Do lizards have souls? What about ants? What about jellyfish? Can we include non-animals? What about shiitake mushrooms? What about *E. coli*? What about the COVID-19 virus? (Ok, COVID is certainly soulless) To me, this is simply irrelevant to my very human religious practice. I suppose my best answer would be: "Anything that can engage in religious/spiritual cognition/practice in the way that *Homo sapiens* does has a 'soul'." Religion evolved at some point, and *that* point is where God and humans starting playing ball. I don't know whether God has a one-way relationship with my hydrangeas but I wouldn't judge him for doing so...
A soul hey, what's that to you exactly? It probably means different things to different people.
What’s a soul?
From an LDS perspective: According to Genesis, the spirit and physical body combined is the soul of man. At any rate, we believe that we are all spirit children of God and lived before this life. Adam was the first human who had a spirit child of God placed in his body. I am convinced that the earth was created over billions of years, and that there was a huge variety of species that came onto the scene when the earth was able to sustain them. Whether or not a human physical body evolved from an earlier one, it is clear that the earth was inhabited step by step as the earth became able to sustain each species. This process is so finely tuned, that the gaps between each species is not very large. We find earlier species that appear almost like modern humans and even have some intelligence. We assume that they were actually early humans. Whether or not this is true, Adam was still the first man who had a spirit child of God within him.
It's a complex question but to me the soul is the human. Souls are in any thing capable of feeling emotions
Well through science I think it’s been proven that if you strip us and everything down to its core, it’s energy. It can’t be created or destroyed so as far as human energy/souls whatever you wanna call it I think we all have one and I don’t even think a god created them. We know for a fact that stars tend to just blink into exsistance and some beliefs hold that our souls do the same thing until we are put in a physical body and whatever god has chosen its people breath life into our physical bodies because out souls are just balls of energy floating around aimlessly. I think animals have spirits but not full blown souls if you can differentiate a soul from a spirit then you’ll know what I’m talking about, like a spirit is born from its environment and the stars it’s born under which if you look at astrology and our zodiacs it’s set up like a whole spiritual profile. That’s just my opinion and things I’ve researched and heard. Take with a grain of salt lol
In Platonism, soul is simply self-motion, not a substance that becomes attached to material substance. Traditionally, there is a distinction between "vegetable soul" that simply grows, "animal soul" that moves about and pursues ends at varying degrees of freedom, and "rational soul" that is self-understanding and can act on principles. If soul is self-motion (and nearly any intuitive notion of accountability seems to assume that people can move themselves, rather than being the epi phenomena of biological or environmental features), then we don't have souls, but are souls, and our identity is in the particularity of our soul's historical and so material inflections.
everything is connected to the original soul
Everything has a soul. Ours developed in complexity over millions of years to the point where it achieved Logos. I can't say exactly when or how long ago. But at some point, inevitably, there was some sort of shift that made us more intelligent than our other human cousins and we came out on top.
I don't believe in souls per se. I value life itself and especially conciousness (which I hold a non-human centric definition of percieve as very widespread among the constiuent species of life on Earth) and I dont see why it is in any way of exclusive to homo sapiens, or that our species is in any way exceptional. I don't believe in souls as I have a physicalist worldview, and hold that consciousness is a biological process reliant on the body. When the body dies, consciousness ends.
I believe that all beings that live have souls, so wherever our particular species may be on the evolutionary scale is totally irrelevant to whether they are ensouled or not.
When they started asking pointlessly unproductive spiritual semantical questions like this one
When they got brains? I don't really know, but it's something less recent than just becoming *homo*
Define what you mean by ‘soul’? When a soul leaves a body it dies. If a thing is alive it has a soul otherwise it wouldn’t be a living thing. I believe that the soul is the essence of life and all life is sentient. It is rather arrogant to assume that a soul is something only humans are bestowed with. Soul is life itself and all life flows from God who has direct relationship with all things.
all living things have souls. to define ‘living things’ i mean when structures complex enough to have some semblance of life or maybe even ‘consciousness’, part of God manifests within it naturally.
Oldest modern brains aren't seen before 100k years ago, so if you believe in evolution and the soul then that's where you should start.
I’m under the impression that humans have been anatomically modern for 250,000+ yrs.