Question and concern about human/animal hybrids

[DRDS]

Hey guys, this question has to do with this article that I saw on here earlier in the news section

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... years.html

This is bad on so many levels. First off I thought something like this was only for science fiction (hence possibly showing my scientific ignorance), I thought it had been tried many times in the past but has failed all the way up until now.

The main thing that I'm concerned about now is what does this do for the case for God, does it greatly hurt it in the sense that if this is true, would it show that we have no souls and that life (especially human life) is purely physical?

And of course if they let this get out of hand it's no telling what could happen. But mostly I'm worried about what this does for God's existence/nonexistence. I'm very worried. Any help on this will be greatly appreciated. Thank you all, God bless.

[narnia4]

Someone more knowledgeable about the science of it should probably respond, but I myself don't see what problem this presents for Christianity. Although I do find it morally repugnant, of course.

First, if it were proved that humans are purely physical (and I don't think a real live minotaur would prove that), that would do nothing to provide positive proof against God. At worst, you would lose an argument for God and some lines of Christian thought would be disproved. There's evidence available for a non-material element, what Christians would call a soul, but even if there weren't you could infer the existence of a soul if proof for Christianity is strong enough in other areas. Proving something doesn't exist isn't possible, of course there is "evidence of absence" if there are NO good reasons to believe that something is true. With Christianity, however, if you have sufficient reasons to believe in other areas, you can infer the soul. But as I also already stated, there is some interesting evidence that I've been reading about recently.

Second, there are different theories about the soul, and I don't see how what they accomplished thus far would hurt any of those theories.

[DRDS]

Someone more knowledgeable about the science of it should probably respond, but I myself don't see what problem this presents for Christianity. Although I do find it morally repugnant, of course.

First, if it were proved that humans are purely physical (and I don't think a real live minotaur would prove that), that would do nothing to provide positive proof against God. At worst, you would lose an argument for God and some lines of Christian thought would be disproved. There's evidence available for a non-material element, what Christians would call a soul, but even if there weren't you could infer the existence of a soul if proof for Christianity is strong enough in other areas. Proving something doesn't exist isn't possible, of course there is "evidence of absence" if there are NO good reasons to believe that something is true. With Christianity, however, if you have sufficient reasons to believe in other areas, you can infer the soul. But as I also already stated, there is some interesting evidence that I've been reading about recently.

Second, there are different theories about the soul, and I don't see how what they accomplished thus far would hurt any of those theories.

Interesting Narnia4, what kind of evidence are you talking about (the kind that you say you are reading about)?

[narnia4]

Well, some of the focus may be different from what you're talking about here, but a couple of articles on mind-body dualism from Craig's website (neither written by him)-

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/New ... le&id=7311
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/New ... le&id=6027

They aren't too long, but they lay out some (not all) of the basic arguments supporting mind-body dualism (and one of them mentioning that it isn't a prerequisite for Christianity). Also, neither article really uses NDEs as an argument... and while I haven't studied much about near death experiences, there has been some pretty compelling stuff written about them. I wouldn't draw theological conclusions from them, but being able to hear and see things after you're dead is intriguing and pretty well-documented. The book mentioned in the other article, "Naturalism" (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008), is a good one. There are others as well that have been mentioned around here that I haven't read but that are apparently well-received (maybe someone else could give you their names).

I've also read some interesting stuff on quantum mechanics and the brain recently, although some of this isn't necessarily related to your question. I may be off on this, but I feel like I've had similar concerns about different scientific discussions in the past and I really don't as much anymore. A couple of things that I, at least, have learned- what's actual being studied or has been proved often isn't nearly as dramatic as headlines make them sound. Like I mentioned before, its not like we're dealing with a human brain in an animal.

Secondly, I've learned to (mostly) stop thinking of these things as strictly science vs. religion. If something is discovered about the brain or human body, we're learning something new about what God created! I don't put a lot of stock into "God of the gaps" arguments by atheists, but sometimes Christians do fall into "god of the gaps thinking", like learning a scientific fact is a bad thing and is shaking the foundations of our faith. But in reality, that stuff should NOT be the foundation of our faith.

So what is it exactly that's troubling you about this? As I mentioned, we've always know that humans are physical creatures. A half-man or ape with a human brain hasn't happened, as far as I'm aware it hasn't come close to happened. I alluded to it in the first post, but you have to consider what makes a person human or makes them unique and the nature of the soul. There are different theories about animals as well... if an animal were able to think like a human and accept Christ, who knows? I wouldn't be the first person to jump up and say that that animal couldn't possibly have a soul.

[DRDS]

Thank you for posting these links,I'll certainly check them out.

To answer your question, I know this wouldn't disprove God per se, but personally I'm somewhat attached to dualism as a view, mostly because it provides a definite, guranteed and quick afterlife. But since I'm critical of all views and want to remain open minded and go where the evidence points, I'm even aware that God could still exist even if we do not have souls and are purely physical. There is another view that some but very few Christians hold called non reductive physicalism.

A pretty well known apologist out of New Zealand by the name of Glenn Peoples holds this view. Now granted, this also in turn leads one to interpret the Bible differently (ie instead of souls and spirit referring to a non material substance that only humans possess, a spirit or a soul simply are other words for refering to a person or a human). Simply put with this view, we do not have souls but rather, are souls.

This view also forces one to hold to the well known SDA doctrine of soul sleep or a temporal state of nonexistence until Christ's second comming and the resurrection of the dead where both saved and lost are remade and then eiter judged or rewarded and then transfered to either heaven or hell.

Now again, I do want to point out, for me, I'm still wanting to hold out for substance dualism or any form of dualism, because frankly a state of nonexistence even if it is temporal is a very uncomfortable thing for me. It is something that I and I assume, most everyone does not want to go through. So because of that, I plan on holding dualism until it becomes blantly disproven, and I am forced to either accept non reductive physicalism or become an atheist.

I sort of have non reductive physicalism as a back up plan, much like how I use theistic evolution and even partial preterism (for eschatology) just in case I need to adopt them. But for now at least, I still hold to oec/id, dualism, and futurism (for eschatology).

[DRDS]

Hey guys, I was going to say I got my concerns about this cleared up. The foks at RTB (through facebook) provided me with some info on this from an older podcast done back in 2008 when the very first human/animal hybrid embryo was created. So a big thanks goes out to them!

[Kenzel]

Hey guys, I was going to say I got my concerns about this cleared up. The foks at RTB (through facebook) provided me with some info on this from an older podcast done back in 2008 when the very first human/animal hybrid embryo was created. So a big thanks goes out to them!

Could you post a link to the podcast?

[DRDS]

Let's see, I tried to post the link earlier, but because it had so many random letters and numbers to it, it didn't work. Let me try it again.

[DRDS]

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A ... =RAQDIwm5F

[Kenzel]

Thanks, DRDS

[Steve]

Assuming you do have a soul that is going to survive your death and go to heaven and allow you to be conscious up in heaven, shouldn't you always remain somewhat conscious under general anesthesia, or when knocked out in a boxing match or car accident, or when blacking out after a night of heavy drinking?

You would think that a soul that can survive death would always be able to survive anesthesia, but it doesn't. If I give you enough propofol, you will not be conscious any more. It is as if you are transported from the time I inject you to the time I wake you up. You will see no gods, or tunnels or family members - you will not be able to think at all. The fact that a few people report near-death experiences does not matter. People report UFO sightings and lots of crazy stuff that most people don't think are real. Even if these very rare cases of NDEs were true, it still does not happen frequently and it is still true that usually, when knocked out, you have no consciousness.

So how can you think that when simple anesthesia can cause you to become unconscious, death would not permanently do the same. Don't you think death would be just like the unconsciousness that we do have proof of and that almost everyone experiences? Just a thought. What do you guys think?

[narnia4]

No one denies the link between mind/body, but that doesn't disprove the existence of the soul. Imo people are prone to take it to far one way or the other. There really is little real evidence against the existence of an immaterial mind on one side, but on the other it must be acknowledged that this soul is NOT independent of the physical body. Meaning that what happens to the physical body will effect the mind whether the mind is physical or not. This has been known for hundreds, thousands of years, just that with modern neuroscience details are being filled in on the "how" question.

[Proinsias]

Has Steve left us already?

[Seraph]

Assuming you do have a soul that is going to survive your death and go to heaven and allow you to be conscious up in heaven, shouldn't you always remain somewhat conscious under general anesthesia, or when knocked out in a boxing match or car accident, or when blacking out after a night of heavy drinking?

You would think that a soul that can survive death would always be able to survive anesthesia, but it doesn't. If I give you enough propofol, you will not be conscious any more. It is as if you are transported from the time I inject you to the time I wake you up. You will see no gods, or tunnels or family members - you will not be able to think at all. The fact that a few people report near-death experiences does not matter. People report UFO sightings and lots of crazy stuff that most people don't think are real. Even if these very rare cases of NDEs were true, it still does not happen frequently and it is still true that usually, when knocked out, you have no consciousness.

So how can you think that when simple anesthesia can cause you to become unconscious, death would not permanently do the same. Don't you think death would be just like the unconsciousness that we do have proof of and that almost everyone experiences? Just a thought. What do you guys think?

Biblical Christianity does not teach that the soul survives and escapes from the body after death. It teaches of a bodily ressurection of some kind. God saves the person from a true death that losing the brain and body would naturally cause. My personal intertation of the after-death model is that you do in fact die until God ressurects you, but from your perspective it seems like you only had a very long sleep, kind of like what you described. So if it was somehow discovered that the soul could not survive on its own without a brain, or possibly even if it was discovered that the brain is purely materialistic and soulless, I don't think it would necessarily deconstruct Christianity entirely.

But that aside, one encounters God after death because God brings them to him, it isn't an automatic process or at least I doubt it. I would think God would only bring your soul to himself after He knows that your life on Earth is truely over. I don't see why He would reveal Himself to a person who is near-death who He knows will eventually recover and continue to be alive on Earth.