The Problem of Ensoulment - Essay Example

The Problem of Ensoulment Ensoulment, both in the of process and event, has been a field of greatinterest for the researchers from science and religion. Although there is no proved answer to the question when the ensoulment happens, there are some hypotheses which investigate into this matter. It is necessary to give a definition of ensoulment for understanding the hypotheses which will be considered in this paper. Ensoulment means gaining a soul by a human being. Different religions have different answers of the time when an embryo is already a living thing with a soul: according to Christianity, ensoulment occurs at fertilization, Judaism has it that an embryo is ensouled ‘from the moment of formation’ (Blazer, Zimmer 34), Islamic tradition is belief that an embryo gains its soul by forty days in a mother’s womb (Zindani, Ahmed, Simpson), Hinduism has the point of view that the soul has the feature of reincarnation and it enters the embryo when it is conceived (Hindu Human Rights), and Buddhism teaches that ensoulment happens when gandhabba, individual kammic force of life, infuses into the womb (Pfleinderer, Brahier, Lindpaintner 143). Modern views on the process of ensoulment, however, are considered to undermine the traditional religious beliefs on this issue. David Shoemaker, for example, argues early ensoulment because there is an embryo’s possibility of fusion or twinning. Shoemaker points out that “already divided embryos could be pushed back together to form a single embryo once more that will, if implanted, develop normally into a single infant” (Shoemaker 64-65). According to his opinion, this process does not occur naturally. The scientist provides three interpretations of fusion: the two souls remain housed in the embryo that is fused; the two souls are replaced by a new one in the embryo that is fused; only one soul will live on in the embryo that is fused. (Hershenov, Koch-Hershenov 13). His opinions on these interpretations are as follows: the first one is impossible and absurd because it results in conjoining of the twins and dissociative disorder, the second variant is problematic because, first, it could suggest a possibility of two deaths, and, second, the embryo could become a new human being which contradicts with the generally accepted theological suggestion of ensoulment happening at fertilization, and the third is “the safest bet… where one soul would be removed and the other would remain and be attached to the new fused product”. (Shoemaker 65). The third opinion is also controversial because the soul, according to the traditional beliefs, must be embodied, and there is no person without the body. There are also contradictions of the second and the third opinions with the Christian resurrection creed, when the embryo that is fused either obtains a new soul or one of the two fused embryos is a soul provider of the embryo which originated after the fusion. (Hershenov, Koch-Hershenov 14). This gives an opportunity to suggest that if the ensoulment happened at conception and an embryo fused, then either two souls existed within one embryo or one soul combining two ones would be obtained by the embryo, and if this was theoretically possible, then the soul would be implemented into an embryo later than conception happened, that is, when it would be clear how many souls an embryo should eventually gain, which, of course, contradicts with the religious view that there is only one within one body. The Thomists have hylomorphic view on the soul. Aristotle is considered to be the one who originated the theory of hylomorphism. According to his definition, the soul is the thing which makes a living being alive. (Aristotle). The relation of the soul to the body it exists within is the relation of the form to the matter. Aristotle’s thoughts also suppose that a certain soul can exist only is a certain body, the one it is created for, and from this point of view the possibility of reincarnation, that is, soul induction into other body, is impossible. This makes the soul a unique feature of the body. Thomas Aquinas, one of the most famous successors of the Aristotle’s views on the soul, supposes that the soul, including mind, cannot exist without a body, because “because it is one and the same man who is conscious both that he understands and that he senses. But one cannot sense without a body, and therefore the body must be some part of man.” (Aquinas). The soul and the body makes a single substance, and if the soul existed outside the body, it would not experience the senses which are the features of the body. Aquinas also suggests that the soul is not made of the matter, and that the soul is unique and exists within a single body, that is, one soul cannot be present in two human beings. Aquinas also states that the rational soul components – the human’s will and intellect – are not limited to any part of the human’s body. Assumed there is a soul according to the thomistic and, therefore, hylomorphistic concepts. Such soul would exist within the body it was created for and would make the human being alive. It would, moreover, constitute one part of the unity soul-body, adding its non-material features – the will, the intellect, the mind, the emotions – to the physical ones which are present at the body, such as physical feelings and physical aspects of the life. This would be the reason for the fact that ensoulment happens at conception, because it would be only then when an embryo received its substantial form and features, this would mean that the physical beginning of the life, that is, fertilization, and the immaterial beginning, that is, the soul induction, form the unity and create a new living thing. Such soul would also be reasonably “intellectual”, as uniquely defined by the ancient scientists, because it would process the physical feelings of the material things from the non-material aspect, by means of non-material components – the mind, the intellect and the emotional component, and this feature is not observed at other species of living beings. Theologian point of view also concerns itself with the point that the God has created a human being in his own image and likeness, which is a reliable proof that the human is unique and its soul has no analogs in the world of living beings. This also means that the God and the human are similar, and that the God is supposedly also a unity of a soul and a body. This is another proof that the ensoulment happens at conception – if the human has such feature, then the human has inherited it from the Creator. The contradiction between the traditional theological and modern, such as the above mentioned Shoemaker’s, views on the soul and ensoulment is obvious, and the theologians cannot accept Shoemaker’s arguments of the hypothesis of later ensoulment. The reasons for this will be given below. The most logical reason is the human is a unique living thing created by the God in his own image and likeness. This explains that any features will be inherited from the Creator, and reflecting the human features on the God, it is similarly that the God also possesses a single unique body and a single soul designed for this very body. This is possible to reach only when the immaterial feature, such as soul, is induced into the embryo of a human being simultaneously with its gaining the beginning of its physical life, that is, conception. The second counter-argument is that the soul is induced into the embryo by the God himself, and this means that only one soul can be given to a certain body. This means that there is no matter whether the cells are fissioned or fused, the God determines the singleness of the soul for the body at the process of conception. The third reason is that the soul removal in case of fusion and supposed housing of two souls inside one embryo is similarly impossible, as, according to religious creed, the Creator has foreseen all the things while creating the world and the living things inhabiting it, and his actions are not likely to be amended later on. If this happened, the soul had to be inducted into other embryo, which is also unreal: if the embryo housed two souls, as per Shoemaker’s opinion, then one of the two souls would have no other room that this embryo, and in case of removal there should be one spare embryo to conduct the procedure of induction of the soul into a new human being. This, again, proves theologians’ belief in ensoulment at conception – one soul is induced into a single embryo. The conclusive reason of the above mentioned unacceptance is that the fact that the soul can be inducted into the body can lead to conclusion that the soul exists outside the body. From the religious point of view, the soul existence is only possible after physical, or corporal, death, when the body stops its existence, and the soul leaves the body and transfers to the afterworld. As ensoulment deals with the origin of a new life rather than with its end, it is obvious that the soul is given to the body before the moment of the soul leaving the body, and the existence of the soul outside the body is impossible at the stage of the life originating. Conclusion The issue of ensoulment and the question when it happens gave a push to numerous researches, which resulted in various hypotheses and theories. As there are religious and scientific points of view in this matter, it is obvious that, as in many questions involving these two points of view, the conclusions are contradictive, and there are different grounds and reasons the sides provide to prove their views. The religious views are that the soul is inducted into a physical body at the moment of conception, and there are scientists who believe that the process of ensoulment can happen after and later than the conception. Works Cited Aquinas, T. Summa Theologiae. 1917. Web. 02 April 2015. Aristotle. De Anima. Web. 02 April 2015. Blazer, S., Zimmer, E. “The Embryo: Scientific Discovery and Medical Ethics”. 2005. Karger Medical and Scientific Publishers. Print. Hershenov, D., Koch-Hershenov, R. “Fission and Confusion”. Christian Bioethics. 2007. Print. Hindu Human Rights. “Hindu Religious Quotes on Abortion”. 2012. Web. 02 April 2015. Pfleinderer, G., Brahier, G., Lindpaintner, K. “GenEthics and Religion”. 2010. Karger Medical and Scientific Publishers. Print. Shoemaker, D. “Embryos, Souls and the Fourth Dimension.” 2005. Social Theory and Practice. Print. Zindani, A., Ahmed, M., Simpson, J. “Human Development in the first 40 days”. 2012. Web. 02 April 2015. Read More