October 14, 2004

• 
  

  I learned an interesting thing today. For the most part, all Christian thought predating the present has asserted that animals have souls. It surprised me, to be honest. Somehow I had assumed that it was a ludicrous idea. But as soon as Aquinas’ name was dropped, well, I was sold.

  
  

  I can remember going for a weekend seminar once. It was all lectures by a man named Peter Bocchino. One night, and I can’t remember how the topic came up, there was a discussion about the soul, and whether an animal has one. The question seemed crazy to me at the time, but over the course of the discussion it seemed that Peter was in quite the indefensible position. He was trying to argue that animals, such as dogs, did not have emotions, or a will, or even appetites (strictly speaking). He wanted us to believe that a dog is governed strictly by instinct. He claimed that anything we might see as the above, was simply different instincts trying to win in the battle for what the dog will actually do. Though no one would say that instinct is not a primary facet of the decisions of a dog, Bocchino’s trouble was in asserting that these other things simply were not present.

  
  

  Emotions, and emotional attachment are something that we see clearly in pets. Sometimes contrary to self-preservation, the emotions of a pet can cause it to do all sorts of things. Say, a dog who risks his own safety to save a master. One must jump through very shaky hoops to justify these things by instinct alone.

  
  

  Or take appetites into consideration. Dogs are renown for humping. One might say: this is the instinct to reproduce. But the other day, when my little sister’s dog started humping our cat, there was not even potential for reproduction.

  
  

  The will follows from these things. I’m certainly not one to claim an understanding of how a will actually functions, but certain things, I believe may be said of it. Once one has instinct, emotion, and appetite all fighting for control of the action of a thing, it seems that this is what we call a will. A decision made to act in one manor over another.

  
  

  This all comes back to my first point, that animals do, in fact, have souls. The question can‘t help but be asked: what is the difference between humans, and animals? If animals have souls, then why are we not concerned with telling them the gospel? The answer, I believe, is that we have the ability to reason. It is the specific difference between animals and man.

  
  

  Why reason? The question is begged. I believe I first read this in Kant, and later in Lewis. You see, it seems that man would be all around happier if we could not reason, or at very least, if we could only reason enough to realise how happy our instincts made us. But reason as the foremost part of our soul does more to hinder happiness then to help it. We can often identify a thing that would make us happy, and yet, we refrain from it. We do this because of reason; we judge the action, deem it immoral, and then we don’t do it. Our happiness is hindered. This can lead us to only one conclusion, then. That reason is important because it gives us the capacity to make moral decisions.

  
  

  So, animals have souls, but we are still set apart from them due to our ability to reason. This ability to reason is important because it allows us to make moral choices.

  
  

  I suppose this is really what it means to be made in the image of God.

  • 5:11 am
  • 16 Comments