Cloning and the Soul

[Undomiel]

This subject needs a little more overview, I think. Here's some food for thought:

If a human clone is made from your DNA, will it have a soul? A spirit? A resurrection body?

Think on this carefully and weigh it against what we know God's position was on the genetic hybrids in Genesis 6.

[Xmansmommy]

Very interesting topic Undomiel. :hrm: Gotta think on this one. Would love to hear what others think. :uhoh:

[Piebald]

Sure! I don't see why a clone wouldn't have a soul or a resurrection body. It would seem to be in the same position as a twin (except for the difference in age, of course)

[Undomiel]

Today @ 07:28 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139861#post139861)
Hamster:

Sure! I don't see why a clone wouldn't have a soul or a resurrection body. It would seem to be in the same position as a twin (except for the difference in age, of course)

Do you think this because it seems the most humane answer to the question or do you think this because you have reason to believe there's a foundation for it in scripture (to be humane is to be loving, to love your brother as yourself (literally lol))?

[Piebald]

I think it has the most scriptural precedent. I mean, obviously scripture doesn't talk about cloning as that's something that wouldn't occur for thousands of years, but scripture does say that there will be a universal resurrection (righteous and unrighteous), that all men can turn to Jesus Christ and be saved, etc. Why would the mode of a person's springing into existence change this?

BTW, do you believe that God puts a soul in us, that people are born with a soul, or that the soul develops as our body develops?

[Undomiel]

Today @ 07:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139872#post139872)
Hamster:

I think it has the most scriptural precedent. I mean, obviously scripture doesn't talk about cloning as that's something that wouldn't occur for thousands of years, but scripture does say that there will be a universal resurrection (righteous and unrighteous), that all men can turn to Jesus Christ and be saved, etc. Why would the mode of a person's springing into existence change this?

BTW, do you believe that God puts a soul in us, that people are born with a soul, or that the soul develops as our body develops?

I agree with you, Hamster. I think God puts the soul in our bodies. I think Jesus' blood can cover a multitude of sins. I also think it's dangerous for us to tamper with DNA, as it wreaks of trying to play God and that particular tac got us into a world of trouble with the Almighty in the past. Lucifer did it and got the boot! For example in this scripture, Isaiah is addressing the King of Babylon, but notice what he says! He's not talking to the King of Babylon but to the power BEHIND the King of Bablyon:

Isaiah 14
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [how] art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

13 For thou hast said1 in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
-------------

Personally, I don't know what is safely within our purview as humans and what is not, but considering the inherent danger of cloning technology, it almost seems as if the science itself is warning us.

[doulos]

Hi yall!
I definately think that a clone would have a soul, resurrection body, etc. etc... A clone is not a carbon copy of YOU but a carbon copy of your BODY. A clone would not be exactly like you because he would have a different life experience. You may be saved but your clone may go to hell, or it could be the other way around.

[mandolin]

In reality...a clone is still conceived.

And conception brings forth a soul.

So if human cloning were possible, and they made a clone, it would undoubtedly have a distinct soul.

Though I have hypothesized before that human cloning will never be possible for this very reason. Perhaps a human will never be able to be cloned for the sole reason that it actually Has a soul...and the soul brings life...and the life and soul cannot be duplicated.

A sheep, being that it does not have the same genre of soul as a human, can be cloned. But possibly, a human can't be cloned...because of it's eternal soul.

Anyways...being that clones ARE conceived (albeit through non-sexual lab work) they would undoubtedly be like another human. Only they would have the most inhumane lifestyles known to man.
If cloning is ever possible (i personally often think it will never be possible) then the clone will have it's own soul.

[jason]

If a human clone is made from your DNA, will it have a soul? A spirit? A resurrection body?
Of course. There appears to be an underlying assumption that you are making, (at least the way this is phrased) that your soul and your DNA are somehow tied together.

But as noted, identical twins would be a problem here (natural cloning ?).

Given it seems unlikely that idential twins are (for one of them at least) soulless monsters or that they share the same soul (perhaps they do, I am not an identical twin so maybe there is something to it I don't understand) thenit seems that a clone would be no different.

Think on this carefully and weigh it against what we know God's position was on the genetic hybrids in Genesis 6.
Unless you actually hybridise the clones (something that could be done on non-clones anyway) I don't see what the problem is.

One question to answer before you can answer the question you posed is, What does it mean to have a soul and what is a soul ?

Jason

[garthoverman]

First, my belief:

The soul is not something you have. It is what you are.

Then, clones:

I've heard clones referred to as "time-seperated twins." I'm not certain how accurate this characterization is, but if it is the case (and perhaps even if it's not), then clones would be equally as human as the rest of us. Fit that into your worldview however you like.

Yours,
Garth

[Socrates]

Animal cloning is OK; human cloning is immoral. But not for the reason many people object to it, i.e. the possibility of cloning Hitler. A human clone would have his own soul, regardless of genetic makeup. The main problem with human cloning is treating humans as means rather than an end. e.g. it took hundreds of attempts to clone Dolly, and this would be an unacceptable destruction of human life if applied to humans.

See also Cloning Questions and Answers (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/cloning.asp).

About the transmission of the soul, I think traducianism seems to fit best with the Bible, although I won't be dogmatic about it. This means, in the process of generation, the human spiritual soul is transmitted to the offspring by the parents. This would apply to artificially generated offspring such as identical twins (a form of natural cloning), IVF and artificial clones. Conversely “creationism” [i.e. of individual souls] contradicts: God’s creation having finished (Genesis 2:2).
God not creating anything fallen (Genesis 1:31).See also http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/traducia.htm for a brief summary and http://www.owentew.com/traducianism_vs__creationism.htm for more detail.

[Robyn Banks]

Undomiel:
If a human clone is made from your DNA, will it have a soul? A spirit? A resurrection body?
As technology advances, the distinction between 'human' and 'machine' will be less and less meaningful. This will happen on two fronts. Firstly, some machines will become more 'human' - acquiring more and more functions of a human. At some point in the future, and conscious machine will be made. Secondly, humans will acquire more and more mechanical 'add-ons'. From pace-makers to brain implants, and so on. Future 'humanity' will not bear resemblance to our make-up.

Clones have everything necessary for a spirit - they are 'human'. So too will some machines in the future. Machines will have spirits.

Machines will have resurrection bodies, too. They will exist in the noetic realm. I don't see anything in the Bible which denies this.

Robyn Banks

[jason]

At some point in the future, and conscious machine will be made.
You really endorse the idea of strong AI ? I think it is a pipe dream.

But I might be wrong.

I guess we have to firgure out what make something alive first, and what makes something conscious, before we can worry about the question of whether a machine can ever meet such a criteria.

Jason

[garthoverman]

Today @ 06:06 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=145381#post145381)
jason:


You really endorse the idea of strong AI ? I think it is a pipe dream.

But I might be wrong.

I guess we have to firgure out what make something alive first, and what makes something conscious, before we can worry about the question of whether a machine can ever meet such a criteria.

I am somewhere in the middle. Firstly, I think that our machines are already conscious. The thing is, we arbitrarily define "consciousness" as that which perfectly represents our own human consciousness. IOW, we believe (irrationally, IMHO) that human consciousness is the only manifestation of consciousness, and therefore we will not delcare something "conscious" unless it can perfectly represent our own. Sure, some individuals are more permissive in that they will grant consciousness to animals, and some even grant it to plants. The point is that there are no non-arbitrary, objective criteria that properly and consclusively identify consciousness. There is no more objective reason to believe that my mother is conscious than there is to believe that the rocks in the bottom of my fish tank are conscious.

If you browse to my thread in the Philosophy Forum ("Penrose, Gödel, & Non-computability") I present a rather robust argument against the strong AI position based on Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. Basically it says that no formal system can entirely represent human mathematical understanding, and that therefore humans are not formal systems. The wild card, IMHO, is creativity. If a hypothetical machine existed that perfectly modelled human cognition and understanding, it must therefore be able to create a priori postulates that are not guaranteed to correspond to commonly held human postulates of math and logic. This, I think, is possible since I think that machines are conscious to begin with. My point is that such a machine could not be constructed to rest entirely on the a priori postulates of human logic and math (i.e. a formal system) since those cut the machine's creative feet out from under it from the get-go. They bind its creativity, and unbound creativity is what is essential to consciosness.

Yours,
Garth