This is a review of an old article from '05. I had been searching for information about the specific beliefs surrounding souls in order to better discuss the theistic arguments against abortion.
Shoemaker thoroughly dissects the argument against stem cell research due to religious ideas of ensoulment. He begins with hard questions about what exactly defines a human life. Conceding that late stage fetuses can “think, feel, locomote, laugh, love, and actually be seen with the naked eye” (Shoemaker, 2005, p. 51). He reminds people that an embryo is literally a tiny cluster of cells completely invisible without magnification. The religious argument that life begins at conception, resulting in the immorality of stem cell research is his target, not objections to abortion. Making this clear he defines why the stem cell argument is an important one to have. He notes that the public opinion of stem cell research has direct affect on how government, and perhaps private, funding assists the research. Without public support research that is considered controversial will be set aside due to outcry from religious groups. It is the religious reasons that Shoemaker is determined to confront. They are often only popular due to public ignorance or the misinformation campaigns of religious groups.
After a short biology lesson Shoemaker explores the definition of a soul. The standard Catholic definition seems most applicable and the most thoroughly expressed. The most important part containing this description: “an individual substance of a rational nature” (Shoemaker, 2005, p. 56). Each major word in this description is broken down and the terms are defined. The most important of his conclusions include defining a soul as an immaterial substance and an individual substance. This concept different from the 'soul stuff' of the Hindu Brahman or idea that a soul is our intelligence alone. Embryos are specific to each individual and they are immaterial. After exploring many possible routes in which these assumptions might not be true Shoemaker concludes that it is and that the soul must be connection to a physical substance. Here is where things get much more complicated. Shoemaker explores the possibilities of fission and fusion in reference to embryology. Sometimes, between approximately the second and fourteen day, an embryo splits into two embryos and creates a problem for people that believe life, or ensoulment, begins at conception. Shoemaker explores every reasonable possibility available to God to remedy this problem (Do two souls reside in one embryo for a time? Does one soul get added later? Etc..). These questions leave no easy answer for theological soul theorists. To further complicate the matter in an almost absurd way, Shoemaker discusses the same issue in regards to the fusion of embryos. They occasionally fuse from two embryos into one healthy embryo which can generally grow up into a healthy normal adult. This occurrence creates even more problems for a soul theorist intent on defining life at beginning at conception. After both of these discussions it seems that believing life to begin at conception leaves the believer in a “logically impossible position” (Shoemaker, 2005, p. 74). Shoemaker is clearly adept at making logical arguments. His skill makes his arguments watertight but his writing suffer.
Two basic beliefs about the nature of souls dominate Christian thought. Shoemaker labels them the Thomistic view and the Augustinian view. In the Thomistic view the physical body is of great importance. Without a physical body there would be nothing to resurrect and carry off to heaven when that day comes. Embryonic fission and fusion both leave difficult questions for the Thomas Aquinas version of ensoulment. When two embryos become one and there is no physical body left for the soul that had been occupying the fertilized cells what happens to that soul? Is it resurrected on judgement day? What would it be resurrected to look like having never lived a life whatsoever? We are left with the more popular Augustinian concept of ensoulment. St. Augustine of Hippo had a strong theme of duality in his writing. He believed the soul to be a separate entity “trapped” in a body (Shoemaker, 2005, p. 66). In light of both fission and fusion it is difficult to see how souls, trapped in this way, could be anything other than featureless, potentially full, souls. If they can be removed and replaced arbitrarily by God, which would need to be the case in fission and fusion, then they are just as able to be withheld because God's omniscience allows for awareness of the destiny of the embryo. This argument opens up issues of theodicy which we will not entertain here. The most damning evidence Shoemaker presents is his almost nonchalant mention of the fact that a large number of fertilized embryos fail to implant and are flushed away during menstruation “often even before the mother is aware of her pregnancy” (Shoemaker, 2005, p. 68). If theologians concede that ensoulment doesn't occur until after the fourteen day period when they can split into two, or until after implantation, then the argument against stem cell research is destroyed. However, if they maintain the position that life begins at conception then they make God a cruel murderer, arbitrarily removing some souls and damning them for hell while others remain before any merit could be earned. This point seems most important and damning although Shoemaker explored it very little. He instead became occupied with an overly complicated discussion of soul's features in space-time. He can not be faulted for being overly detailed on such a complicated topic.
Embryos, Souls and the Forth Dimension
by David W. Shoemaker published in Social Theory and Practice 2005
