Hey everyone,
Today in biology we were looking into cloning and looking at the arguments for and against cloning, when a idea sparked and i began to get confused.
One of my questions to begin with was did a clone have a soul???
But then the question came up how do you define a soul???
This is where i thought of the soul as being something which makes you unique. Its a part of you which helps you to make decisions and have emotions. But of cause other people have different views which is cool.
But my biology teacher had no idea! So i went to the R.E teacher. This was where i was told clones would not have a soul according to the church. This was also where i was told the soul is what makes you unique.
So then i put forward asking if your coinscience was part of your soul this is also where it got more confusing The teacher i was speaking to began with saying your conscience was God speaking to you but then i said that would mean there was a relationship. So he then began to explain us as if we were a car, the car is our body and the person within it is our soul and he was trying to say that the conscience was part of our soul. So i said that would mean they have a soul as you couldnt just have parts.
As a result the teacher got more confused and told me to come back in a few days after he had time to read up on it.

My question is 1) Could you define the soul to me please
and 2) Do you think clones have souls?

Thanx Ness

__________________
The past is what makes us who we are dont make it your burdern

A soul is basically a synonym for the mind. Your second answer can not be answered, because psychology hasn't moved far enough forward to understand how the mind works. But I can tell you one thing I believe. If a clone doesn't have a mind, then we can nail out the possibility of the mind coming directly from the brain, because a clone would have that. So it would show us if the mind comes from a physical being, or if it is a divine thing, or if it is something of which we can not even comprehend yet. Odd isn't it? Something all of us have, but none of us can begin to understand...

__________________
Do not believe out of fear, or for the fact you grew up in a religon. Believe what your heart tells you is right.
-C. Payette

Anything that is a sentient being knows only one thing with absolute certainty. They that are real. I suppose it's hard to understand, maybe I should explain from a 1st person perspective.

I know that, despite my being in this world was the result of an unplanned accident, I still exist. I shouldn't have existed, because I wasn't planned, but I am here. When I die, whatever will happen will happen. If I don't have a soul, I will cease to exist and I doubt I'll care. If there is a life after death and I'm invited, that's cool too.

Why couldn't a clone have a soul? Cloning merely makes a perfect copy of your physical container. If you're a believer, God is the one who breathes life into that container and gives you your soul. When your body dies your soul doesn't die with it; it merely leaves its container and goes whereever your religion believes it goes.

So while a clone would be physically identical to you, God would give it a unique soul.

__________________
Man up.

First, a biology teacher should give the class a biological definition of a soul. If the teacher does not, then it doesn't belong in biology class.

__________________
I shall continue to be an impossible person as long as those who are now possible remain possible.
HuffPo's Off The Bus campaign coverage project....Off The Bus Blog

If a student brings it up, it's fair game. Makes for an interesting discussion. Although I wouldn't blame the teacher for demurring with "talk to your minister."

__________________
Man up.

It's fair game in terms of the teacher having the responsibilty of instructing the student that unless it has a biological definition, it's not part of a biology class.

The student has no business taking a class off topic.

__________________
I shall continue to be an impossible person as long as those who are now possible remain possible.
HuffPo's Off The Bus campaign coverage project....Off The Bus Blog

Sure, but neither do I think teachers should be in the business of shutting down a lively intellectual discussion simply because it's slightly off-topic. It's a biology class, but I think fostering love of learning is a higher calling than that day's specific syllabus.

I spent way too much time in classes where anything beyond the narrow boundaries of that day's topic weren't allowed. That just encourages note-taking and viewing learning as drudgework. A good teacher recognizes that many subjects are interrelated (biology, especially, touches on all sorts of other areas, including math and philosophy), and exploring a topic that fires your students' imaginations is well-worth a minor diversion from the class schedule.

Schools should not be used to promote religion, but that doesn't mean it can't be present at all.

__________________
Man up.

A teacher who refers the inquiring student to the proper class is NOT shutting down a lively discussion. Discussing stuff like that in a biology class is just as inappropriate as discussing rocket science in a biology class. As would be the hottest political issue.

Biology class is for (DUH!) biology.

__________________
I shall continue to be an impossible person as long as those who are now possible remain possible.
HuffPo's Off The Bus campaign coverage project....Off The Bus Blog