It would of course be a most prudent thing to give at least a working definition for the term 'soul
'--or the concept carried by it. If we were to use a good English dictionary, it'd soon enough become understood that the senses involved with that word do vary, and are very much determined by the field, or discipline, one is using the term relative to.
I reason, through keeping your general posting habits in mind, mark noble
, that you are more likely holding the word 'soul
' in its sense which will be interchangeable with the common conception carried by the word 'spirit
' (when this refers to some immaterial, ethereal-of-a something). This is an outdated conception, I always argue, and I use the word 'soul
' only in the sense of the physical body of an organism. In this sense, therefore, I would always argue that the bulk of the best evidence we have empirically acquired over time, quite securely show us that all life forms are souls--which just becomes another word for 'a living thing.'
To give a little information for you, since you also seem to be asking, this concept is exactly that which can be seen to have been generally held by the writers of some of the earliest Hebrew texts and writings of the monotheistic movement among those of the early Israeli nation. The 'nephesh' is exactly the living organism itself. ( I have written a little about it in this post and you might want to check that out too)
So to answer towards the OP, both ALL animals are souls . . . and of course, without any real error of understanding, the H. sapiens is no less animal than my hungry little cats, screaming outside the kitchen door.