Do all dogs go to heaven? This is a common question that I come across in my interaction with others.
In particular, this can bear serious discussion when one's favorite family pet comes near to death.
With mankind, the Bible's answer is clear.
Though our current body is temporary, our soul will survive the body's destruction. (2 Cor. 4:16-18; Matthew 25:31-46; Rev. 20:11-15)
All mankind fairly deserves punishment and, as fair punishment, is to suffer this punishment eternally. However, out of God's love for us, He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, into the world to suffer the punishment we deserve.
If we believe Him, turn from our evil ways, and follow Him, our sins are no longer counted against us and we are forgiven, to live an eternity with God. (John 3:16; Rom. 3:23; 6:23; 5:8)
On this understanding, the best explanation for the nature of the human soul seems to be one of substance dualism.
It need not be a Cartesian substance dualism. However, it seems most likely an interaction dualism.
This means that the soul exists separate from the body and influences the body.
As well, the body exists separate from the soul and influences the soul.
I used to hold to a Lockean, stream-of-consciousness, view of the human soul.
However, with discoveries of the existence of subconsciousness and further reflection of the state of our soul during dreaming, coma, and other cases, I now lean more toward a view similar to Boethius.
Boethius believed that the soul was a substance that existed. With current levels of research, it seems most likely that the interaction between the body and soul is occurring
somewhere at the point of firing and inhibition of each neuron in the human brain. Because I think the soul is a substance, it seems to me that it most likely is composed of particles that we have not yet discovered.
Now, with animals, the story is a bit different.
Mankind is distinct from animals because we were created in God's image, have moral responsibilities before God, and since the first sin, have continually violated God's command. (Genesis 2:15-17)
I am not convinced that the current level of scientific discovery necessitates an evolutionary understanding of mankind.
However, even if someone were to hold to the theory of evolution, there are those, like Alvin Plantiga, who can affirm the above theology while still affirming a God-guided evolution.
What is noticeable here is that God does not count animals guilty of sin.
Animals are not created in God's image.
So, there is no reason why an animal would suffer an eternal punishment.
At the same time, there is no evidence in the Bible that animals will have an eternity of relationship with God in heaven.
Rather, it seems most likely that animals do not have an eternal soul.
This is not to say that animals do not have an experience of morality.
Mankind clearly has an experience of morality, and it transcends culture.
The particular morality that a person experiences begins at youth and seems a combination of projection of self upon family, community, nation, all humans, and all creation (as a divine design built into mankind,
as well as through God's active interaction with the person's soul both as Uniform Divine Action and Objectively Special Divine Action).
As well, it is clear that humans form morals also upon their upbringing. Parents, peers, and society teach morals to children who internalize and adopt them.
Here, it is most clear the role of tradition in human moral formation (regardless whether the tradition is Christian, Muslim, or an Enlightenment tradition).
For animals, there seems to be a similar moral formation through projection (perhaps also as a divine design into animals). While the social Darwinistic law of the survival of the fittest is clearly demonstrable in animal behavior, we also see examples of animal moral experiences.
For example, when a mother cub carefully guards her young. This would seem to be a kind of animal moral experience of the suggestion that harming one's cubs is wrong.
So, though God does not count animals guilty of sin, animals do seem to have experiences of morality.
But, what is the animal soul? One aspect of it would be that it is the very substance of life, the breath of life given by God.
A clear example of animal soul would be the existence of consciousness. So, non-human conscious creatures would seem to have a soul that is not eternal.
If the animal's soul is not eternal, is it the same substance as a human soul?
Does the animal's soul have the same relation to its body as the human soul has to its body?
It seems to me that, with animal souls, substance dualism is definitely an option.
However, non-reductive physicalism and an emergent physicalism both seems to be possible options for the animal soul.
Demonstrated behavioral similarities between animal consciousness and human consciousness would argue for both having souls of the same type.
On the other hand, the theological difference would argue for both having souls of a different type.
For a human soul, conscious experience begins at a particular point (whether at conception or at some later moment before physical birth). Does the substance of our soul exist before conception?
I know of no guaranteed answer for this. Only that God acts to bring life in the world at the moment of conception, through an act of Uniform Divine Action (and perhaps sometimes through an act of Objectively Special Divine Action).
The Bible's description of God's work in the bringing of life seems to preclude the possibility that humans have experience prior to conception which is later forgotten.
Such a possibility would also go against the teaching of Hebrews 9:27 which teaches that a soul only has one life before eternity.
An interesting situation concerns the souls of identical twins. For identical twins begin with a single zygote, but becomes two embryos. So, prior to the formation of the two embryos, is the zygote considered one soul or two? In discussion with Dr. Kilner at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, he suggests that it depends upon whether you believe that the soul is passed on from the father, or whether it comes from the mother. This response would be consistent with the view called Traducianism. Traducianism emphasizes that the soul comes from the parents rather than explicitly created by God. There is some biblical support for this (Gen. 2:2-3; 2:7; 5:3). However, there is also biblical support for the idea that God is the one that creates the soul (Ecclesiastes 12:7; Isaiah 42:5; Zechariah 12:1; Hebrews 12:9). However, it seems to me that these two views are not necessarily mutually exclusive, as some combination of the two could be in play. It seems unlikely to me, given the absence of biblical support, that there is a pre-created warehouse of souls that God attaches at the moment of conception to each created person.
For an animal soul, the question of the origin of the animal's soul is equally as confusing as human souls. But, as argued above, it seems most likely that animal souls cease to have consciousness at the destruction of the animal's body.
What happens to the substance of the animal's soul at that point? It depends on which theory of animal soul we hold.
The non-reductive physicalism and emergent physicalism would have the most clear explanation for this, while substance dualism leaves open the question of what happens to the animal's soul.
Is it destroyed or disassembled? It would seem so.
In any case, we can conclude that all dogs do not go to heaven (in fact, no dogs go to heaven), but we can still be kind to animals while they are alive.
The Bible condemns torture of animals. (Proverbs 12:10; Leviticus 25:6-7; Deuteronomy 25:4). And it is good to care for our pets like a shepherd would for his sheep (2 Sam. 12:1-6).
At the same time, we can celebrate our uniqueness as humans, being created in the image of God, and destined to spend an eternity with God in heaven through faith in Jesus Christ.
