It was in my college art history class that I had my first serious exposure to medieval art and architecture. Our professor, Dr. Williams, loved to rile up his smart-alecky undergraduate students by comparing modern buildings to Gothic cathedrals. This was not pretty. Frankly, modern architecture looked pretty insipid. My awe of things medieval was reinforced a few summers ago viewing exhibitions at the NY Metropolitan Museum of Art. It just happened that medieval artwork was placed adjacent to an exhibit of modern masters. Based on the hushed tones of reverent respect and the looks of amazement on the faces of the throng of viewers, I would say it was a slam-dunk for the Middle Ages.

We pride ourselves in our cultural and scientific advancement. In recent decades neuroscience has matured in its study of brain function. So, now we are confident that we have a grasp on the mysteries of free will and can also dispense with the antiquated idea of a human soul. We say to ourselves that we, for the first time, have pierced behind the veil of the mind and can explain all things as bio-chemical or physical processes. Anyway, that’s how the modern myth goes.

Would you believe me if I told you that in the Middle Ages they may have understood the mind better than we do?

Scientific View of Free Choice

Here are a couple of quotes by Nancey Murphy, PhD, ThD, Professor of Christian Philosophy, Fuller Theological Seminary from a paper summarizing recent brain-function studies presented at Loma Linda University School of Medicine. Here she is commenting on Terrence Deacon’s reflections on studies comparing chimpanzee and human models of choice (i.e. choosing candy).

“A second piece of the puzzle is also illustrated in the experiment with the chimps. What the chimps in the first phase of the experiment are not able to do is to make their own behavior the object of their attention. To do such a thing is what I mean by self-transcendence.”

“So the ability for self-transcendence allows us to take account of feedback from the environment and to adjust our behavior accordingly in order to reach our goals. More important, this sort of self-observation allows us to call into question the goals themselves. And, finally, the ability to generate internal models of ourselves engaged in various activities allows us to calculate the likely outcome of various actions and to assign an evaluation of good or bad to each scenario.”

What Dr. Murphy is saying is that humans can do something chimps cannot. We can look at ourselves making our decisions. We can evaluate our own evaluation. This is also called self-reflexive thinking. In other words, with the ability to transcend ourselves, humans stand above nature and, therefore, have free will. Brilliant, amazing, fantastic insight—finally, because of modern empirical science, we know how free will works. There is only one problem, in the “superstitious” Middle Ages, this view of free will was common knowledge in theological circles. Plus they knew even more.

Back to the Future

Now here is Thomas Aquinas writing over 700 years ago in his Summa Contra Gentiles II, Ch. 48, 3-4.

“But things that do not move nor act unless they are moved by other things are not the cause of their own acting. So, only things that move themselves act freely. And these alone act by judgment…Among these things, therefore, those alone judge freely which in judging move themselves. But no judging power moves itself to judge unless it reflects on its own action; for, if it moves itself to judge, it must know its own judgment; and this only an intellect can do. Thus, irrational animals have in a certain way freedom of movement or action, but not of judgment…Intellectual beings, on the other hand, enjoy freedom not only of action, but also of judgment; and this is to have free choice.”

In case you did not fully understand Thomas’ arcane language, allow me to summarize. He was saying chimps don’t think like you. You judge your own judgment. This is exactly the same thing Dr. Murphy was saying at Loma Linda. Humans have self-transcendence which gives us the ability to make free choices. Now read this from Thomas.

“Then, too, the apprehended form is a moving principle according as it is apprehended under the aspect of the good or the fitting; for the outward action in things that move themselves proceeds from the judgment, made through that form, that something is good or fitting…so that only those beings move themselves to judge which apprehend the all-embracing essence of the good or the fitting. And these are intellectual beings alone. Hence none but intellectual beings move themselves not only to act, but also to judge. They alone, therefore, are free in judging; and this is to have free choice.”

Allow me to summarize again. He was saying the same thing as Dr. Murphy. She said that “self-observation allows us to call into question the goals (we set) themselves” in order “to calculate the likely outcome of various actions and to assign an evaluation of good or bad to each scenario.” Scientists have discovered that with self-transcendence we evaluate what we do against what we consider to be that which is “good.”

Well, well, well, isn’t that interesting. That is what Thomas said cir. 1260! He said that for creatures with self-transcendence “outward action…proceeds from the judgment…that something is good or fitting.” But, Thomas set human free choice in a context of the much broader arena of the whole enchilada—all of nature. He goes on to note that all things in nature are “determined” to the “good as common to all things.” However, what sets the human pursuit of the good apart from the rest of nature is its intrinsic ability to do self-reflexive judgment. Thomas sees this ability as something shared in common with plants and animals as a determination to that which is good but of a higher and freer order. In other words, this ability is both rooted in nature and, yet, stands above nature in its capacity to reflect on itself.

Someday neuroscience will catch up with the Dark Ages.

Because Fluffy the dog was such a big hit; I have decided to cause more heartburn by bringing up animal vs. human differences again.

Obviously, Christians believe that man is made in God’s image because the Bible directly states this with no ifs, ands or buts. Sometimes even Christians have to be reminded that all people are made in the Imago Dei and are to be treated with great dignity. The Apostle James writes to Christians warning them to avoid bad-mouthing people because all humans have the divine image: James 3:9 “With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness.” So, we know all humans are made in God’s image, but what does this mean? Does it mean that God has arms, legs and a head like us? I think the answer can be found in the first mention of the Imago Dei in Genesis.

Genesis 1:26 (NIV) Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Here mankind is said to be in the image of God, not in regard to our bodies, but in regard to the way mankind excels (has “rule”) over the animal kingdom. Man excels over all animals not by his great running ability; nor his great eyesight; nor his ability to fly. The fact is that many animals can run a lot faster, jump higher, see better, hear better and certainly can fly better than humans. The one thing that humans excel with is our reason or intelligence. Therefore, we are able to rule over the animal kingdom because of our mental abilities. Our mental abilities, of course, are non-material or spiritual in nature. The old fashioned word for this is incorporeal. It is in this way that we are made in the image of God.

Now, what I have just written has many implications. Here are a few. 1) We should avoid thinking of God as just a bigger one of us. He is in a category (so to speak) way beyond the human species. 2) Though God is very different than us, we are still like Him in that we have a genuine likeness to Him in the spiritual part of our nature. Therefore, we are to treat all humans with dignity. 3) We are above and rule over the animal kingdom whether we recognize this or not. Humans cannot escape this reality by pretending animals and insects are our equals. This reality is both a gift and a responsibility. We are not to denigrate humans and put them alongside (or even below) brute animals. If mankind did this, what would actually be happening is that some “elite” group of humans would be making decisions and imposing their will on other humans in favor of animals. On the other hand, we are not allowed to cruelly treat animals. The Bible forbids cruelty to animals. Because of our intellectual capacity and free will, mankind could easily destroy all animal species. This would be a violation of God’s will. We are to be good stewards of all of God’s creation. They are ultimately His and not ours.

You have probably heard the old saying “God helps those who help themselves” and you may know that it doesn’t appear in the Bible. Yet, there is a certain truth in this saying. Conversely, what is not true about it is that we cannot “help” ourselves into salvation. Salvation comes through the grace of God and not by human religious works. That being said, there is still a truth in the old saying.

The truth that I am referring to is that God has ordained activities for each kind of thing that He has created according to the nature that He has given to each of them. For instance, rocks have a certain nature. The activity of rocks is inanimate—they do not move themselves; rather, forces such as gravity and seismic external pressures move them. Plants, on the other hand, have a limited animate activity. They show an internal response to sunlight and moisture. The flowers in my backyard are constantly and slowly moving toward the optimum position to receive sunlight. Animals demonstrate an even greater ability to be active. Our dog runs all over the backyard seeking food, barking at strangers, chasing butterflies and even attempting to escape once in a while. Humans, however, have both a bodily and spiritual nature. The optimum activity for humans is to perform bodily actions while keeping one’s mind on spiritual things.

Here is the deal. Because of our integrated bodily and spiritual nature we cannot escape the need to be active physically, and I am not talking about going to the gym for exercise. Ultimately, our bodily activity is directed to the preservation of our lives, if one willfully neglects to perform such activity then one is neglecting to sustain oneself and someone else has to do the dirty work. Additionally, to look to God for help in things that one can do for himself through his own actions is to be both a fool and a tempter of God. In fact, God Himself leads the way in this because He usually provides for us through the actions of others.

Get ready, here comes the “bottom line.” As Christians it is an incredible cop-out and irresponsible to look to God, in the hope that, without performing any action by which we might help ourselves, God will come to our aid, because this is opposed to the way God does things. I am, of course, referring to the able-bodied. That is why Paul wrote in 2 Thes. 3:10 “For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: ‘If a man will not work, he shall not eat.’”