Aquinas\' View of the Body

Aquinas' View of the Body and the Information Derived Through the Senses

Thomas Aquinas believed that everything that was truthful came from God. Divine help was required for true knowledge, but that humans are capable of knowing many things that do not require God's help. This was due to the fact that "truth" as defined by Aquinas related to the universal and mystical truths of the supernatural (Copleston, 1991). This was not the same thing as "knowledge," which could involve those kinds of truths or could involve other types of intellectual information. Because the body was fallible and not of God, information derived through the senses could not always be trusted. This information did not come from God, but from the body of man, and therefore it was suspect. Despite that, Aquinas was interested in learning and knowledge for the sake of itself. He felt that the senses of the body put a person in direct contact with his or her environment. By doing this, the person was able to better understand information that was seen in the material world (Paterson & Pugh, 2006). Both the material world and supernatural world were important for an understanding of life and for a gaining of knowledge, which was not the same as the truth that came only from the Divine.

Higher intellectual knowledge, Aquinas believed, was from God. However, that knowledge could be coupled with information acquired through the senses (Copleston, 1991). It does not seem possible, with that viewpoint, that science as people understand it today could exist in the psychology of Aquinas. Most science of today discounts the possibility of God, or of any kind of god or supreme being, because there is no hard evidence on which scientists can actually lay their hands. Instead, they rely on carbon dating, fossils that have been discovered, and other information to determine the age of the earth. Additionally, they rely on Darwinian evolution and the "missing link," as well as DNA and other evidence, to establish an assumed connection between all living things. They argue that this connection must mean that all life on earth came from the same place, but they do not subscribe to the idea that this "same place" could have been a divine Creator.

Aquinas would likely not have understood how they could overlook all the "evidence" of God's handiwork all around them, and how they could discount the possibility that the knowledge they were acquiring came through their senses, but that the understanding of that knowledge came from the divine abilities given to them by God. Science and religion generally do not mix, although there are some who feel that both have a basis in truth and that both are correct - at least in part. While some scientists believe in God and some religious individuals believe in evolution, it is generally an either/or proposition, not one where both are possible or even acceptable. Aquinas would not have been interested in changing his philosophy and psychology about life and about God in order to meet the requirements of science. He was very devout, and remained that way throughout his life (Copleston, 1991). While scientists may not agree with his beliefs, there is a certain amount of respect that must be given to someone who holds so strongly to his beliefs in the face of information that may be potentially contradictory to his faith and viewpoint.