I think that every great theologian must propose an idea that is so stupid that all opponents can dismiss her out of hand as a quack.  St. Augustine had an entire suite of such proposals.  The one that caught Zimmerman’s fancy was the idea that – before the Fall – Adam and Eve had motor control over their – later uncontrollable – members.

Chapter 10 is devoted to proofs of quackery.

First, St. Thomas quoted Aristotle on the relation between the reason and “the irascible and concupiscible”.  The latter was governed by reason, but could not be commanded by reason.

Next, modern neuroscientists have offered the concept of a triune brain to describe human cognition.  The brain is a nested organ: neocortex(midbrain or limbic system(basal ganglia or brainstem)).  Or, one can call it human(mammalian(reptilian)).  Our cognition is similarly nested: reason(emotions and concupiscence(maintenance of consciousness, physical performance and mood).  Our brain structure rules out the direct command of performance (brainstem activity) by reason (neocortex activity).

After these and other proofs of Augustine’s quackery, Zimmerman turned the question around and wrote about how behavior modifies neural connections.  Suddenly, St. Augustine makes sense, since we are back into his themes of a sense of invulnerability, wayward members, shamelessness and pride.  These are the consequences of behaviors modifying neural connections.

How do we get to those behaviors?  We get there through the non-Augustine images of naiveté, concupiscence, law, and addiction.

There seems to be a pattern here.  What does that imply?