50. Natural and Supernatural Knowledge of God

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

Natural Knowledge of God (Article 12) #

• Knowledge of God begins with sensible things and proceeds through the natural light of reason
• God cannot be known through His essence by natural reason, only through His effects (creatures)
• Natural reason can know that God exists and that He is the first cause of all things, but not what He is
• Knowledge of God through natural reason is possible because creatures, as effects, depend upon God as cause and reveal His power and excellence
• Vatican I declares it an article of faith that God’s existence can be known by natural reason; denial is anathema

The Problem of Imagination in Knowing God (Article 12, Objection 2) #

• We never think without imagining; God is bodiless; therefore how can we know God?
• Thomas’s solution: We can imagine sensible effects of God and come to know God through them, not as what He is but negatively
• We can negate imperfections: imagining a body, then understanding God is not a body; understanding composition of matter and form, then negating this in God
• The knowledge of our own soul and understanding becomes a gateway to knowing angels and God, through negation of imperfections

Grace and Supernatural Knowledge (Article 13) #

• Grace provides a more perfect knowledge of God than natural reason alone
• The natural light of understanding is strengthened (confortatory) by the pouring in of a gratuitous divine light
• Sometimes God divinely forms images in the imagination more suitable for knowing divine things than sensible images (exemplified in prophetic visions)
• Sensible things retain their role in both natural and supernatural knowledge

The Threefold Structure of Knowledge in This Life #

• Natural knowledge: Through sensible things and the natural light of reason; knows God through His effects
• Supernatural knowledge through grace: Strengthened light and sometimes divinely-formed images; access to revealed mysteries
• Beatific vision: Reserved for eternal life; seeing God as He is face-to-face (covered in previous articles)
• Articles 1-11 addressed the beatific vision; Article 12 turns to natural knowledge; Article 13 addresses knowledge through grace

Key Arguments #

Against Natural Knowledge of God’s Essence #

Boethius’s Argument (Objection 1, Article 12)

• Reason cannot grasp a simple form
• God is supremely simple
• Therefore, natural reason cannot arrive at knowledge of God
• Thomas’s response: Reason cannot know what God is, but can know that He is (an ens), which is the existential dimension knowledge requires

The Imagination Problem (Objection 2, Article 12)

• We never think without imagining (sensible forms)
• God is bodiless and cannot be imagined
• Therefore, we cannot think of God by natural reason
• Thomas’s response: We imagine sensible effects and negate imperfections to arrive at negative knowledge of God; we do not imagine God Himself but negate what we imagine

The Moral Argument (Objection 3, Article 12)

• Natural knowledge is common to both good and bad (since nature is common to both)
• But knowledge of God belongs only to the good (per Augustine)
• Therefore, natural knowledge of God is impossible
• Thomas’s response: Distinguish between knowledge of God through grace (which belongs to the good) and knowledge through natural reason (which can belong to both good and bad); Augustine’s later position (Retractions) acknowledges even the unclean can know many true things about God by natural reason

The Challenge of Article 13: Grace vs. Natural Knowledge #

First Objection (Dionysius)

• The highest knowledge of God in this life (through grace) is knowing Him as entirely unknown
• But this seems no different from what natural reason knows: God is known more by negation than affirmation
• Therefore, grace does not provide more perfect knowledge than natural reason

Second Objection (The Imagination Problem Revisited)

• Natural knowledge of God requires images
• But Dionysius says the divine ray must be veiled with sacred veils (sensible things)
• This seems identical in both natural and supernatural knowledge
• Therefore, grace adds no superior knowledge

Third Objection (Faith vs. Knowledge)

• Faith and belief apply to unseen things, not to knowledge
• Gregory the Great: What is seen does not have faith; what is not seen has faith, not knowledge
• Therefore, knowledge through grace does not seem to be knowledge at all

Thomas’s Resolution

• Natural knowledge requires: (1) images from sensible things, and (2) the natural light of reason
• Grace aids both: (1) by sometimes forming divinely-formed images more suitable to divine things than sensible images, and (2) by strengthening the natural light with an infused divine light
• This strengthening of light is essential: grace pours in additional light to the natural intellect, making knowledge more perfect
• Apostolic authority (1 Corinthians 2): God revealed through the Holy Spirit things the philosophers (princes of this age) did not know

Important Definitions #

Natural Light of Reason (lux naturalis intellectualis) #

• The power by which the intellect abstracts universal intelligible conceptions from sensible images
• Enables separation of what is common to multiple instances (e.g., the nature of “dog” from particular dogs)
• Can be strengthened by grace through an infused gratuitous light

Gratuitous Light (lux gratuita) #

• Divine light poured into the intellect by grace
• Strengthens the natural light, enabling understanding beyond the reach of unaided reason
• Particularly relevant for understanding revealed mysteries

Negative Knowledge (cognitio negativa) #

• Knowledge of what God is not rather than what He is
• Essential to knowing God in this life given divine simplicity and transcendence
• Requires negating imperfections discovered in creatures (composition, corporeality, limitation, etc.)

Divinely-Formed Images (imagines divinitus formatae) #

• Images formed in the imagination by divine action rather than through natural sensation
• More suited to expressing divine truths than sensible images taken from creatures
• Exemplified particularly in prophetic visions

Examples & Illustrations #

Aristotle and the Bat #

• Aristotle’s comparison: “As the eyes of the bat are to the light of day, so is our reason to knowing God”
• Illustrates the radical inadequacy of natural reason for comprehending the divine
• The bat’s eyes, so sensitive they cannot bear daylight, are like reason attempting to grasp God’s simple essence

The Child Learning “Dog” #

• One day: mother says “dog” while pointing; child hears and remembers
• Another day: child encounters another dog on the street; memory accumulates
• Eventually: child sees a dog and says “dog,” having abstracted the common nature through multiple sensible experiences
• Illustrates how the natural light separates what is common from sensible images through experience and memory

Strengthening of Light #

• Analogy: A candle provides faint light; bringing a torch into the same space provides much more light
• Grace does not replace the natural light but adds to it, illuminating more fully
• Prayer before study invokes angels to strengthen the light of the mind; grace operates similarly

Scientific Repeatability and the Common #

• Schrödinger (wave mechanics): An experiment is only worthy of scientific consideration if it can be repeated with the same results by competent scientists
• This goes back to something common to multiple instances
• Analogous to natural law: universal principles (e.g., “the whole is greater than the part”) partake of divine law
• Illustrates how knowledge depends on the universal and the common

Divine Law Feeding Human Law (Heraclitus) #

• Divine law (e.g., “do not take innocent life”) feeds human laws (e.g., “drive on the right side”)
• The specific law about driving is not necessary in itself, but flows from the universal principle of preserving innocent life
• Sensible and positive laws are all fed by deeper natural and divine principles

Questions Addressed #

Can God be known in this life by natural reason? #

Yes, but with severe limitations:

• Natural reason can know that God exists (His existence)
• Natural reason can know that He is the first cause and first mover
• Natural reason can know certain attributes as necessary to Him as first cause (that He is eternal, immutable, simple, etc.)
• But natural reason cannot know His essence or see Him as He is
• Knowledge is mediated through creatures and their effects; creatures are not equal to God’s power

How do we overcome the imagination problem in knowing God? #

Through negation and analogy:

• We imagine sensible things (bodies, compositions, limitations)
• We understand what these are
• We negate these properties of God (God is not a body, not composite, not limited)
• We arrive at negative knowledge of what God is not
• We also understand that God’s perfections exceed our comprehension, requiring us to negate the imperfection of our manner of knowing

Does grace provide knowledge that is truly distinct from natural knowledge? #

Yes, and for two reasons:

• Grace strengthens the natural light of the intellect itself with an infused divine light
• Grace sometimes provides divinely-formed images more suitable to divine truths than sensible images
• These allow access to revealed mysteries that natural reason cannot reach (e.g., the Trinity, the Incarnation)
• The evidence is apostolic: God revealed things through the Spirit that the philosophers did not know

Can the unclean (sinners) know God through natural reason? #

Yes, though Augustine initially denied this:

• Augustine’s later position (Retractions) corrects his earlier work
• Natural knowledge belongs to both good and bad because nature itself is common to both
• Knowledge of God through His essence (in grace) requires sanctification
• But knowledge of many truths about God can belong to even the sinful and unbelieving through natural reason
• Example: Mortimer Adler learned much about God through Aristotle and Thomas without converting until late in life
• A philosopher’s understanding of God is not a sign of sanctity; one can think about God because it is intellectually interesting, not because one is holy

What is the relationship between these three articles (11, 12, 13)? #

A structural progression:

• Articles 1-11: The beatific vision (seeing God as He is face-to-face in eternal life)
• Article 12: Natural knowledge of God in this life (through creatures and effects)
• Article 13: Supernatural knowledge of God in this life (through grace and faith)
• The structure moves from the highest knowledge (beatific vision) to the natural and supernatural modes available in this mortal life
• Often in philosophy, extremes are discussed first, then the middle ground; so too here: heavenly vision, then natural knowledge, then graced knowledge