63. Divine Knowledge and the Absence of Discourse in God

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

God’s Non-Discursive Knowledge #

• God’s knowledge is not discursive in either of two senses: not by succession (moving from one thought to another) nor by causality (reasoning from premises to conclusions)
• God sees all things at once (simul), together, not successively or in temporal progression
• Augustine emphasizes: “God does not, in a particular way or bit by bit, see all things, as he looks first here and then there and so on. But he sees all things at once. Together.”
• This perfection of God’s knowledge contrasts with the imperfection of human reasoning

Two Kinds of Discourse #

• First Kind (Succession Only): Moving from understanding one thing in act to understanding another thing, with no causal connection between them. Example: looking at one card, then looking at the next card.
• Second Kind (Discourse by Causality): Proceeding from premises (known) to conclusions (previously unknown), where the conclusion follows necessarily because of the premises. The first thing is the cause of knowing the second thing.
• Human reason characteristically employs discourse by causality: knowing premises, one then comes to know conclusions
• God’s knowledge cannot involve either kind of discourse

Why God’s Knowledge Cannot Be Discursive #

• The first kind of discourse cannot belong to God because many things we understand, if understood separately, are understood at once if understood in something one (i.e., in God’s unified essence)
• The second kind of discourse cannot belong to God because:
  • It presupposes the first kind (one must hold both premises in mind together before deriving the conclusion)
  • It proceeds from known to unknown, implying a progression and coming-to-know that would introduce change in God
  • If God’s knowledge were discursive, it would imply he is ignorant before coming to know, which contradicts his nature as pure knowledge (ipsum intelligere)

God Knows All Things in Himself #

• God knows all things not by looking outside himself but by knowing them in himself
• All creatures are contained in God’s essence in a superior way
• God knows effects in their causes (himself) without temporal progression
• Example: Just as knowing “man is not a stone” requires knowing both man and stone together in one statement, God knows all distinct things unified in his single, eternal act of self-knowledge

The Problem of Ignorance as a Precondition for Learning #

• Objection: “The only reason why you’re able to learn is because you’re ignorant.”
• Response: Ignorance necessarily precedes learning, but is not the cause of learning
• Example: Before multiplying length by width, one doesn’t know the area. But one comes to know the area through knowledge of the width and the multiplication process, not through ignorance itself
• The error lies in confusing what happens to necessarily precede a thing with the actual cause
• This reflects “the falsehood of the accident” (fallacia accidentis) that deceives even the wise

Contingency and Freedom in God’s Knowledge #

• Application to Sartre’s error: identifying freedom with non-being or indeterminacy
• If will is truly free to choose between steak and chicken, it cannot be determined toward either before the choice (no determination)
• Sartre claims this lack of determination is freedom (non-being)
• But the ability to choose between options is not identical to the lack of determination—that’s a confusion similar to confusing ability to learn with ignorance
• God’s knowledge, however, is not subject to this problem; God sees all things eternally and necessarily in a unified act

Key Arguments #

Against Divine Discourse—The Objections #

Objection 1: God knows many things (himself and other things). Can he understand all at once?

• Response: Yes, because he understands all things in one thing (himself). Many understood things can exist together in something one, just as parts exist in a whole or diverse things appear in a mirror.

Objection 2: We know effects through causes (discursively). God knows effects more perfectly; therefore he must also reason from cause to effect.

• Response: God knows effects in their causes (himself) directly, not through a process of reasoning. His knowledge lacks the temporal progression and potentiality that characterizes our discursive reasoning. This shows the imperfection of our mind: we don’t immediately see consequences of what we know.

Objection 3: The knowledge of God must be discursive because it is not habitual but actual, and one can know many things habitually but understand only one at a time in act.

• Response: God understands all things at once, together, not successively. This is possible because all things are known in the one reality of God’s essence.

Thomas’s Response #

• In God’s knowledge there is no discourse (Article 7, Thomas’s answer)
• Our knowledge involves two-fold discourse; God’s knowledge transcends both kinds
• The resolution: discourse is not of God’s nature; it reveals the imperfection of created intellect
• God’s knowledge of conclusions doesn’t require temporal passage or coming-to-know

Important Definitions #

Discourse (Discursus) #

• From Latin discurrere: to run from one thing to another
• In medieval philosophy, often used as a synonym for reasoning
• Two principal kinds relevant to God’s knowledge:
  1. Succession only (discursus per successionem): moving from one understood thing to another understood thing in temporal sequence
  2. By causality (discursus per causalitatem): proceeding from premises/principles to conclusions where the latter follows necessarily from the former
• Characteristic of created reason; absent from divine knowledge

Simul (Together/At Once) #

• God’s mode of knowing all things together without temporal succession
• Can be translated as “together” or “at the same time,” but the emphasis is on simultaneity of understanding, not temporal simultaneity as creatures experience it
• Contrasts with ante and post (before and after), which define temporal discourse

Imperfect Act vs. Perfect Act #

• Imperfect Act (actus imperfectus): an act that remains incomplete, directed toward a future completion (e.g., walking, becoming)
• Perfect Act (actus perfectus): an act that is complete in itself, existing in the one acting (e.g., understanding, seeing)
• Understanding is a perfect act; when I understand something, I have already understood it (not moving toward understanding)
• God’s understanding is pure perfect act; he lacks the imperfect acts characteristic of creatures

Examples & Illustrations #

The Syllogism and Unity of Understanding #

• To know “man is not a stone,” one must know both man and stone together at the same time, unified in a single statement
• When thinking of man alone, one does not think of stone
• When thinking of stone alone, one does not think of man
• But in the unified judgment “man is not a stone,” both are known together
• Similarly, God knows all distinct things unified in his one act of self-knowledge

The Cards Example #

• Looking at one card and then at the next card is succession only (no causal connection between them)
• This illustrates the first kind of discourse without causal connection
• God’s knowledge cannot be this kind of succession because he is not moving from one act of understanding to another

The Premises and Conclusion #

• In a syllogism, one must hold both premises firmly in mind at the same time to draw the conclusion
• If one thought the major premise and then forgot it before considering the minor premise, no conclusion could be drawn
• Yet there is a kind of unity and connection: the conclusion is necessarily contained in the premises
• This illustrates how distinct things can be known together in one act through their causal relationship
• God’s knowledge functions in an infinitely more perfect way: all effects are eternally unified in the knowledge of their cause (God’s essence)

Finding the Tangent Line to a Circle #

• Problem: Draw a line from a point outside a circle that touches (is tangent to) the circle
• Difficulty: An infinite number of potential points on the circumference; one must find the correct one
• Solution requires drawing four specific lines in order:
  1. Draw a radius to a point on the circumference (identifies a point)
  2. Draw a circle at that point (auxiliary construction)
  3. Draw a perpendicular to that radius (finding the right angle)
  4. Draw a line from the external point to the center
• The proof uses the equality of triangles
• Illustrates how one must work through a discursive process to find what cannot be immediately seen
• Contrasts with God’s immediate, non-discursive knowledge: God sees the answer directly

Notable Quotes #

“God does not, in a particular way or bit by bit, see all things, as he looks first here and then there and so on. But he sees all things at once. Together.” — Augustine, cited by Berquist on God’s eternal knowledge

“The falsehood of the accident deceives even the wise.” — Aristotle, cited by Berquist on the error of mistaking necessary precedence for causality

“We live in the shadow of understanding.” — Isaac (philosopher), cited by Berquist to explain why humans must reason discursively

“In the divine knowledge there is no discourse.” — Thomas Aquinas (Article 7), central thesis of the lecture

Questions Addressed #

Does God Know Many Things at Once? #

• Answer: Yes. God knows many distinct things at once together in his one eternal act of self-knowledge. Just as multiple understood things can exist together in something one (e.g., parts in a whole, things seen in a mirror), all creatures are known together in God’s essence.

Must God’s Knowledge Be Discursive Since He Knows Many Things? #

• Answer: No. The objection confuses God’s knowledge with human knowledge. Humans must move discursively from one thing to another because their understanding is limited and imperfect. God’s knowledge transcends this imperfection; he sees all things at once in his unified essence.

If God Knows Effects Through Causes, Doesn’t He Reason Like We Do? #

• Answer: No, with an important distinction. We know effects from causes through a discursive process (reasoning from premises to conclusion), progressing through time from known to unknown. God knows effects in their causes (himself) without temporal progression or coming-to-know. His knowledge is not caused by reasoning but is an eternal, unified act.

Why Is Ignorance Not the Cause of Learning? #

• Answer: Ignorance necessarily precedes learning temporally, but it is not the efficient cause of learning. The actual cause is knowledge (of method, premises, etc.). One learns through knowledge, not through ignorance. The confusion of necessary precedence with causality is “the falsehood of the accident” that even the wise can fall into.

Is God’s Freedom Dependent on Indeterminacy? #

• Answer: No. Sartre’s error is identifying the ability to choose between options with the lack of determination toward any option. But these are not identical. A free will is determined—to choose according to reason and the good—not indetermined. God’s knowledge and will remain free even though they are eternally and necessarily unified.