Can God truly understand the human condition?

[Skye_Ariel]

I think the issue the ‘con’ side has is conflating God’s understanding of something with, as the example given, the mere intellectual knowledge, divorced from experiential knowledge, that a doctor might have of an illness he or she has never suffered.

I might point out that God’s knowledge is far more perfect than human knowledge in every respect. He knows, understands, whatever word you want to use, everything - and in every possible way that it CAN be known, understood or whatever. And to the utmost degree that a thing can be known or understood. Not merely in every possible way or to the highest possible degree that a human being can know or understand it. That is what ‘omniscient’ means! Not just superior knowledge/understanding but the utmost - incomparably beyond any understanding that we can gain by any amount of either intellectualising or experience.

The comparison of a doctor knowing diseases without experiencing them is invalid because a doctor is only human and can only understand things with a human understanding. Period. People have to realize and get it through their head that God’s knowledge and understanding does not hinge upon Him being able to experience it first hand. We humans need that, God doesn’t because he’s smarter than us. His mind doesn’t even work like ours. Once people get that, then the question becomes easier to answer. If God can walk on water, and defy the laws of nature and make a virgin get pregnant without a man, and raise people from the dead etc then His intellect can defy the law of “you have to experience it in order to truly understand it” idea. God truly understands the things people feel and experience better than they themselves understand it. He’s the one that made the human mind with the capacity TO feel those things.

It’s like saying God is only as smart as we humans are, therefore since He never experienced those feelings can He truly understand us. The whole statement is negated by the fact that God is not only as smart as a human. So the whole argument is built on an untruth. It’s like saying dogs can fly, therefore can they truly fly faster than birds since they weigh more than birds? The whole question or argument is invalid because it’s based on an untruth and on the assumption that dogs can fly. LOL! Since dogs can’t fly then the whole argument is useless. Since God has intellect superior to humans and His mind doesn’t work like ours, the whole argument is useless.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I think the issue the ‘con’ side has is conflating God’s understanding of something with, as the example given, the mere intellectual knowledge, divorced from experiential knowledge, that a doctor might have of an illness he or she has never suffered.

I might point out that God’s knowledge is far more perfect than human knowledge in every respect. He knows, understands, whatever word you want to use, everything - and in every possible way that it CAN be known, understood or whatever. And to the utmost degree that a thing can be known or understood. Not merely in every possible way or to the highest possible degree that a human being can know or understand it. That is what ‘omniscient’ means! Not just superior knowledge/understanding but the utmost - incomparably beyond any understanding that we can gain by any amount of either intellectualising or experience.

The bolded section is exactly my point. Having such a literally inexhaustible wealth of knowledge, it seems to me, renders the idea of God experiencing confusion or doubt logically absurd. God can obviously know the qualia of our experience and perhaps even understand what they feel like (whether physically or psychologically), but it doesn’t seem that He himself could experience those things in the same way we do. Those elements of our pain that are impossible for Him to experience (the doubt of His own existence; the guilt of sin) would seem to be very important elements which alter and intensify the suffering in ways that it is logically impossible for a perfect being to fully understand in any subjective sense.

The Incarnation must be the key, but the question is how could God diminish, so to speak, his divinity so as to experience agony and fear as He apparently did in the garden of Gethsemane? Is it an unfathomable mystery? Perhaps, but I think there has to be at least some way that we can wrap our minds around it to some degree. I wonder if there is such a passage lingering somewhere in the depths of Aquinas’ corpus…

 

[prodigalson2011]

Skye_Ariel:
The comparison of a doctor knowing diseases without experiencing them is invalid because a doctor is only human and can only understand things with a human understanding. Period. People have to realize and get it through their head that God’s knowledge and understanding does not hinge upon Him being able to experience it first hand.

You could say this of any analogy made about God. Unfortunately, there is nothing equivocal to God, so the only way we can even speak of Him is by way of analogy vis a vis the things He has created. That’s Theology 101.

So while my analogy is not perfect due to the doctor’s being human, the principle is at least one worthy of consideration, in my humble opinion.

We humans need that, God doesn’t because he’s smarter than us. His mind doesn’t even work like ours. Once people get that, then the question becomes easier to answer. If God can walk on water, and defy the laws of nature and make a virgin get pregnant without a man, and raise people from the dead etc then His intellect can defy the law of “you have to experience it in order to truly understand it” idea. God truly understands the things people feel and experience better than they themselves understand it. He’s the one that made the human mind with the capacity TO feel those things.

This is a non sequitur. There is no logical link between performing miracles (which are not logically contradictory) and an omniscient being understanding what it feels like to doubt (which would seem, prima facie, to be logically contradictory, as doubt is a byproduct of non-omniscience). Again, it is a question of whether not the very concept of God understanding doubt is a logical absurdity of the “making a rock so heavy he can’t lift it” variety.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Actually, the real basic issue is the same old one – Is Jesus Christ true God?

I disagree. For the purposes of this thread (our personal beliefs aside), we must assume that Jesus Christ IS in fact true God. The issue is whether the Incarnation allowed God to fully share in our suffering.

The Catholic teaching regarding the divinity of Jesus Christ is known as the “Hypostatic Union.” There was a time when the principles of the Hypostatic Union were taught in grade school without the Greek name. This union refers to the One Divine Person with two natures, divine and human. In other words, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity did not give up His Divinity when He assumed, not absorbed, human nature. It should be common sense that the Divine nature is greater than the human nature.

Which, God being pure intellect, would seem to preclude Him from ever experiencing the intellectual deficiencies of human beings. To add another item to the list, God cannot be stupid. Since God cannot be stupid, can He understand what it’s like to be stupid (like me ) ?

The logical approach to this problem is the Incarnation. At this point, we need to recognize that Jesus Christ did not need the contracted State of Original Sin in order to be human like Adam was before He freely disobeyed his Maker.

Of course not, but Adam was, pre-fall, also much different than us. We do not have the preternatural intellectual and spiritual gifts that he had. So the comparison, I think, fails.

An additional point, as long as I am looking at the nitty-gritty about words. What is meant by the human condition? What human condition did Christ assume at the Incarnation?

I would say that the human condition is ultimately that of sinfulness. So Christ did not take on the human condition; He took on human nature. Where our human natures are severely wounded, His was perfect. It is that very woundedness which I would say constitutes the human condition.

 

[littlestsouls2]

A few points:

• God is infinite Truth; He necessarily apprehends all truth.
• His knowledge is not necessarily experiential knowledge e.g. He will never “know” what it is like to have a peverse will. As to the manner in which God truly understands the human condition, that I do not profess to know!
• If God did not truly understand the human condition, He would lack the attribute of justice, for His judgements would not be based on truth. The absurdity of such a proposition suffices to affirm the reality that God understands the human condition.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

It seems that asking whether God could understand what it actually feels like to doubt His existence, or to be overcome by temptation, is a question akin to asking whether He can make a rock too big for Him to lift. Since God is morally perfect and omniscient, it is impossible for Him to doubt His own existence or succumb to sin. And, as the saying goes, there’s no substitute for experience. You can’t know what broccoli tastes like if you never put it in your mouth.

I wonder, though, why you would have to experience something first hand in order to understand it. I have a friend who had a drug addiction, and I feel like I understand that very well – I even understand “what it’s like”, because I listened to my friend tell me about it.

And prayer is supposed to be exactly that: us telling God what it’s like to be us, so that we might experience His mercy.

 

[Robertanthony]

A few points:

• God is infinite Truth; He necessarily apprehends all truth.
• His knowledge is not necessarily experiential knowledge e.g. He will never “know” what it is like to have a peverse will. As to the manner in which God truly understands the human condition, that I do not profess to know!
• If God did not truly understand the human condition, He would lack the attribute of justice, for His judgements would not be based on truth. The absurdity of such a proposition suffices to affirm the reality that God understands the human condition.

Human condition pre-fall is essentially different from human condition afterwards. Ontologically different, maybe. But apples and oranges different. I don’t doubt God knew human condition as he had first designed it, with the 3 preternatural gifts (infused knowledge, immortality, and integrity). But lose these three things, and you become a wholly different beast. Also your argument seems to contain a fallacy, looks like a circular reasoning, or an appeal to authority. God is just, therefore knows everything, if he didn’t saying he was just would be absurd. Not terribly conducive to discussion. I’M not smart enough or well-schooled in philosophy to say just what it is, if anyone knows, I,d be happy to learn.

 

[grannymh]

Of course not, but Adam was, pre-fall, also much different than us. We do not have the preternatural intellectual and spiritual gifts that he had. So the comparison, I think, fails.

I respect your post 36 disclaimer. “As a disclaimer, I do not mean to say that I think the position I’m arguing is right, but only that I find it a very difficult one to resolve.”

It is my personal observation of other threads that it is precisely the human nature of pre-Fall Adam that is very difficult to resolve in the light of Original Sin. The last sentence of CCC, 389 is a warning regarding the connection of Christ’s Divinity with the action of Original Sin committed by the first human Adam.
“The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.”

The preternatural intellectual and spiritual gifts are called gifts because they are not inherent to human nature per se. They are dependent on Adam’s choice to remain in Divine intimacy aka his state of Original Holiness. The gift of immortality prevented the possibility of Adam’s death. Original Sin broke Adam’s relationship with God and thus he lost the preternatural gifts, but he did not lose his human nature.

Please describe Adam’s human nature so that we know the nature of the humanity which Jesus assumed at Incarnation. (Romans 5: 12-21; 1 Corinthians 15: 222)

Information sources in addition to post 40 above: CCC, 355-366; CCC, 374-376; CCC,1730; CCC,396; CCC, 404-405; CCC, 389; CCC, 464 and following; CCC, 470-477; CCC, Glossary, Hypostatic Union, page 882)

Links to the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

I

 

[prodigalson2011]

I wonder, though, why you would have to experience something first hand in order to understand it. I have a friend who had a drug addiction, and I feel like I understand that very well – I even understand “what it’s like”, because I listened to my friend tell me about it.

And prayer is supposed to be exactly that: us telling God what it’s like to be us, so that we might experience His mercy.

I think the word “understand” is causing a lot of confusion in this thread. Perhaps a better distinction would be “empathizing” versus “sympathizing,” where empathizing is the ability to relate to another’s suffering on the basis of shared experience, while sympathizing is the intellectual comprehension of the fact of another’s suffering and a consequent compassion. Almost any addict will tell you that while sympathy is certainly appreciated, the fact is that no one can understand their struggle as well as another addict.

To understand something via description or intellectual comprehension can only provide an approximation based on some analogous experience you have had. For example, you may be able to form some approximate idea of what it’s like to experience withdrawals based on some other intense pain you have felt before. But without having experienced the particular psychological and physical torments of that specific condition, you can’t fully appreciate what it’s like (which, as a side note, I would wager is why so many are so unsympathetic to the plight of such individuals.) So, while you can conceive of such an experience in your mind and grasp it intellectually, you can never really empathize with that person’s struggle. The difference between understanding something and living through it is not a trivial one, in my estimation.

So, to rephrase the initial question, can God empathize, rather than merely sympathize with the human condition?

 

[grannymh]

So, to rephrase the initial question, can God empathize, rather than merely sympathize with the human condition?

Yes. It is called the Hypostatic Union aka Jesus Christ both True God and True Man. Jesus Christ is not part God and part man nor is He the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. Jesus Christ is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity Who assumed, took on, humanity’s nature as expiation/reparation for the first human’s Original Sin.

Refer to Information sources in post 48.

 

[paziego]

I wonder, though, why you would have to experience something first hand in order to understand it. I have a friend who had a drug addiction, and I feel like I understand that very well – I even understand “what it’s like”, because I listened to my friend tell me about it.

And prayer is supposed to be exactly that: us telling God what it’s like to be us, so that we might experience His mercy.

That is not the same as participating in it fully, as a drug addict. It doesn’t formally make you a drug addict, which is what the theology would require.

 

[paziego]

Being fully human means not being fully God also. The point is that that mixed perspective changes the game of human experience. Jesus was capable of teaching with authority even as a child, so his intellect and divine nature were manifest way before his ministry.

 

[grannymh]

Being fully human means not being fully God also. The point is that that mixed perspective changes the game of human experience. Jesus was capable of teaching with authority even as a child, so his intellect and divine nature were manifest way before his ministry.

When we speak about Jesus Christ, we say that He is fully human but without any kind of sin and He is also fully God. The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus Christ is One Divine Person with two natures, human and divine. At the Incarnation, the Divine Jesus Christ assumed human nature. Taking on human nature did not replace His Divine nature as the Second Person of the Trinity.

There is some information about this Mystery of Christ in posts 40, 48, & 50.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Yes. It is called the Hypostatic Union aka Jesus Christ both True God and True Man. Jesus Christ is not part God and part man nor is He the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. Jesus Christ is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity Who assumed, took on, humanity’s nature as expiation/reparation for the first human’s Original Sin.

Refer to Information sources in post 48.

But, again, the question is not whether He was a true man, but whether he can empathize (i.e. have a subjective understanding) of what it’s like to be a fallen creature. To go back to the example used in my previous post, it’s the difference between a drug addict’s experience of his addiction and the understanding given him by his loved ones.

Both the drug addict and the loved one are human beings, of that there is no question. But the loved one who is not a drug addict obviously does not fully understand what it is like to be a drug addict.

Likewise, while Christ is truly human, he is not a sinner nor is He of finite and fallible intellect. I’m pretty sure it would be a heresy to say that Christ could have sinned or made a faulty decision.

In taking on human nature, what Christ necessarily took on were the biological qualities of the human being: in other words, a finite corporeal body subject to the forces of nature. Thus, he needed to eat and sleep, he could feel physical pain and anxiety and the natural (neutral) pull of the bodily passions. What he most certainly did NOT take on were the moral and intellectual qualities of normal human beings: concupiscence, sinfulness, guilt, finite intellect, weak will, etc.

Whether these things are part of human nature is perhaps another question altogether. For it is hard to see how at least some of these things (e.g., a finite mind) can be separated from the notion of human nature.

In any case, it seems that there are certain aspects of the human condition which God is, ipso facto, incapable of experiencing as they seem to entail a logical contradiction (e.g., a morally perfect being knowing what it feels like to have a guilty conscience.)

 

[wmw]

To be more capable of sinning is not something that makes us more human, but the opposite. Christ and pre-fall Adam were more human than we. Christ is the fullness of humanity and we are lesser images of humanity and God.

From staugcatholic.org/articleSynd.asp?ArticleID=61

Father Stevens: Could Jesus have sinned? If he lacked the capacity to sin, then he wasn’t really human. And yet, he was not capable of sinning. Author Gerald O’Collins discusses this in his book, Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus Christ. Sin is not actually part of our natural humanity; it is what diminishes our humanity. We were not created to sin – that does not contribute to the fullness of who we are as human beings. Jesus, free of sin, is perfectly human.

On empathy: if empathizing is loving and God is love then God is empathizing.

 

[prodigalson2011]

To be more capable of sinning is not something that makes us more human, but the opposite. Christ and pre-fall Adam were more human than we. Christ is the fullness of humanity and we are lesser images of humanity and God.

Whether we choose to say that sinning makes us more or less human, nevertheless, the point remains that there is a fundamental part of our condition that would seem to be experientially inaccessible to God.

On empathy: if empathizing is loving and God is love then God is empathizing.

This is a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent. A popular example of the fallacy goes like this:

1. All cats are mammals.
2. You are a mammal.
3. Therefore, you are a cat.

Just as “being a mammal” is a necessary condition for being a cat, but being a cat is not a necessary condition for being a mammal, so love is necessary to have empathy, but empathy is not necessary to have love. In other words, one can love without necessarily being able to empathize, just as the previous poster can love his drug-addicted friend without being able to empathize with (or subjectively relate to) his situation, but one cannot empathize without love.

To give another example, this one specific to God, we could say:

1. All human beings have intellects
2. All human beings have sinned
3. God is an intellect
4. Therefore, God is a human being
5. Therefore, God has sinned

This argument assumes that there is some necessary link between having an intellect and being human.

To sum it up, one commits the error of “affirming the consequent” when his chain of reasoning assumes “P” (in this case, empathizing) is the only sufficient condition for “Q” (in this case, love), which is clearly not the case.

So the conclusion that because empathy is loving and God is love that God must be empathetic to our situation simply does not follow.

 

[grannymh]

To be more capable of sinning is not something that makes us more human, but the opposite. Christ and pre-fall Adam were more human than we. Christ is the fullness of humanity and we are lesser images of humanity and God.

On empathy: if empathizing is loving and God is love then God is empathizing.

Thank you so very much.

I am so glad to find someone who accepts Catholic teaching and can truly explain the basic truth…

 

[Robertanthony]

But, again, the question is not whether He was a true man, but whether he can empathize (i.e. have a subjective understanding) of what it’s like to be a fallen creature. To go back to the example used in my previous post, it’s the difference between a drug addict’s experience of his addiction and the understanding given him by his loved ones.

Both the drug addict and the loved one are human beings, of that there is no question. But the loved one who is not a drug addict obviously does not fully understand what it is like to be a drug addict.

Likewise, while Christ is truly human, he is not a sinner nor is He of finite and fallible intellect. I’m pretty sure it would be a heresy to say that Christ could have sinned or made a faulty decision.

In taking on human nature, what Christ necessarily took on were the biological qualities of the human being: in other words, a finite corporeal body subject to the forces of nature. Thus, he needed to eat and sleep, he could feel physical pain and anxiety and the natural (neutral) pull of the bodily passions. What he most certainly did NOT take on were the moral and intellectual qualities of normal human beings: concupiscence, sinfulness, guilt, finite intellect, weak will, etc.

Whether these things are part of human nature is perhaps another question altogether. For it is hard to see how at least some of these things (e.g., a finite mind) can be separated from the notion of human nature.

In any case, it seems that there are certain aspects of the human condition which God is, ipso facto, incapable of experiencing as they seem to entail a logical contradiction (e.g., a morally perfect being knowing what it feels like to have a guilty conscience.)

Perfect. Nobody who thinks God can truly have an in depth knowledge of what it’s like to be born in sin, to be attracted to sin, to be torn between the love of God, the fear of hell on the one hand, and giving in to the pleasure of sin on the other hand, to doubt God’s love, nobody is able, it seems , to come up with compelling arguments to back up their stance. Perhaps, God underestimates the difficulties of being a human being sans the preternatural gifts. Losing the preternatural gifts is a huge game changer. How would God know what it’s like to be consumed by something he viscerally hates (i.e. sin). HE can cerrtainly realize the person has given in to sin, has chosen the cretion rather than the creator, and treats the person accordingly, but the inner dynamics that have led the person to choose creatures or lesser goods over himself, I think, are foreign to him, it’s a territory he can,t tread.

Whether we choose to say that sinning makes us more or less human, nevertheless, the point remains that there is a fundamental part of our condition that would seem to be experientially inaccessible to God.

This is a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent. A popular example of the fallacy goes like this:

1. All cats are mammals.
2. You are a mammal.
3. Therefore, you are a cat.

Just as “being a mammal” is a necessary condition for being a cat, but being a cat is not a necessary condition for being a mammal, so love is necessary to have empathy, but empathy is not necessary to have love. In other words, one can love without necessarily being able to empathize, just as the previous poster can love his drug-addicted friend without being able to empathize with (or subjectively relate to) his situation, but one cannot empathize without love.

To give another example, this one specific to God, we could say:

1. All human beings have intellects
2. All human beings have sinned
3. God is an intellect
4. Therefore, God is a human being
5. Therefore, God has sinned

This argument assumes that there is some necessary link between having an intellect and being human.

To sum it up, one commits the error of “affirming the consequent” when his chain of reasoning assumes “P” (in this case, empathizing) is the only sufficient condition for “Q” (in this case, love), which is clearly not the case.

So the conclusion that because empathy is loving and God is love that God must be empathetic to our situation simply does not follow.

There are quite a few fallacies being used on here. Assuming God is fair or perfect, anything that would tend to question either of these attributes is de facto discarded.

 

[Usagi]

Would the fact that God reads minds have any relevance here? People are talking as though God can only understand our struggles intellectually, as an outsider – but remember that He knows all our thoughts and feelings as well. Even though He cannot be a sinner or an atheist or whatever, He knows exactly what the experience is like for us, and even how it’s different for each one of us.

Usagi

 

[grannymh]

Whether we choose to say that sinning makes us more or less human, nevertheless, the point remains that there is a fundamental part of our condition that would seem to be experientially inaccessible to God.

This is a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent. A popular example of the fallacy goes like this:

1. All cats are mammals.
2. You are a mammal.
3. Therefore, you are a cat.

Just as “being a mammal” is a necessary condition for being a cat, but being a cat is not a necessary condition for being a mammal, so love is necessary to have empathy, but empathy is not necessary to have love. In other words, one can love without necessarily being able to empathize, just as the previous poster can love his drug-addicted friend without being able to empathize with (or subjectively relate to) his situation, but one cannot empathize without love.

To give another example, this one specific to God, we could say:

1. All human beings have intellects
2. All human beings have sinned
3. God is an intellect
4. Therefore, God is a human being
5. Therefore, God has sinned

This argument assumes that there is some necessary link between having an intellect and being human.

To sum it up, one commits the error of “affirming the consequent” when his chain of reasoning assumes “P” (in this case, empathizing) is the only sufficient condition for “Q” (in this case, love), which is clearly not the case.

So the conclusion that because empathy is loving and God is love that God must be empathetic to our situation simply does not follow.

If one intends to use logic, then using the Deductive Method of reasoning starts with an appropriate first true axiom.

For example, if a person wishes to reach a conclusion concerning two separate distinctive natures such as divine and human, then an appropriate first true axiom would be that God, as the one almighty all-powerful true Divine Creator as taught by the Catholic Church, exists. It would follow that all creatures, including humans, have to be created because the first axiom stipulates that there is one Creator. The act of creation also means that God as Creator interacts individually with humans according to Catholicism. In addition, the Catholic Church teaches that human nature is an unique unification of the material (decomposing anatomy) world and the spiritual (rational soul) world.

Since logic was brought up in post 56, may I gently suggest presenting the logical axioms which follow from above and lead to the post 56 point that there is a “fundamental part of our condition that would seem to be experientially inaccessible to God.”

I am looking forward to reading the required axioms which lead to the logical support for something in the human condition which would seem to be experientially inaccessible to God. I am curious if you will use the State of Mortal Sin which is a truth according to the Catholic Church. I also wonder if experiential knowledge is proper only to humans. Personally, I find myself becoming a form or type of experiential learner. Finally, I wonder if the principle of non-contradiction is somehow involved.

I do look forward to your posting on this.

.