FOURTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 86, Art. 4]

Whether Our Intellect Can Know the Future?

Objection 1: It would seem that our intellect knows the future. For

our intellect knows by means of intelligible species abstracted from

the "here" and "now," and related indifferently to all time. But it

can know the present. Therefore it can know the future.

Obj. 2: Further, man, while his senses are in suspense, can know

some future things, as in sleep, and in frenzy. But the intellect

is freer and more vigorous when removed from sense. Therefore the

intellect of its own nature can know the future.

Obj. 3: The intellectual knowledge of man is superior to any

knowledge of brutes. But some animals know the future; thus crows

by their frequent cawing foretell rain. Therefore much more can

the intellect know the future.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Eccles. 8:6, 7), "There is a great

affliction for man, because he is ignorant of things past; and things

to come he cannot know by any messenger."

_I answer that,_ We must apply the same distinction to future things,

as we applied above (A. 3) to contingent things. For future things

considered as subject to time are singular, and the human intellect

knows them by reflection only, as stated above (A. 1). But the

principles of future things may be universal; and thus they may enter

the domain of the intellect and become the objects of science.

Speaking, however, of the knowledge of the future in a general way,

we must observe that the future may be known in two ways: either in

itself, or in its cause. The future cannot be known in itself save by

God alone; to Whom even that is present which in the course of events

is future, forasmuch as from eternity His glance embraces the whole

course of time, as we have said above when treating of God's

knowledge (Q. 14, A. 13). But forasmuch as it exists in its cause,

the future can be known by us also. And if, indeed, the cause be such

as to have a necessary connection with its future result, then the

future is known with scientific certitude, just as the astronomer

foresees the future eclipse. If, however, the cause be such as to

produce a certain result more frequently than not, then can the

future be known more or less conjecturally, according as its cause

is more or less inclined to produce the effect.

Reply Obj. 1: This argument considers that knowledge which is drawn

from universal causal principles; from these the future may be known,

according to the order of the effects to the cause.

Reply Obj. 2: As Augustine says (Confess. xii [*Gen. ad lit. xii.

13]), the soul has a certain power of forecasting, so that by its very

nature it can know the future; hence when withdrawn from corporeal

sense, and, as it were, concentrated on itself, it shares in the

knowledge of the future. Such an opinion would be reasonable if we

were to admit that the soul receives knowledge by participating the

ideas as the Platonists maintained, because in that case the soul by

its nature would know the universal causes of all effects, and would

only be impeded in its knowledge by the body, and hence when

withdrawn from the corporeal senses it would know the future.

But since it is connatural to our intellect to know things, not thus,

but by receiving its knowledge from the senses; it is not natural for

the soul to know the future when withdrawn from the senses: rather

does it know the future by the impression of superior spiritual and

corporeal causes; of spiritual causes, when by Divine power the human

intellect is enlightened through the ministry of angels, and the

phantasms are directed to the knowledge of future events; or, by the

influence of demons, when the imagination is moved regarding the

future known to the demons, as explained above (Q. 57, A. 3). The

soul is naturally more inclined to receive these impressions of

spiritual causes when it is withdrawn from the senses, as it is then

nearer to the spiritual world, and freer from external distractions.

The same may also come from superior corporeal causes. For it is

clear that superior bodies influence inferior bodies. Hence, in

consequence of the sensitive faculties being acts of corporeal

organs, the influence of the heavenly bodies causes the imagination

to be affected, and so, as the heavenly bodies cause many future

events, the imagination receives certain images of some such events.

These images are perceived more at night and while we sleep than in

the daytime and while we are awake, because, as stated in _De Somn.

et Vigil._ ii [*De Divinat. per somn. ii], "impressions made by day

are evanescent. The night air is calmer, when silence reigns, hence

bodily impressions are made in sleep, when slight internal movements

are felt more than in wakefulness, and such movements produce in the

imagination images from which the future may be foreseen."

Reply Obj. 3: Brute animals have no power above the imagination

wherewith to regulate it, as man has his reason, and therefore their

imagination follows entirely the influence of the heavenly bodies.

Thus from such animals' movements some future things, such as rain

and the like, may be known rather than from human movements directed

by reason. Hence the Philosopher says (De Somn. et Vig.), that "some

who are most imprudent are most far-seeing; for their intelligence

is not burdened with cares, but is as it were barren and bare of all

anxiety moving at the caprice of whatever is brought to bear on it."

_______________________

Summa Theologica, Part I (Prima Pars) From the Complete American Edition · 第 540 / 722 题