Can God be known through reason alone? Flashcards
(18 cards)
Introduction
- Clarify the question
- Two key options
- Consensus and debate
- Define natural theology
- Define revealed theology
- Thesis overview
Clarify the question: This question is not primarily about whether God exists (philosophy of religion topics like cosmological/teleological arguments address that), but rather about the type of knowledge appropriate for Christian belief: faith vs. reason.
Two key options:
• Faith as the foundation for belief in God.
• Reason as a possible basis for knowledge of God.
Consensus and debate: Most theologians agree faith is foundational, but debate exists on the role or validity of reason.
Define natural theology: The theory that knowledge of God can be gained by human reason and observation of the natural world.
Two forms:
• Reason applied to creation (Catholic view, e.g. Aquinas).
• Sensing God directly (Protestant, e.g. Calvin’s sensus divinitatis).
Define revealed theology: Knowledge of God through God’s revelation (Jesus, Bible), based on faith (both Catholics and Protestants).
Thesis overview: Explore Aquinas’ reason-based natural theology, Protestant critiques (Augustine, Barth, Calvin), and their evaluation to address whether God can be known through reason alone.
Paragraph 1
Main Body Paragraph 1: Aquinas and the Catholic Natural Theology—Reason as a valid but limited path to God
Main Body Paragraph 1: Aquinas and the Catholic Natural Theology—Reason as a valid but limited path to God
A01: Aquinas’ position
• Reason cannot comprehend God’s infinite divine nature fully but can gain lesser knowledge:
• God’s existence (via cosmological and teleological arguments).
• God’s moral law (natural law theory).
• God’s nature by analogy (attribution and proportion).
• Reason provides evidence that supports faith, not a full proof replacing faith.
• Natural theology leads humans to admiration, reverence, and love for God, supporting faith.
• Catholic view exemplified by Pope John Paul II: faith and reason are complementary.
Main Body Paragraph 1: Aquinas and the Catholic Natural Theology—Reason as a valid but limited path to God
A01: Response to original sin and reasons reliability
• Augustine and Barth: original sin corrupts reason, so reason is unreliable for knowing God.
• Aquinas’ counter-argument:
Original sin damages but does not destroy reason or inclination to good.
Humans still have rationality and synderesis (innate inclination to good).
Rationality is necessary for sinning, so it persists post-fall.
Reason can still sometimes lead us to knowledge of God and natural moral law, with God’s grace.
Aquinas’ balanced realism: human nature is a mix of good and bad; reason remains a valid tool.
Main Body Paragraph 1: Aquinas and the Catholic Natural Theology—Reason as a valid but limited path to God
A01: Aquinas on natural theology versus revealed theology
• Natural theology does not replace revealed theology.
• Reasoned arguments (cosmological, teleological) only show evidence for some God, not the Christian God.
• Faith and revelation remain necessary for full knowledge.
• Aquinas rejects the ontological argument because it risks replacing faith with pure reason.
Main Body Paragraph 1: Aquinas and the Catholic Natural Theology—Reason as a valid but limited path to God
Strength
Strength: Aquinas offers a nuanced account allowing reason a role without undermining faith.
Main Body Paragraph 1: Aquinas and the Catholic Natural Theology—Reason as a valid but limited path to God
Limitations
Limitation: reason-based knowledge is partial and cannot provide full certainty.
Some argue that reason’s ability to reach God might be too optimistic given human limitations.
Aquinas’ recognition of grace’s necessity shows reason alone is insufficient.
Paragraph 2
Main Body Paragraph 2: Protestant critiques—Original sin, faith, and the limits of reason (Augustine, Barth, Calvin)
Main Body Paragraph 2: Protestant critiques—Original sin, faith, and the limits of reason (Augustine, Barth, Calvin)
A01: Augustine’s and Barthes critique
Original sin corrupts human reason to the extent that it cannot know God.
Barth: “the finite has no capacity for the infinite,” meaning reason is fundamentally incapable of grasping God.
Reliance on reason risks idolatry—mistaking creation for the Creator.
Barth claims natural theology undermines the necessity of revelation and faith.
Main Body Paragraph 2: Protestant critiques—Original sin, faith, and the limits of reason (Augustine, Barth, Calvin)
A01:Calvins senses divinitatis
• Natural theology as innate sense of the divine in all humans.
• Argues atheism is irrational because everyone has this sense.
Counter: modern atheism challenges this; sensus divinitatis is not universally experienced.
• Alvin Plantinga’s defense: sin blocks this sense (noetic effect), but this raises issues:
• Many atheists are moral and rational.
• Countries with high atheism rates have low crime, undermining the “sin blocks knowledge” argument.
Main Body Paragraph 2: Protestant critiques—Original sin, faith, and the limits of reason (Augustine, Barth, Calvin)
A01: Romans 1:20 debate
Romans 1:20 debate:
• Paul claims God’s invisible qualities can be understood from creation.
• Calvin sees this as supporting natural theology but through a non-reason sense of God.
• Barth reads it as a warning against idolatry and human sinfulness preventing true knowledge.
• The passage challenges the reliability of reason after the Fall.
Main Body Paragraph 2: Protestant critiques—Original sin, faith, and the limits of reason (Augustine, Barth, Calvin)
A01: Calvin and Barth on revealed theology
• Faith in Jesus and Scripture is the only reliable source for knowledge of God.
• Natural theology, if valid, makes revelation unnecessary, which contradicts biblical teaching.
• Reason is passive or corrupted; revelation is active and reliable.
Main Body Paragraph 2: Protestant critiques—Original sin, faith, and the limits of reason (Augustine, Barth, Calvin)
A01: Responses and alternatives
• Emil Brunner tries to reconcile reason and sin:
• Formal imago Dei (reason, language) remains post-fall.
• Reason can perceive “preserving grace” in the universe.
• But natural theology is incomplete without Christ’s revelation.
• Barth critiques Brunner’s partial optimism as inconsistent.
Main Body Paragraph 2: Protestant critiques—Original sin, faith, and the limits of reason (Augustine, Barth, Calvin)
Evaluation
Strengths
Strength: Emphasises human limitations and the need for faith.
Highlights dangers of overconfidence in reason (dangers of idolatry).
Main Body Paragraph 2: Protestant critiques—Original sin, faith, and the limits of reason (Augustine, Barth, Calvin)
Evaluation
Limits
However, some Protestant views may underestimate the role of reason entirely.
The problem of widespread atheism weakens claims of universal sensus divinitatis.
Brunner’s moderated position may offer a more realistic approach.
Summary:
Reason can provide some knowledge of God’s existence and nature, but it is limited and cannot provide full, certain knowledge of God.
Aquinas’ natural theology acknowledges this limitation and argues that reason supports faith without replacing it.
Protestant critiques (Augustine, Barth, Calvin) emphasize original sin’s corruption of reason, making faith and revelation necessary for true knowledge of God.
Attempts to reconcile reason and sin (Brunner) highlight the complexity but do not fully resolve the tension.
Line of Argument
While reason is a valuable human faculty that can help humans approach knowledge of God, it is insufficient on its own.
The finite, fallen human mind cannot know the infinite God fully or correctly through reason alone without faith.
Therefore, God cannot be known through reason alone; faith, grounded in revealed theology, is essential.
Reason and faith are complementary, but faith must have priority as the foundation for true knowledge of God.
Final thought
This position respects both the human capacity for rational thought and the biblical witness about human sinfulness and God’s revelation. It avoids the arrogance of claiming pure reason suffices and the despair of denying reason any role at all.
