Is faith sufficient reason for belief in God’s existence? Flashcards
(11 cards)
Introduction
- Clarify the question
- Two main positions
- natural theology
- Revealed theology
- Outline what Aquinas versus Calvin support
- thesis
Clarify the question: This is not about knowing God’s existence through arguments like cosmological or teleological; rather, it’s about the basis for belief—whether faith alone is sufficient or if reason must play a role.
Two main positions:
• Faith as the foundation for belief in God (typical in Protestant thought).
• Reason as a valid support or even a source of knowledge about God (typical in Catholic thought).
Define key terms:
• Natural theology: Knowledge of God through human reason and observation of the natural world.
• Revealed theology: Knowledge of God through divine revelation (Jesus, the Bible).
• Outline that theologians like Aquinas argue reason supports faith but does not replace it; others, like Barth and Calvin, argue faith alone is sufficient because human reason is corrupted by original sin.
Thesis: This essay will evaluate both the sufficiency of faith alone and the role of reason, assessing the arguments for natural theology and revealed theology.
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1: Faith Alone as Sufficient Reason for Belief in God’s Existence (Barth, Calvin, Protestant views)
Paragraph 1: Faith Alone as Sufficient Reason for Belief in God’s Existence (Barth, Calvin, Protestant views)
A01
Influenced by Augustine’s doctrine of original sin, Barth argues human reason is corrupt and incapable of truly knowing God or morality (“the finite has no capacity for the infinite”).
Relying on reason leads to idolatry (Romans 1:25) as humans project their own finite understanding onto God.
Barth: Natural theology undermines faith and revelation. If reason could prove God’s existence, Jesus’ revelation would be unnecessary. God reveals himself through scripture and Jesus, so faith alone is the reliable basis.
Calvin’s sensus divinitatis: humans have an innate sense of God that is natural, but this “sense” is not rational proof and is obscured by sin.
Calvin and Barth maintain revealed theology (faith in Bible and Jesus) is necessary for full knowledge of God, beyond mere existence to glorification and worship.
Paragraph 1: Faith Alone as Sufficient Reason for Belief in God’s Existence (Barth, Calvin, Protestant views)
Evaluation
Strengths
Faith protects against arrogance and the risk of idolatry inherent in relying solely on human reason.
Acknowledges human limitations post-Fall, consistent with biblical teaching on sin.
Explains why revealed knowledge through Jesus is necessary for salvation and moral guidance
Paragraph 1: Faith Alone as Sufficient Reason for Belief in God’s Existence (Barth, Calvin, Protestant views)
Evaluation
Weaknesses
Overly pessimistic about reason; assumes original sin totally corrupts reasoning faculties, which Aquinas and others contest.
Does not explain why natural theology arguments still have wide intuitive appeal.
The widespread atheism in modern societies challenges Calvin’s sensus divinitatis—if innate, why do many lack it?
Plantinga’s “noetic effects of sin” defend this but are countered by sociological evidence showing moral atheists.
Barth’s critique that natural theology makes revelation redundant is countered by Aquinas who sees reason as supporting but not replacing faith.
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2: Faith Supported by Reason and Natural Theology (Aquinas, Brunner, Catholic and Liberal views)
Paragraph 2: Faith Supported by Reason and Natural Theology (Aquinas, Brunner, Catholic and Liberal views)
A01
Aquinas: Human reason cannot fully comprehend God’s infinite nature but can gain knowledge of God’s existence (cosmological/teleological arguments), moral law (natural law), and analogy for God’s nature.
Natural theology provides rational evidence that supports faith without replacing it—faith remains necessary to know God fully.
Aquinas reconciles original sin with reason by arguing that rationality and inclination to good persist after the Fall (synderesis), allowing some knowledge of God through reason.
Brunner: Formal imago dei (reason, language) survives the Fall; reason can know God’s preserving grace through order in the universe, although special revelation is needed for full knowledge.
Liberal Christians and Pelagius reject or reinterpret original sin, arguing human reason is intact and reliable—historical evidence of moral progress supports this view.
Paragraph 2: Faith Supported by Reason and Natural Theology (Aquinas, Brunner, Catholic and Liberal views)
Strengths
Balanced and nuanced: acknowledges human limitations while affirming reason’s value.
Offers a coherent framework where faith and reason complement each other (“two wings” as per Pope John Paul II).
Provides intellectual engagement for believers and a bridge to dialogue with atheists and agnostics.
Paragraph 2: Faith Supported by Reason and Natural Theology (Aquinas, Brunner, Catholic and Liberal views)
Weaknesses
Reliance on natural theology is vulnerable to the charge of idolatry if reason is overestimated or misapplied.
Critics like Barth argue any reliance on reason risks replacing faith and leads to anthropocentrism.
Some modern critiques question if natural theology’s arguments still persuade non-believers, given the persistence of atheism and alternative explanations for morality and order.
Aquinas’ rejection of the Ontological argument shows caution in overreaching reason’s capacity, showing internal limits.
Natural theology is not self-sufficient knowledge but a rational support for faith, not a rival to it.
Conclusion
Faith alone as sufficient reason for belief in God is defended by Barth and Calvin on the basis of human reason’s corruption due to original sin. This view emphasizes trust in divine revelation and warns against human arrogance in theological reasoning.
However, Aquinas and others show that reason, properly understood, is capable of providing rational support to faith without undermining it. Natural theology offers evidence and understanding that complements faith but does not replace it.
The rejection of original sin by some modern theologians and the observable moral progress in humanity challenge the pessimistic assessment of reason’s reliability.
LOA
Therefore, faith on its own may be a strong and primary basis for belief in God, especially within Protestant traditions emphasizing revelation, but reason and natural theology can and should play a supportive role in underpinning faith.
The best approach is a complementary model: faith is the sufficient and necessary ground of belief in God’s existence, but faith is strengthened and deepened through reason’s support, making belief rationally credible rather than merely fideistic.
Hence, faith is sufficient for belief in God but not necessarily the only source or the whole story; reason remains an important partner in the believer’s journey.
