Approaches to Knowing God

Ever wondered how religious thinkers claim to "know" anything about God? Bonaventura identified three ways our minds can approach divine knowledge. The eye of flesh relies on empirical evidence from the physical world. The eye of reason uses logical thinking and philosophical arguments. The eye of contemplation depends entirely on faith and spiritual experience.

Natural theology attempts to prove God's existence through human reason and observation. Aquinas famously argued that belief in God is perfectly reasonable and doesn't contradict common sense. Modern philosopher Swinburne takes this further, claiming that empirical evidence and rational thinking actually increase the probability that God exists.

Some thinkers believe humans have an innate sense of the divine. Cicero observed that virtually all cultures throughout history have recognised some form of infinite being or creator. This suggests we might be born with a natural awareness of God rather than having to learn about it.

Quick Think: If humans naturally tend toward religious belief across all cultures, does this prove something divine exists, or just that we're psychologically wired for it?

The Sensus Divinitas and Natural Awareness

John Calvin introduced the concept of sensus divinitas - literally a "sense of divinity" that he believed exists within every human mind. According to Calvin, all people naturally recognise there's a God and that he's their creator. This isn't learned behaviour but natural instinct.

Calvin argued that when people reject God, it's because of epistemic distance - they're choosing to ignore the obvious signs around them. Joseph Butler and John Henry Newman suggested that our conscience itself proves God's existence, as moral demands come from a divine source within us.

However, critics offer alternative explanations. Richard Dawkins argues we're simply "psychologically primed for religion" because it reduces stress and provides comfort. Freud dismissed religious belief as a neurosis - essentially a psychological safety blanket for anxious humans.

William Paley and Aquinas pointed to the natural world as evidence for God. The famous Psalm 19:1 declares "the heavens declare the glory of God," suggesting creation itself reveals divine truth.

Calvin's Vision and Revealed Theology

Calvin saw the universe as "a sort of mirror in which we can contemplate God." He developed the concept of duplex cognitio domini - a two-fold knowledge of God as both redeemer and creator. This means we can know God through both his creative work and his saving actions.

Revealed theology offers a completely different approach for those who doubt human reason's reliability. After humanity's fall from grace, some argue our rational abilities became too damaged to reliably discover divine truth.

Karl Barth took the most extreme position, claiming our reason is "hopelessly flawed" after the fall. He argued that God exists beyond all human meaning and intelligence, so we can only know him through direct revelation - never through natural observation or philosophical reasoning.

Emil Brunner offered a more moderate view. While agreeing that natural theology can't save us or provide specific knowledge about God, he believed the fall damaged but didn't completely destroy our spiritual connection to the divine.

Key Point: The debate isn't just about whether God exists, but whether humans are even capable of discovering divine truth through their own efforts.

Types of Divine Revelation

Religious traditions distinguish between immediate revelation - direct communication from God - and mediate revelation - second-hand accounts of divine encounters. Moses meeting God in the burning bush or people encountering Jesus represent immediate revelation.

The Bible records multiple forms of revelation. Prophets received direct divine messages, like Isaiah hearing God ask "Whom shall I send?" Nature itself reveals God's existence, as Romans 1:19 states: "God is plain to them because God has made it plain to them."

Jesus represents the ultimate revelation - "the word became flesh" according to Christian teaching. Scripture serves as God's written revelation, with 2 Timothy 3:15-17 describing how "Holy Scriptures" make us "wise for salvation" because "all scripture is God-breathed."

Paul's missionary work demonstrates how revelation and reason can work together. Acts 17 shows him both "reasoning in the synagogue" and proclaiming God as the one "who made the world and everything in it." This suggests divine truth can be both revealed and rationally discussed.

The Reason versus Faith Debate

The tension between reason and faith has divided religious thinkers for centuries. Augustine believed a permanent barrier prevents humans from truly knowing God through rational means alone. Aquinas disagreed, arguing that God gave us reason for a purpose - we should use it alongside revealed theology.

Modern critics attack faith-based approaches harshly. Richard Dawkins calls faith "the great cop-out, the great excuse" for avoiding evidence-based thinking. David Hume argued that "a wise man proportions his belief to the evidence."

Hume raised another crucial problem: even if natural theology proves some deity exists, why should we trust what that deity tells us? His Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion suggested reason might only lead us to belief in multiple gods or an imperfect creator.

Anselm responded that calling God "probable" completely misses the point. If God exists necessarily (as perfect being), then once you truly know God, there's no question about trusting him - his perfection guarantees his trustworthiness.

Think About It: Is faith really just an excuse to avoid evidence, or does it access truths that reason alone cannot reach?

Comparing Approaches and Process Theology

Are natural and revealed theology completely different or fundamentally the same? The "no" camp argues they use entirely different methods - reason versus faith - and that specific Christian concepts like the Trinity can only be understood through revelation.

The "yes" camp claims everything exists only because God chose to reveal it, making all knowledge ultimately revelatory. This perspective sees no real distinction between discovering God through nature and receiving direct divine communication.

Process theology offers a modern alternative, rejecting the image of God as a cosmic puppeteer. Instead, it sees God working within natural processes, directing each particle individually. This approach draws heavily on quantum theory and modern physics.

Ian Barbour described this as "a God who acts not by overruling but by evoking the response of his creatures." This suggests divine action works through natural laws rather than bypassing them, potentially bridging the gap between reason-based and faith-based approaches to knowing God.