Assess to what extent human reason is sufficient for a knowl-
edge of God.
The prevalent question of how God can be known has inspired much debate
amongst Christians. The lack of empirical evidence for God renders Him un-
knowable to some, however, a more theocentric approach to knowing God is
through revelation. There is a significant distinction between general revelation
also known as natural theology, based in human reason, and special revelation,
which focuses on Christ and the written scriptures. The debate, therefore, lies
in whether it is reason or special revelation that provides the optimum way to
gain knowledge of God’s existence or, alternatively, if a combination of both is
necessary for a complete knowledge of God.
A convincing argument that human reason is insufficient for gaining knowledge
of God is expressed by the 16th century protestant theologian John Calvin.
Calvin argues that all humans possess a sensus divinitatis, or sense of God, as
is seen through the universality of religion. However, Calvin convincingly ar-
gues that the sensus divinitatus is impeded as human reason has been sup-
pressed due to the impact of the Fall and original sin. Thus, Calvin states that
“the knowledge of God, which is clearly shown in the ordering of the world and
in all creatures, is still more clearly and familiarly explained in the Word.” This
is a highly strong argument as it emphasises that natural theology is inferior to
special revelation, and suggests that God’s grace is required in order access a
full knowledge of God. The argument, however, lacks merit as only the elect
are predestined to receive this grace, therefore the number of people who are
able to know God is limited. This weakens the argument as Christ died to save
all of humanity and, as John Hick argued, it would be a contradiction to God’s
all-loving nature for there to be anything but universal salvation. Despite this,
the Calvinist theologian Karl Barth (1886-1968) strongly supports the argument
and defeats this criticism as he rejected natural theology but also believed in
universal salvation. Barth was a proponent of the Neo-orthodoxy movement
and offers convincing support as he argued that human nature is too flawed for
human reason to work, thus necessitating special revelation and God’s grace,
and also gave the modern interpretation that the Bible becomes the word of
God when it speaks to a person during an encounter or event chosen by God.
The reformed theologian Emil Brunner (1889-1966) supports this movement,
however, he also weakens this argument as he believed that nature does bear
some significance in informing a knowledge of God. This is because Brunner ar-
gued that there is a point of contact between God and humans which is justi-
fied by the way that humanity was made imago dei. The strength of this criti-
cism is limited, however, as Barth highlights that there can be no points of con-
tact without special revelation and convincingly reinforces that natural theol-
ogy is not distinctively Christian and neglects crucial teachings about Jesus,
thus emphasising the importance of special revelation regarding the knowledge
of God.
However, a weak argument that human reason is entirely sufficient for a knowl-
edge of God is seen through natural theology, which is the use of human expe-
rience and reason to deduce truths about the nature of God. The 18th century
philosopher William Paley forms a design argument in Natural Theology (1802).
His argument follows that if one were to come across a stone, nothing would be
edge of God.
The prevalent question of how God can be known has inspired much debate
amongst Christians. The lack of empirical evidence for God renders Him un-
knowable to some, however, a more theocentric approach to knowing God is
through revelation. There is a significant distinction between general revelation
also known as natural theology, based in human reason, and special revelation,
which focuses on Christ and the written scriptures. The debate, therefore, lies
in whether it is reason or special revelation that provides the optimum way to
gain knowledge of God’s existence or, alternatively, if a combination of both is
necessary for a complete knowledge of God.
A convincing argument that human reason is insufficient for gaining knowledge
of God is expressed by the 16th century protestant theologian John Calvin.
Calvin argues that all humans possess a sensus divinitatis, or sense of God, as
is seen through the universality of religion. However, Calvin convincingly ar-
gues that the sensus divinitatus is impeded as human reason has been sup-
pressed due to the impact of the Fall and original sin. Thus, Calvin states that
“the knowledge of God, which is clearly shown in the ordering of the world and
in all creatures, is still more clearly and familiarly explained in the Word.” This
is a highly strong argument as it emphasises that natural theology is inferior to
special revelation, and suggests that God’s grace is required in order access a
full knowledge of God. The argument, however, lacks merit as only the elect
are predestined to receive this grace, therefore the number of people who are
able to know God is limited. This weakens the argument as Christ died to save
all of humanity and, as John Hick argued, it would be a contradiction to God’s
all-loving nature for there to be anything but universal salvation. Despite this,
the Calvinist theologian Karl Barth (1886-1968) strongly supports the argument
and defeats this criticism as he rejected natural theology but also believed in
universal salvation. Barth was a proponent of the Neo-orthodoxy movement
and offers convincing support as he argued that human nature is too flawed for
human reason to work, thus necessitating special revelation and God’s grace,
and also gave the modern interpretation that the Bible becomes the word of
God when it speaks to a person during an encounter or event chosen by God.
The reformed theologian Emil Brunner (1889-1966) supports this movement,
however, he also weakens this argument as he believed that nature does bear
some significance in informing a knowledge of God. This is because Brunner ar-
gued that there is a point of contact between God and humans which is justi-
fied by the way that humanity was made imago dei. The strength of this criti-
cism is limited, however, as Barth highlights that there can be no points of con-
tact without special revelation and convincingly reinforces that natural theol-
ogy is not distinctively Christian and neglects crucial teachings about Jesus,
thus emphasising the importance of special revelation regarding the knowledge
of God.
However, a weak argument that human reason is entirely sufficient for a knowl-
edge of God is seen through natural theology, which is the use of human expe-
rience and reason to deduce truths about the nature of God. The 18th century
philosopher William Paley forms a design argument in Natural Theology (1802).
His argument follows that if one were to come across a stone, nothing would be
