To what extent can God be known through the natural world? Discuss (40)
This question is asking to what degree can God be known through the natural world. In my
argument I will discuss why God cannot be known through the natural world alone as
revealed knowledge and faith should also be used and are arguably better alternatives to
use than the natural world as there are multiple of issues with it which makes it unreliable. I
will be using Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Polkinghorne and Swinburne to show this
viewpoint.
Natural theology is when people know God through his creation of the world which is done
through empirical knowledge or a posteriori approach which is from observation of the
world.
A positive point of Natural theology is that it offers a rational and reasonable justification for
knowledge through God and God’s existence as it uses empirical knowledge meaning that it
is simple for humans to understand since This is because humans use a posteriori logic daily
which we can observe that the world. However, by using natural theology to know God it
requires knowledge and reason which creates an issue as Augustine says that human logic is
flawed as they are imperfect which Plato also says as empirical knowledge is flawed as those
who use empirical knowledge is trapped from seeing the truth which is shown through the
allegory of the cave. So by using reason to gain knowledge of God through creation is a
major problem due to humans being incapable to reason. Since God is said to be beyond the
realm of the rational and beyond the capabilities of the human mind If you believe that
knowledge can be gained through reason and logic alone this too means that God cannot be
known at all. Aquinas also supports of being able to know God through natural knowledge
as he states that we can see through observation that the world in constant change due to
cause and effect. Due to this, We can work out there must be an uncaused causer of the
world. From observing that everything in the world depends on something else for it’s
existence we can work out that there must be some being which depends on nothing at all
which an intelligent person can reason for the existence of God. However, Aquinas is too
assumptious when discussing that because we can observe the world and see that there is a
cause then that must be God. Although, Quantum Physics has concluded that there are sub-
atomic particles that are in a sense uncaused meaning that there being a uncaused causer
but that doesn’t mean that is God which means that God can’t be known through the
natural world. In defense of natural theology, Swinburne argues that we have a good reason
to think that the world shows, signs of order, regularity, purpose and reason, which can also
be shown through Paley’s watch analogy, so therefore it leads us to conclude that there is
an intelligent being which is most likely God. Whilst it is true that the world can show signs
of beauty which can reflect on our understanding of God but the world also shows evil and
an unorganized design of which we can easily observe. Due to this God can’t possibly be
known through the natural world (at least not the God as described as a perfect being) as
God is described as perfect but the world isn’t so if we knew God from the observation of
the world then he must be an evil God and not as a perfect being. On the other hand, it
could be argued that the world was perfect which did describe God and how Gods qualities
can be known through it but humanity ruined it. So now the world is destroyed by humans
This question is asking to what degree can God be known through the natural world. In my
argument I will discuss why God cannot be known through the natural world alone as
revealed knowledge and faith should also be used and are arguably better alternatives to
use than the natural world as there are multiple of issues with it which makes it unreliable. I
will be using Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Polkinghorne and Swinburne to show this
viewpoint.
Natural theology is when people know God through his creation of the world which is done
through empirical knowledge or a posteriori approach which is from observation of the
world.
A positive point of Natural theology is that it offers a rational and reasonable justification for
knowledge through God and God’s existence as it uses empirical knowledge meaning that it
is simple for humans to understand since This is because humans use a posteriori logic daily
which we can observe that the world. However, by using natural theology to know God it
requires knowledge and reason which creates an issue as Augustine says that human logic is
flawed as they are imperfect which Plato also says as empirical knowledge is flawed as those
who use empirical knowledge is trapped from seeing the truth which is shown through the
allegory of the cave. So by using reason to gain knowledge of God through creation is a
major problem due to humans being incapable to reason. Since God is said to be beyond the
realm of the rational and beyond the capabilities of the human mind If you believe that
knowledge can be gained through reason and logic alone this too means that God cannot be
known at all. Aquinas also supports of being able to know God through natural knowledge
as he states that we can see through observation that the world in constant change due to
cause and effect. Due to this, We can work out there must be an uncaused causer of the
world. From observing that everything in the world depends on something else for it’s
existence we can work out that there must be some being which depends on nothing at all
which an intelligent person can reason for the existence of God. However, Aquinas is too
assumptious when discussing that because we can observe the world and see that there is a
cause then that must be God. Although, Quantum Physics has concluded that there are sub-
atomic particles that are in a sense uncaused meaning that there being a uncaused causer
but that doesn’t mean that is God which means that God can’t be known through the
natural world. In defense of natural theology, Swinburne argues that we have a good reason
to think that the world shows, signs of order, regularity, purpose and reason, which can also
be shown through Paley’s watch analogy, so therefore it leads us to conclude that there is
an intelligent being which is most likely God. Whilst it is true that the world can show signs
of beauty which can reflect on our understanding of God but the world also shows evil and
an unorganized design of which we can easily observe. Due to this God can’t possibly be
known through the natural world (at least not the God as described as a perfect being) as
God is described as perfect but the world isn’t so if we knew God from the observation of
the world then he must be an evil God and not as a perfect being. On the other hand, it
could be argued that the world was perfect which did describe God and how Gods qualities
can be known through it but humanity ruined it. So now the world is destroyed by humans
