Sunday, December 28, 2014

Is human reason capable of knowing God from nature?

Those who study the nature of God sometimes consider: Is human reason capable of knowing God by its own light, from the natural world and from human nature? I suspect this is one of the times when we, seeking God, and arguing amongst ourselves over how we can know God -- or about how capable we may be -- manage on both sides to miss the point. Once we accept that question as a starting point, we have accepted a very questionable premise.

Both sides of the argument acknowledge that we can look at the natural world and the nature of man and deduce many things about God. We may hold to humility, and to God's place in our abilities, by pointing to the image of God within us as the source of this light of reason. We may argue that man's reason is capable, either by itself or with the grace of God of reasoning from the natural world to true knowledge of God. We may argue that man's reason is not capable by itself: our self-interest gives us the capacity for self-deceit.

But does God want our knowledge of him to be based solely on the natural world and human nature? Doesn't God ask for our knowledge of him to be based also on his acts of love, mercy, and compassion? (Even if we were to deduce God's love, mercy, and compassion from the natural world, what would that be worth if we did not see his actual actions among people? Do we overlook God's actions in the world because we do not recognize them, or because we do not value them? Or are we more interested in what our human reason can do blindfolded, and less interested in how much more we could know without the blindfold? Do we ever ask whether God has asked us to use that blindfold, or whether he considers it a useful thing to know, what we would reason about him if we overlooked his actions in the world?  And why would we place the blindfold just there, so as to hide from our view God's actions among humanity?)

Doesn't God ask for our knowledge of him to include his actions and his continuing presence in the world, rather than simply the world's existence? Doesn't God ask for our knowledge of him to be based on his promise of faithfulness? Doesn't God desire and intend that true knowledge of himself includes not merely reasoning about him but knowing him and hearing him, not only from the heavens glorifying him in the ineffable language, but in plainer words in language that we understand? Doesn't knowing God include knowing that he is not a passive and hidden God, but the living and present one? If we try to know God from reason and nature alone, either we are not that interested in knowing him fully, or we are considering a very different kind of God than the Christian God.

There is a scene in the American sitcom The Office in which one character, sitting outside the CEO's luxurious home, goes through the CEO's trash and finds clues that the man is wealthy. He prides himself on having deduced this from the trash. But he overlooked the mansion and headed for the trash; he also overlooked that he actually knows the man himself.

So in the end, my question would be: what kind of "knowledge" of God do you get by knowing God based on reasoning from the natural world? Is this the kind of knowledge of God that God wishes us to have? Is this the highest and best kind of knowledge of God? If it is not, then we must say: "Not really, we can't know God in the ultimate way from things other than God. We know God better when we approach God."

6 comments:

Martin LaBar said...

Psalm 19 and Romans 1:20 tell us that the natural world points to God. But you are right. There are, and should be, other sources of revelation.

See here for my post on "How does God reveal Himself to humans," which is related to your post.

Aron Wall said...

I'm a little perplexed by your comment here, which seems to take a rather unnecessarily strident tone. Yes, Christ is the best and highest way of knowing God (not to mention the way appointed to salvation) so OF COURSE it would be terrible for those of us who know Christ to neglect that source of knowledge in our thinking about God.

But none of that means we can't ask what we learn about God just from Nature. That's what Paul did in Romans 1 and in his Mars Hill speech. Of course he went on to talk about Christ in both cases. But he apparently thought that starting with Nature could be a valid way to begin the conversation with pagans so as to prepare some groundwork before introducing Christ to an unbelieving audience. I don't see why you are so harshly critical of this apostolic approach to evangelism, which is helpful for bringing certain types of people to Christ.

There are many people who have first accepted the existence of God on the basis of philosophical arguments from Nature, and then later that made it easier for them to become Christians. I'm glad that those people are saved, and I'm glad that there were people helping them on both stages of their journey.

The farmer is interested primarily in producing a crop from seeds, but that doesn't mean he can't plough the field before putting the seeds in.

Weekend Fisher said...

Hi Martin

I enjoy learning about God from the natural world. And yet I find I see more deeply even into the natural world when I consider what Jesus has said and taught. For the record, Psalm 19 is my favorite Psalm ... and 119 my 2nd favorite.

Take care & God bless
Anne / WF

Weekend Fisher said...

Hi Aron

I'm hoping my tone isn't strident; it isn't meant to be.

The piece is more about -- I'm sure you've heard the conversations about "knowing" versus "Knowing" in Biblical use. It's more about how what we can reach through nature and reason is "knowing", but that to reach the next step -- and there is a next step -- if we want to reach "Knowing" then we seek God Himself.

Take care & God bless
Anne / WF

Martin LaBar said...

Thanks! Jesus is, indeed, God's primary revelation.

Aron Wall said...

Sorry if I overreacted. I do agree that there's a difference between "knowing" intellectually and "knowing" in the biblical sense. Only in Christ is the veil taken away.