Prior to post-modernity the answer to this question would have most certainly been grounded in some sort of foundational body of knowledge, whether actual or hypothetical. In other words we would be able to through our senses or mind logically reason our way to a criteria. Historically, Thomas Aquinas asserted that the existence of God was logical and practically self-evident, but most contemporary theologians would not make that same assertion. In absence of this foundation, some assert that our faith is the basis of our knowledge; I believe therefore I know. A sort of “Kierkegaardian leap of faith”, if I may be so bold as to use that phrase, although most likely not the same as something Kierkegaard would have argued for himself. On this basis it seems that many assert that we can know.

I myself remain unconvinced that we do not start our knowing with some sort of body of knowledge. Even the modern hermeneutical problem of individual “presuppositions” forming a “preunderstanding” through which we understand everything (thereby mitigating any idea of knowing truth since we all have different “preunderstandings”) seems to be simply a replacement of the Cartesian ideas and categories by which we gain knowledge (see Thomas Howe’s Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation, page 205). In other words, we know because we have some “preunderstanding” that mediates our knowledge. Faith, then, it seems is not grounded in nothing, but in something. So we are unable to escape the problem of first principles or foundations for knowing.

As the reader is painfully aware, I have not come to any conclusions. Yet I do not walk away from the idea that I can know something and can know something about God. Why? In using the best rational logical ability in light of the evidence I am presented with, I am led to believe that God exists and the Bible is his word to humanity. These arguments are outside the scope of this article, but it is important to note that I believe that every person alive does exactly what I have done, whether intentionally or not. That is to say that we all use our minds and in light of the evidence we see we believe something and live accordingly. No one can do otherwise. Even the skeptic has done this, the skeptic has examined the evidence and chosen to believe that nothing can truly be known and they live accordingly.

So how can we know anything about God then? Well, not supposing to solve the epistemic and ontological questions, we know something about God because of the evidence we have at hand. In other words, through his creation and through his word.

This question has been asked throughout history. It seems that the question must always be asked of each succeeding generation, some agreeing with previous one, others disagreeing. Yet, as the Qohelet says, there is nothing new under the sun.

So let’s start at this question by seeing if we can use our own reasoning and the natural world (sometimes referred to as natural theology or general revelation) to attain knowledge of God. A brief (very brief) historical overview is necessary here.

The early church was divided in how knowledge of God can be obtained. Tertullian contended that philosophy (human reason) has nothing to do with faith (What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?), while Clement of Alexandria argued that philosophy paved the way for Christ (Gunton 2001, 154-157). The Middle Ages seemed more confident in its use of reason. Thomas Aquinas felt that reason alone could prove the existence of God – yet only a few, after a long time and with an intermixture of error, would know God (Gunton 2001, 159-160). Reformer, John Calvin argued that each person held a sense of the divine within themselves, yet knowledge of God through nature is “insufficiently effective,” thus Scripture is necessary (McGrath 2007b, 101; Gunton 2001, 35).  Karl Barth argued that since God self-reveals himself, special revelation was the only way one could know God (McGrath 2007b, 146-147) Hans Kung disagreed, arguing that this view diminished the glory of God in creation (LaCugna 1982, 59-60). Finally, Jurgen Moltmann argued that natural theology gives understanding as opposed to blessedness (i.e. salvation) (2000, 66).

Have we found any answers? While this overview is much too brief to deal adequately with each theologian’s argument, we find that none seem to argue that through our reason and the natural world we can completely understand God. (I have not included here any liberal or process theologians to simplify the discussion, not out of plain disregard for their positions or contributions. Many would argue that there is nothing outside of our reason and the natural world to give us understanding, but that discussion is outside the scope of this post.) Some argue they are of no use, others demonstrate they are extremely useful, but almost no one argues that apart from some divine revelation we can thoroughly know God.

So it seems we can know God partially through our reason and the natural world, from where then do we come to a more fuller understanding of God? We can examine this more fully in part II.

Gunton, Colin E., Stephen R. Holmes, and Murray A. Rae, eds. 2001. The Practice of Theology: A Reader. London: SCM Press.

LaCugna, Catherine Mowry. 1982. The Theological Methodology of Hans Kung. American Academy of Religion Academy Series 39, eds. Carl Raschke and William Gravely. Chico, CA: Scholars Press.

McGrath, Alister E. 2007. The Christian Theology Reader. 4th ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Moltmann, Jurgen. 2000. Experiences in Theology: Ways and Forms of Christian Theology. Trans. Margaret Kohl. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.