The debate surrounding natural theology (the theory that God can be known through reason and observation of the
natural world) has been discussed by philosophers and theologians for centuries from Cicero's idea of an innate human
sense of God, to McGrath’s combining of natural and revealed theology. However the question still remains as: do and
to what extent do “the heavens declare the glory of the Lord” (Psalm 19)? This essay will examine the views of Plantinga,
Barth, Brunner and Calvin, and criticisms of arguments from observation by Polkinghorne and Hume, to conclude that
God can be known (to a small extent) from creation, and that this depends on perspective and interpretation.
Natural theology posits that God can be known through human reason and observation of the natural world. Many
theologians such as St Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin, have developed our understanding of natural theology to what
it is today: a form of general revelation and the process of knowing God. Aquinas posited that the universe consists of
contingent beings, which require a necessary being (God), to explain them. For Aquinas, God exists because the universe
exists, and as we are God’s creation, we can use our reason (given by Him) to reflect on the facts of the world, and gain
knowledge of God. Calvin built upon this idea in his work ‘The Institutes of the Christian Religion’ (1559), suggesting
sensus divinitatis: an inbuilt or innate sense of the divine, also known as semen religionis (‘seed of the divine’). This links
with the Catholic idea that “the desire for God is written in the human heart” (Catechism). Calvin, like Cicero before him,
also noted how there has never been a society without a concept of the divine, suggesting human possess an innate
desire to know God. There is a strength in the billions of testimonies present since the beginning of human history
claiming to know of the divine through careful reflection on the natural world (e.g. a plentiful harvest or the complexities
of other creatures). Additionally, as Brunner argues, God’s “spark of glory” present within nature provides us a point of
contact with God. Is it not reasonable to suggest that a creator would provide a point of contact with their creation, just
as we can learn about an artist from the properties of their artwork (Aquinas’ Analagous discussion)? As such, although
natural theology can be vague, it does provide humanity with some knowledge of God. However, natural theology had
some issues and complexities which can seem to undermine it completely, or reduce the extent to which it can give us
knowledge of God.
On the other hand, some, such as Karl Barth and Alvin Plantinga, would argue that the natural world does not give us
knowledge of God. Barth argues that revealed theology is the only way humanity can know God, as the Fall so distorted
human nature that we cannot have any contact with God beyond that which he extends to us. This is arguably a rather
pessimistic view of the human nature, and it discounts the innate sense of good and generosity Aquinas argued
humanity has. Additionally, if natural theology is not able to tell us of God, why is it that there are thousands, if not
millions of testimonies claiming to know of God through the natural world, such as its beauty or complexity (e.g. a
sunset or the complexities present in the human body). Surely their testimonies, which often seem similar and work well
together, cannot be disregarded completely due to a pessimistic reading of the Fall and human nature. Plantinga
supports Barth, arguing that revealed theology is ‘reasonable’, while natural theology is not a sufficient reason to believe
in God. While these arguments are valid, they do not completely undermine natural theology, as natural theology is
based on interpretations and reason. Reason will always be subjective, however this does not undermine its worth as it
is our only way of gathering information about the world. The faith required for natural theology is much the same as
the process of science, whereby jumps are made from evidence in order to reach and hypothesize a conclusion. Why is it
that we on the whole support and believe in science, yet disregard faith, despite both using the same methodology?
Furthermore, natural theology is down to interpretation, which is arguably a strength, as it allows the theory to be
flexible and applicable to one’s way of thinking. For example, a religious believer may interpret a sunset as evidence of
God, while an atheist may simply marvel at its beauty. Both interpretations are equally as valid and important. Arguably
then, natural theology is a valid idea, and allows us to know of God, as it supports religious belief, interpretation and
practice.
On the other hand, however, some such as Polkinghorne reject natural theology, and instead support revealed theology.
Revealed theology posits that God can only be known through his revelation to us, such as through scripture or the
person of Jesus Christ. ‘Polkinghorne’s binoculars’ draws light to the different forms of truth available to us. The theory
suggests that we cannot use observation or reason to know of God, as He is not observable or understandable in this
way. This, combined with Hume’s objections to teleological theories, is a strong argument. Hume posits that a perfect
God, or at least the Abrahamic God of the New Testament cannot be inferred from the state of the world and the
