A tenet defended by many advocates of classical theism, intelligent design, and natural theology is that the universe provides crystal-clear evidence of design, leaving everyone without excuse, as Christians commonly assert by quoting passages such as Romans 1 or Psalm 19. However, statistics suggest that scientists, especially physicists and biologists, may not necessarily see things that way. The following quote comes from [Leading scientists still reject God - Nature](https://www.nature.com/articles/28478) : > Our chosen group of “greater” scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Our survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). **Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality)**. Overall comparison figures for the 1914, 1933 and 1998 surveys appear in Table 1. > > This other quote comes from [Scientists and Belief - Pew Research Center](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/) : > The Pew Research Center poll of scientists also found that levels of religious faith vary according to scientific specialty and age. For instance, chemists are more likely to believe in God (41%) than those who work in the other major scientific fields. Meanwhile, younger scientists (ages 18-34) are more likely to believe in God or a higher power than those who are older. > Lastly, the following quote comes from [Eminent scientists reject the supernatural: a survey of the Fellows of the Royal Society](https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1936-6434-6-33) : > Fellows of the Royal Society of London were invited to participate in a survey of attitudes toward religion. They were asked about their beliefs in a personal God, the existence of a supernatural entity, consciousness surviving death, and whether religion and science occupy non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA). Overwhelmingly the majority of Fellows affirmed strong opposition to the belief in a personal god, to the existence of a supernatural entity and to survival of death. On 'NOMA’, the majority of Fellows indicated neither a strong disagreement nor strong agreement. We also found that while (surprisingly) childhood religious upbringing and age were not significantly related to current attitudes toward religion, scientific discipline played a small but significant influence: biological scientists are even less likely to be religious than physical scientists and were more likely to perceive conflict between science and religion. > > > > If the universe provides crystal-clear evidence of design, how is it that physicists, who study the fundamental laws underlying everything, and biologists, who deal constantly with the complexity of biology, largely fail to believe in a designer God? How is it that something supposedly so obvious turns out not to be obvious for the vast majority of scientists? **I'm interested in published Christian explanations of why so many scientists are not theists.** --- NOTE: people who want to debate about design vs. non-design hypotheses should take it to chat, either [here](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/156039/discussion-between-dcleve-and-matthew) , [here](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/156073/discussing-romans-120-scientifically) , or [here](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/134852/creationism-vs-materialism-naturalism) .

## Short version I'm specifically referring to [Graham Oppy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Oppy) 's paper [An Argument for Atheism from Naturalism](https://philarchive.org/rec/OPPAAF) : > **Abstract** This paper outlines an argument for atheism from naturalism that I have developed in more detail elsewhere (in particular, in *The Best Argument against God*). The overall shape of the argument is as follows: first, naturalism is simpler than theism; second, there is no data that naturalism does not explain at least as well as theism; and, third, naturalism entails atheism; so we have good reason to prefer atheism to theism. Note that this statement of the shape of the argument is NOT a statement of the argument itself. In short, Oppy argues that *naturalism is simpler than theism*, and that, all else being equal, we should always rationally prefer a simpler explanation of the data. How do Christians rebut Graham Oppy's position? ## Longer version A few relevant quotes from the [paper](https://philpapers.org/archive/OPPAAF.pdf) : > Theists differ in the ways that they depart from naturalism. Some theists believe in a God who created our universe ex nihilo. Some theists believe in a God whose actions preserve our universe in existence. Some theists believe in a God who inhabits an eternal realm that has no spatiotemporal relation to our universe. Some theists believe in an intelligent and active God who is neither a natural organism nor an artificial intelligence created by natural organisms. Some theists believe in a God that is a non-personal supernatural power or supernatural force that exerts influence on our universe. Some theists believe that the universe possesses the non-natural property of being divine, or that the non-natural property of being divine ‘permeates’ the universe. And so on. > > **Although theists differ in the ways in which they depart from naturalism, there is a common feature** **to theistic departures from naturalism. In every case, theists differ from naturalists by believing in** **something additional**: either believing in one or more additional intelligent agents, or believing in one or more additional forces or powers, or believing in one or more additional non-natural properties of the universe. > > > Suppose that we are comparing a particular version of theism with a particular version of naturalism. Suppose, further, that these versions of theism and naturalism agree in their beliefs about which natural entities, and natural powers, and natural forces, and natural properties, and natural laws there are. In this case, it’s not just that the theist has beliefs in something over and above the things the atheist believes in; it’s also the case that the naturalist does not have beliefs in anything over and above the things the theist believes in. **From the standpoint of the naturalist, the theistic beliefs** **of the theist are pure addition; and, from the standpoint of the theist, the naturalistic beliefs of the** **naturalist are pure subtraction**. > > **In this case, if all else is no better than equal, then there is clear reason to prefer naturalism to** **theism. For, if all else is no better than equal, then there is no reason to have the additional theistic beliefs**. Hence, in this case, in order to decide between theism and naturalism, we just need to determine whether all else is no better than equal. ... > **The burden of the rest of this chapter is to argue that there are no features of the natural universe** **that have a better explanation on theism than they do on naturalism**. Of course, I won’t be able to examine every feature of the natural universe that might be thought to have a better explanation on theism than it does on naturalism. However, I shall try to examine all of the most prominent features of the natural universe that have been widely supposed to have a better explanation on theism than on naturalism. Given the treatment of the cases that I do discuss, it should be obvious how to extend the discussion to features of the natural universe that I do not examine here. He then goes on to explain how 8 features of the world commonly used to argue for theism can be better accounted for under naturalism. Namely: - Existence - Causation - Fine-Tuning - Morality - Consciousness - Miracles - Religious Experiences - Meaning and Purpose > 9\. **Conclusion** > As I mentioned at the outset, I cannot claim to have considered all of the data that bears on the decision between theism and naturalism (and not can I claim to have given a fully adequate assessment of any of the data that I have considered). However, I hope that I have done enough to indicate how my argument for naturalism would look if it were set out in full and complete detail. (I give a fuller—but still incomplete—exposition of the argument in The Best Argument against God, Palgrave-Macmillan, 2013.) > > 10\. **Note about Evil** > Of course, there is data that at least some theists suppose favours naturalism over theism—e.g. data about horrendous suffering, data about non-belief, and data about the scale of our universe. Some naturalists think that data about horrendous suffering is logically inconsistent with theism. As Epicurus argued long ago: >> Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? > > Other naturalists think that data about horrendous suffering renders theism highly improbable: given the major horrors of the twentieth century alone, isn’t it incredible to suppose that our universe is the work of an omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good being? I have focussed on data that many theists suppose favour theism over naturalism because my argument requires only that, on any piece of data, naturalism does at least as well as theism in explaining that data. Even if it is true, for example, that naturalism affords a better explanation of horrendous suffering in our universe than is given by theism, that truth makes no contribution to the argument that I have been advancing here. --- **NOTE**: Graham Oppy's formulation of the argument is arguably one of the strongest available in the literature, given Oppy's reputation as one of the most respected contemporary atheist philosophers. For instance, William Lane Craig once said about Oppy's book *Arguing about Gods*: > Oppy's book is not merely recommended but essential reading for anyone interested in natural theology today. No one can pretend to a successful theistic argument unless he has dealt with Oppy's criticisms first. ([source](https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/the-existence-of-god/arguing-successfully-about-god-a-review-essay-of-graham-oppys-arguing-about)) However, the claim that naturalism is "simpler" than theism is thrown around quite frequently in informal discussions with atheists. For example, take a look at some of the answers to [Could Occam's Razor ever favor theism?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/110026/66156) .

Is there any way we could come to several persons, one essence via pure logic outside of scripture (i.e. natural theology)?

Specifically, I'm interested in works (articles, books, etc.) explicating the philosophical dimensions and implications of the idea that the law is written upon our hearts. That seems to me to suggest a certain kind of epistemology, and I would greatly appreciate resources that would help me learn more about it. Thanks in advance!

The *teleological argument* is defined as follows: > The teleological argument (from τέλος, telos, 'end, aim, goal'; also known as physico-theological argument, argument from design, or intelligent design argument) is an argument for the existence of God or, more generally, **that complex functionality in the natural world which looks designed is evidence of an intelligent creator**. > > Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument I'm aware of at least two Bible passages that seem to resonate a lot with the teleological argument: > The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. (Psalm 19:1 NKJV) > 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 **because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.** 20 **For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse**, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. 24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. (Romans 1:18-25 NKJV) However, secular mainstream science tells us a different story from the theistic one, emphasizing naturalistic explanations such as [abiogenesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis) and [evolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution) . This perspective excludes the notion of an intelligent creator, largely due to science's steadfast commitment to [methodological naturalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Methodological_naturalism) . Advocates of this naturalistic approach in scientific research argue that supernatural explanations are not viable because they cannot be tested, falsified, or subjected to empirical investigation. Moreover, there are atheists like Richard Dawkins who champion the theory of evolution as their trump card against the teleological argument: > "Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." > > *Richard Dawkins (2015). “The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design”, p.18, W. W. Norton & Company* In response to the question [Is the teleological argument for God completely refuted?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/7050/66156) , this [answer](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/7054/66156) asserts: > **The teleological argument is effectively dead**. The last gasp at it was by William Dembski and Michael Behe with "irreducible complexity" (the intellectual core of the intelligent design movement), and they simply failed to understand the actual problem and/or came up with handwaving to state that certain things were impossible, when in fact they were not only possible but there were examples of them. > > **That evolution provides the mechanism to produce all the complexity of life seen today is no longer in serious doubt; and that simple physical laws suffice to produce all the complexity of the universe is also no longer in serious doubt**. The only area not completely nailed down is fine-tuning of universal constants, and that makes for an incredibly weak teleological argument since all we know about reality with different constants is that our familiar physics doesn't work. We cannot predict whether there'd be some other complex physical reality admitting evolution, so we can't tell if the numbers are actually finely tuned and thus whether we should be surprised by them. Or in response to the question [How does the theory of evolution make it less likely that the world is designed?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/100494/66156) , the most upvoted [answer](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/100513/66156) states: > When Laplace wrote his Newtonian, materialist explanation of the universe, Napoleon asked him where God fit into the scheme. "I have no need of that hypothesis, Sire," was Laplace's famous reply. > > Your question is fair enough, but employs a common misrepresentation of science. You can take any scientific theory and then add on God, as if inviting a "plus one." Many scientists do, but only on their own time, so to speak. > > To jettison redundant hypotheses is simply a critical working scientific convention, wielding Ockham's razor. You can always add God back in, but not into the published, peer-reviewed science. > > If you want to use God as part of your causal explanation of physical events, you must offer some experimental way to falsify that hypothesis. And this is where believers usually have a problem. > > Exactly what repeatable experiment would falsify the God hypothesis? A non-biased, double-blind series of unanswered prayers? **It is not so much that evolution "disproves" God. It is simply that it offers a compelling, verifiable explanation of observations that does *not require* God.** > > If some scientists do indeed seem hostile to the idea of God, it is more properly a hostility towards undecidable claims that muddy the waters, subvert the scientific method, and then tend to backload a lot of moral implications and assertions. Even concerning abiogenesis, whose evidential support is arguably much weaker than that of neo-Darwinism, we encounter statements such as the following: > **Is abiogenesis proven?** > > No. It is not proven. > > Regarding evidence, we know there was a time when Earth did not have life, now it does. So life did get started somehow. **There is no evidence of intelligent agency involved and no other problem in science has been solved by invoking non-human intelligence. Thus the operating assumption is that OOL was a natural event.** > > As to how it can happen, that is an open and active area of research. And while it hasn't been solved there are promising avenues of research. > > **Could God have done it? We can't say he couldn't have, but there is no reason to think he did.** > > Source: [Is abiogenesis proven? - r/DebateEvolution](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/13435wt/is_abiogenesis_proven/?rdt=37529) In an era where the teleological argument for God encounters significant challenges from advocates of abiogenesis and evolution, how do Christians who present it navigate these obstacles to make the argument more intellectually compelling to those who don't believe in God?

To steelman the case for proving God's existence using reason alone, I think one of the best contemporary examples of how this could be done is found in Edward Feser's book [*Five Proofs of the Existence of God*](https://www.amazon.com/Five-Proofs-Existence-Edward-Feser/dp/1621641333) : > This book provides a detailed, updated exposition and defense of five of the historically most important (but in recent years largely neglected) philosophical proofs of God’s existence: the Aristotelian, the Neo-Platonic, the Augustinian, the Thomistic, and the Rationalist. > > It also offers a thorough treatment of each of the key divine attributes—unity, simplicity, eternity, omnipotence, omniscience, perfect goodness, and so forth—showing that they must be possessed by the God whose existence is demonstrated by the proofs. Finally, it answers at length all of the objections that have been leveled against these proofs. > > This work provides as ambitious and complete a defense of traditional natural theology as is currently in print. Its aim is to vindicate the view of the greatest philosophers of the past— thinkers like Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, Aquinas, Leibniz, and many others— **that the existence of God can be established with certainty by way of purely rational arguments**. It thereby serves as a refutation both of atheism and of the fideism that gives aid and comfort to atheism. > ## Editorial Reviews > > **Review** > > "A watershed book. Feser has completely severed the intellectual legs > upon which modern atheism had hoped to stand." **— Matthew Levering**, > James N. and Mary D. Perry Jr. Chair of Theology, Mundelein Seminary > > "A powerful and important book. The concluding chapter, where Feser > replies to possible objections to his arguments, is a gem; it alone is > worth the price of this excellent work." **— Stephen T. Davis**, Russell > K. Pitzer Professor of Philosophy, Claremont McKenna College > > "Edward Feser is widely recognized as a top scholar in the history of > philosophy in general, and in Thomistic and Aristotelian philosophy in > particular. This book is a must-read for anyone interested in natural > theology. I happily and highly recommend it." **— J. P. Moreland**, > Distinguished Professor of Philosophy, Biola University > > "Refutes with devastating effect the standard objections to theistic > proofs, from David Hume to the New Atheists." **— Robert C. Koons**, > Professor of Philosophy, University of Texas at Austin > > "Yet another fine book by Edward Feser. He replies to (literally) all > of the objections and shows convincingly how the most popular > objections (the kind one hears in Introduction to Philosophy courses) > are very often completely beside the point and, even when they're not, > are 'staggeringly feeble and overrated'." **— Alfred J. Freddoso**, > Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, University of Notre Dame > > **About the Author** > > **Edward Feser, Ph.D.**, is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Pasadena > City College in Pasadena, California. Called by National Review "one > of the best contemporary writers on philosophy", he is the author of > The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism, Aquinas, > Scholastic Meta- physics, By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed, and many > other books and articles. For illustrative purposes, the following is a brief excerpt from chapter 6 of Feser's book: > ### The Nature of God and of His Relationship to the World > > We have now examined five arguments for the existence of God, which can be summarized briefly as follows. The Aristotelian proof begins with the fact that there are potentialities that are actualized and argues that we cannot make sense of this unless we affirm the existence of something which can actualize the potential existence of things without itself being actualized, a *purely actual actualizer*. The Neo-Platonic proof begins with the fact that the things of our experience are composed of parts and argues that such things could not exist unless they have an *absolutely simple* or *noncomposite cause*. The Augustinian proof begins with the fact that there are abstract objects like universals, propositions, numbers, and possible worlds, and argues that these must exist as ideas in a *divine intellect*. The Thomistic proof begins with the real distinction, in each of the things of our experience, between its essence and its existence, and argues that the ultimate cause of such things must be something which is *subsistent existence itself*. The rationalist proof begins with the principle of sufficient reason and argues that the ultimate explanation of things can only lie in an *absolutely necessary being*. Note that Edward Feser's five proofs never resort to evidence of design or complexity in nature. Those sorts of arguments, which look at nature for evidence of design (and, therefore, of a designer), are commonly referred to as [*teleological arguments*](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/) . In order to illustrate this point, and to present steelman versions of this line of reasoning, the following are two important books in this area: [*Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe*](https://www.amazon.com/Return-God-Hypothesis-Compelling-Scientific/dp/0062071505/) , by Stephen C. Meyer. > **The *New York Times* bestselling author of *Darwin’s Doubt*, Stephen Meyer, presents groundbreaking scientific evidence of the existence of God, based on breakthroughs in physics, cosmology, and biology.** > > Beginning in the late 19th century, many intellectuals began to insist that scientific knowledge conflicts with traditional theistic belief—that science and belief in God are “at war.” Philosopher of science Stephen Meyer challenges this view by examining three scientific discoveries with decidedly theistic implications. Building on the case for the intelligent design of life that he developed in *Signature in the Cell* and *Darwin’s Doubt*, Meyer demonstrates how discoveries in cosmology and physics coupled with those in biology help to establish the identity of the designing intelligence behind life and the universe. > > Meyer argues that theism—with its affirmation of a transcendent, intelligent and active creator—best explains the evidence we have concerning biological and cosmological origins. Previously Meyer refrained from attempting to answer questions about “who” might have designed life. Now he provides an evidence-based answer to perhaps the ultimate mystery of the universe. In so doing, he reveals a stunning conclusion: the data support not just the existence of an intelligent designer of some kind—but the existence of a personal God. [*A Mousetrap for Darwin: Michael J. Behe Answers His Critics*](https://www.amazon.com/Mousetrap-Darwin-Michael-Answers-Critics/dp/1936599910) , by Michael J. Behe. > In 1996 Darwin’s Black Box thrust Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe into the national spotlight. The book, and his subsequent two, sparked a firestorm of criticism, and his responses appeared in everything from the New York Times to science blogs and the journal Science. His replies, along with a handful of brand-new essays, are now collected in A Mousetrap for Darwin. In engaging his critics, Behe extends his argument that much recent evidence, from the study of evolving microbes to mutations in dogs and polar bears, shows that blind evolution cannot build the complex machinery essential to life. Rather, evolution works principally by breaking things for short-term benefit. It can’t construct anything fundamentally new. What can? **Behe’s money is on intelligent design**. --- What is the biblical basis for proving God's existence using reason alone? Moreover, if reason alone is enough for proving God's existence, what's the point of faith? How are faith and reason reconciled?

Note: I'm interested in the Christian perspective on the question [*Can God's existence be established through reason and publicly accessible evidence?*](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/107660/66156) that I recently asked on Philosophy Stack Exchange. Feel free to read that question and the answers that people have posted for a broader context. --- I am curious to understand the perspectives within the Christian community regarding the use of reason and publicly available evidence to establish the existence of God in general, and the existence of the Christian God specifically. Are there prevailing viewpoints or consensus among Christians on this matter? **What I already know** I'm aware that at least some Christians frequently cite passages like [Romans 1:18-25](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1%3A18-25&version=NKJV) and [Psalm 19:1-3](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+19%3A1-3&version=NKJV) as Biblical expressions of [teleological arguments](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/) for God's existence. This category of arguments has evolved in more contemporary discussions, adopting a renewed shape, notably through an emphasis on the intricate fine-tuning of the fundamental constants in the universe (see [fine-tuned universe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument#Fine-tuned_universe)) , and an emphasis on the extraordinary complexity and specified information found in living organisms (see [intelligent design movement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement)) . I'm also aware of the existence of disciplines such as [natural theology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_theology) and [apologetics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics) , which in one way or another attempt to argue for the rationality of the belief in the existence of God and posit that there is sufficient evidence in the natural world to confidently conclude that God must exist. **What I do not know** One aspect that intrigues me, and about which I seek more clarity, pertains to the widespread acceptance or not among Christians of concepts such as natural theology, apologetics, intelligent design, and philosophical/scientific arguments for God's existence that hinge on reason and evidence. Do a majority of Christians align with these disciplines and share the perspective that the existence of God can be established solely through the use of reason and publicly available evidence, in a manner that any reasonable person should be able to study and verify? If there are available statistics on this matter, I would greatly appreciate them, although it's not strictly required to answer this question. As a point of reference, in the realm of philosophy, there are statistics available such as the following: #### God: theism or atheism? |Option|2009|2020|Change|Swing| |-|-:|-:|-:|-:| Accept or lean towards: theism|14.61%|12.5%|-2.11|-1.76| |Accept or lean towards: atheism|72.82%|74.23%|1.41|1.76| |Accept a combination of views|2.47%|0.31%|-2.16| |Accept an alternative view|0.86%|2.78%| 1.92| |The question is too unclear to answer|1.72%|2.01%| 0.29| |There is no fact of the matter|0.54%|0.31%|-0.23| |Insufficiently familiar with the issue|0%|0.15%| 0.15| | |Agnostic/undecided|5.48%|6.94%| 1.46| | |Skipped|0.97%|0.31%| -0.66| | |Other|0.54%|0.46%| -0.08| | N (2020) = 648 N (2009) = 931 (Source: [2020 PhilPapers Survey](https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/longitudinal)) --- **A case for consideration: Blaise Pascal** Blaise Pascal serves as an illustration of a Christian who contends that the existence of God cannot be conclusively established through reason alone. While his perspective is just one instance, it raises the possibility that others may share a similar viewpoint. > Pascal maintains that we are incapable of knowing whether God exists or not, yet we must “wager” one way or the other. Reason cannot settle which way we should incline, but a consideration of the relevant outcomes supposedly can. Here is the first key passage: > >> “God is, or He is not.” But to which side shall we incline? **Reason can decide nothing here**. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up… Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose… But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is… If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. > > (Source: [Pascal's Wager - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/)) --- **Another view for consideration: Reformed Epistemology** Reformed Epistemology is another viewpoint that exemplifies the rejection of evidence and intellectual arguments as necessary requirements for justifying belief in God. > Reformed epistemology is a thesis about the rationality of religious belief. **A central claim made by the reformed epistemologist is that religious belief can be rational without any appeal to evidence or argument**. There are, broadly speaking, two ways that reformed epistemologists support this claim. The first is to argue that there is no way to successfully formulate the charge that religious belief is in some way epistemically defective if it is lacking support by evidence or argument. The second way is to offer a description of what it means for a belief to be rational, and to suggest ways that religious beliefs might in fact be meeting these requirements. This has led reformed epistemologists to explore topics such as when a belief-forming mechanism confers warrant, the rationality of engaging in belief forming practices, and when we have an epistemic duty to revise our beliefs. As such, reformed epistemology offers an alternative to evidentialism (the view that religious belief must be supported by evidence in order to be rational) and fideism (the view that religious belief is not rational, but that we have non-epistemic reasons for believing). > > Reformed epistemology was first clearly articulated in a collection of papers called Faith and Rationality edited by Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff in 1983. However, the view owes a debt to many other thinkers. > > (Source: [Reformed Epistemology - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy](https://iep.utm.edu/ref-epis))

According to experienced Christians, "If anything, a focus on General Revelation should correlate with more experience focus, as people relish in the signs of God." It is so true that when the Faith of a person is thoroughly establish, the pathway to intimate experience with God is enhanced! But when there is less known about the strong Apologetic foundation of Christianity, it seems that the average Christian must rely on experiences he has encountered, to maintain his faith. Would this dilemma tend to cause church services to be more audio/visual (which is appealing to the younger set in the church)? This question is based on 35 years of teaching Apologetics in a Christian high school. The dearth of information evidenced from a questioning of students from the diverse churches, revealed that General Revelation (and Apologetics in general) was non-existent in the Discipleship classes of those churches! Discipleship class manuals contained the usual topics of Baptism, communion, tithing, family, charity, prayer, etc. These are the **what's of Christianity**. But the **why's of Christianity** were left out. Or were referenced to para-church orgs such as Cru, Intervarsity, Got Questions, and the like outside the local church. The satisfaction the students showed when they realized that the Christian worldview provided **reasons and answers** that the average mind sought after, was amazing! The response of the surprised parents was off the charts! This class filled a huge gap that was in the Discipleship efforts of their churches. So is this the reason why church families that do not have access to great Apologetic teaching, are relying on audio/visual emphases in Sunday morning churches, or youth group meetings with emphasis on "a good time"? Experiential emphasis? And does it also lend to a tendency for Believers to want and seek some physical manifestation in their walk with God to increase or sustain their Faith in God Would a foundation in General Revelation teaching (Apologetics) provide a surer foundation and basis for any experience they may encounter?

How integral is a personal experiential aspect to Christian belief in addition to [natural theology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_theology) ? Can one rely solely on natural theology, or is a personal encounter or experience considered essential in Christian doctrine, and if so, what type(s) of experience(s) specifically? I'm interested in perspectives on the balance between these two elements in shaping and reinforcing one's faith. --- EDIT: @curiousdanni brought up a very good point: > If you rely solely on natural theology you can't be a Christian - the Gospel is communicated only through special revelation. I agree with this observation. Considering this, I think the question can be rephrased in more general terms as follows: Publicly accessible revelation (that can be grasped intellectually, including nature and Sacred Scripture) vs. Privately accessible revelation (involving spiritual experiences that presumably go beyond the confines of the intellect)?

Upon reflecting on the answers to this question, https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/80507/61679 , I noticed that Romans 1:18-20 leaves interpretative space to still think there is hope for the unreached/unevangelized. | Romans 1:18-20 ESV | | - | | For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. | If my interpretation of what Paul says here is accurate, then it seems to me that the unevangelized would be able, at least in principle, to infer the existence of the Creator from creation, by exercising some elementary, layman, common-sense version of [natural theology](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-theology/) . If this is the case, then why would it be unreasonable to think that at least some of these unreached/unevangelized individuals would be able to react favorably to this insight, by becoming a worshiper of said Creator? Another way of phrasing my question is as follows: Is it possible for a human being to become a true worshiper of God by inferring His existence based solely on natural theology? Does this view have a name?

The First Vatican Council, *Dei Filius* (1870) Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith defined the following: > If anyone shall have said that the one true God, our Creator and our Lord, cannot be known with certitude by those things which have been made, by the light of human reason: let him be anathema. (Item #1 of **2. On revelation** set of canons ) From what I understand, this pronouncement was motivated at the time by those who were denying *natural theology*. Can someone elaborate on some of the specifics regarding those who were denying "natural theology" at the time that Pope Bl. Pius IX made this (*de fide*) declaration?

Romans 1:18-24 sounds like an argument from [Intelligent Design](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design) to me: > 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 **For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made**. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and **exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things**. > > 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served **the creature rather than the Creator**, who is blessed forever! Amen. Can Romans 1:18-24 and the Theory of Evolution be reconciled? How do Christians who believe in the Theory of Evolution make sense of Paul's teleological argument? If Paul is arguing for design, isn't Paul arguing indirectly against evolution?

As Christians we are called to study the works of the Lord (Psalms 111:2), but did any of the Early Church Fathers between 50-800 AD, believe in natural laws theology/law? (i.e. that knowledge or theology is based on observed facts and experiences, apart from divine intervention)

Here I am talking about Beauty as we perceive it either in nature or culture (i.e., not the physical beauty of individual human beings). Two separate thoughts have prompted this question: firstly, reading Augustine in his *Confessions* defining evil as a lack of good, since God would not have created positive evil. I wondered if this could be extended to things which seem ugly or repulsive: how are we to understand our own aversion to individual parts of divine creation? The second thought is that I am most often prompted to think of God and almost intuitively believe in Him when I behold beauty - in both nature and products of human culture. Accepting that this is a common human experience, is there a moral Christian imperative to cultivate beauty, as an aid to faith in God? Anyway, I wondered if there existed some official position on this, in any Christian denomination. I suppose it risks shading over into a sort of Nietzschean worship of the superman, or simply into idolatry.

It's well known that one can prove the existence of God through the light of natural reason alone (e.g. the Five Ways). However, Divine Revelation would also show this. It is in Divine Revelation that we learn that creation/existence is *good* (Genesis 1:31). Could we also reach that same conclusion (with the same meaning of "good") with the light of natural reason?