Editing Natural theology (section)

===Faith and fideism===
{{Main|Neo-orthodoxy |Presuppositionalism |Fideism | Christian existentialism | Postliberal theology | Reformed epistemology | Leap of faith|Religious ground motive|Canonical approach|Non-overlapping magisteria|Double truth|Two Truths doctrine}}
[[Immanuel Kant]] and [[Søren Kierkegaard]] had similar ideas about natural theology.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|last=Fremstedal|first=Roe|date=March 2013|title=The Moral Argument for the Existence of God and Immorality: Kierkegaard and Kant|journal=The Journal of Religious Ethics|volume=41|pages=50–78|doi=10.1111/jore.12004|url=https://philpapers.org/rec/FRETMA-5 }}</ref> Kant's ideas focused more on the natural dialect of reason, while Kierkegaard focused more on the dialect of understanding.<ref name=":2" /> Both men suggest that "the natural dialect leads to the question of God".<ref name=":2" /> Kant argues for the idea that reason leads to the ideas of God as a regulative principle.<ref name=":2" /> Kierkegaard argues that the idea of understanding will ultimately lead itself to becoming faith.{{clarify|date=September 2022}}<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Pourmohammadi|first=Na'imeh|date=2013|title=Kierkegaard and the Ash'Arites on Reason and Theology |journal=Rivista di Filosofia Neo-Scolastica|volume=105|pages=591–609}}</ref> Both of these men argue that the idea of God cannot be based solely on the idea of reason, that the dialect and ideals will transcend into faith.{{clarify|date=September 2022}}<ref name=":2" />

[[Karl Barth]] opposed the entirety of natural theology. Barth argued that "by starting from such experience, rather that from the gracious revelation through [[Jesus Christ]], we produce a concept of God that is the projection of the highest we know, a construct of human thinking, divorced from salvation history".<ref name=":02" /> Barth argues that God is restricted by the construct of human thinking if he is divorced from salvation.<ref name=":3">{{Cite journal|last=Matthews|first=Gareth|date=January 30, 1964|title=Theology and Natural Theology|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/2023755|journal=The Journal of Philosophy|volume=61|issue=3|pages=99–108|doi=10.2307/2023755|jstor=2023755}}</ref> Barth also acknowledges that God is knowable because of his grace. Barth's argument stems from the idea of faith rather than reason. Barth held that God can be known only through Jesus Christ, as revealed in scripture, and that any such attempts should be considered idolatry. <!--THOMAS TORRANCE SEGMENT COPIED-PASTED FROM PAGE [[NEO-ORTHODOXY]] IN 2025 APRIL-->As [[Thomas F. Torrance]] wrote:
{{blockquote|So far as theological content is concerned, Barth's argument runs like this. If the God whom we have actually come to know through Jesus Christ really ''is'' Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in his own eternal and undivided Being, then what are we to make of an independent natural theology that terminates, not upon the Being of the Triune God—i.e., upon God as he really is in himself—but upon some Being of God in general?  Natural theology by its very operation abstracts the existence of God from his act, so that if it does not begin with deism, it imposes deism upon theology.<ref name = "Ground and Grammar">{{cite book| last = Torrance | first = Thomas| title= The Ground and Grammar of Theology | year= 2001 | publisher = T&T Clark | location = Great Britain | isbn = 0-567-04331-2 | page = 89}}</ref>|author=Thomas Torrance|title=The Ground and Grammar of Theology|source=p. 89}}

<!--THE BELOW WAS PASTED FROM TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT PAGE 1 DECEMBER 2022-->
[[Søren Kierkegaard]] questioned the existence of God, rejecting all rational arguments for God's existence (including the teleological argument) on the grounds that reason is inevitably accompanied by doubt.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Southwell, Gareth |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=u9JWTes9fH0C&q=S%C3%B8ren+Kierkegaard+%22teleological+argument%22&pg=PT325 |title=Words of Wisdom: Philosophy's Most Important Quotations And Their Meanings |date=2011 |publisher=Quercus |isbn=978-1-78087-092-2}}</ref> He proposed that the argument from design does not take into consideration future events which may serve to undermine the proof of God's existence: the argument would never finish proving God's existence.<ref name="Kierkegaard">Søren Kierkegaard, ''Philosophical Fragments'' (1844).</ref> In the ''[[Philosophical Fragments]]'', Kierkegaard writes:

{{Blockquote|text=The works of God are such that only God can perform them. Just so, but where then are the works of the God? The works from which I would deduce his existence are not directly and immediately given. The wisdom in nature, the goodness, the wisdom in the governance of the world – are all these manifest, perhaps, upon the very face of things? Are we not here confronted with the most terrible temptations to doubt, and is it not impossible finally to dispose of all these doubts? But from such an order of things I will surely not attempt to prove God's existence; and even if I began I would never finish, and would in addition have to live constantly in suspense, lest something so terrible should suddenly happen that my bit of proof would be demolished.|author=Søren Kierkegaard|source=''Philosophical Fragments''<ref name="Kierkegaard" />}}

[[Fideism|Fideists]] may reject attempts to prove God's existence.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Arguments for the existence of God |url=https://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/media/Documents/RS/1-3_Arguments_for_the_existence_of_God_The_cosmological_argument.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221019030040/https://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/media/Documents/RS/1-3_Arguments_for_the_existence_of_God_The_cosmological_argument.pdf |archive-date=19 October 2022 |website=Hodder Education}}</ref>