Great Question! I am hearing this question more and more as we have people participating in our community who are not "believers," and then find themselves strangely drawn to belief, but not yet knowing if they have moral or intellectual justification for believing in God. Part of the issue it seems is a view of "belief" itself and especially "how we believe." Let me explain.
There was a time not so long ago, and even still with us to varying degrees, when people believed that in order to know something they must take the posture of the"unencumbered self" and seek after universal truths independent of any particular communal narrative or influence. True "belief," it was asserted, is something we must attain to by ourselves, and is based on a blind optimism about the power of individualism and human reason to bring us to absolute certainty in knowledge. Religious faith, as such, was abstracted from the "text" of communal life, rituals and teaching -- the very context wherein faith was ordinarily born throughout human history!
More recently, there has been a philosophical shift back to an understanding of community as a basis for forming and believing universal truths. It would far exceed our present context to explain all of this philosophically. Suffice it to say that there has been a deep reevaluation in "epistemology" (a theory of how we know what we know) such as to make room for perhaps complementary epistemologies. One epistemology will emphasize the "unencumbered self" in search of truth based on a method of human autonomy and reason. Another epistemology will emphasize the "communal self" in search of truth based on a method of participation and human experience. I should say right off that I would not advocate an "either/or" approach to epistemology as if "reason" and "communal experience" are irreconcilable. Rather, there are some things we know by the study of propositional "texts", and there are other things we know by participation in communal "texts" or social narratives. For if we are inherently rational as human being, we are also at our core communal such that somethings can be known only by participating (communing) with them vs. by just thinking about them in a cold and detached manner.
Now to the present point, in so far as the knowledge of God is a communal kind of knowledge, it is a knowledge that we must discover by means of participation with God vs. merely thinking about God. As we will see, this is not to "check our brain" at the door of faith. Rather, it is to recognize that while faith in God is reasonable, it can't be attained by reason alone! This is exactly what we see, for instance, in the Old and New Testaments as pertaining to the significance of the "temple" wherein God is over and over again said to be present in the midst of the people in their communal gatherings, and it became the means by which people believed in God! [cf. the story of the early church in Act 2:1-47, note especially vs. 44-47, and then a more theological discourse about the relation of faith to participation in the life of God in, with, and through the "temple" of the New Testament church in Ephesians 2:1- 22.]
Anecdotally, this pattern of participating in the communal life of God in order to find faith in God is a familiar pattern here at CPC, even as it was in the early church. It assumes, again, that we know some things not merely by thinking about them in a cold and supposedly detached manner, but by participating or "communing" with them within the full range of our subjectivity. If there is a God, and if He has made himself known, the way of knowing Him will be by encountering Him where he may be found. According to the Bible and church history, God may be found in the context of the sacred communal narrative that is being played out in, with, and through His covenant community or "church." For instance, concerning the early church, one theologian describes the journey to faith this way:
Pagan converts to the [Christian] mainstream did not, for the most part, first understand the faith and then decide to become Christians; rather, the process was reversed: they first decided and then they understood. More precisely, they were first attracted by the Christian community and form of life... they submitted themselves to prolonged catechetical instruction in which they practiced new modes of behavior and learned the stories of Israel and their fulfillment in Christ. Only after they had acquired proficiency in the alien Christian language and form of life were they deemed able intelligently and responsibly to profess the faith, to be baptized.