Sensus divinitatis

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 4: Line 4:
 
It is sometimes used to "prove" that [[atheist]]s don't exist.  Anyone who claims to be an atheist is in denial of the God which they "know" to exist; therefore, they are merely angry at or rebelling against God.
 
It is sometimes used to "prove" that [[atheist]]s don't exist.  Anyone who claims to be an atheist is in denial of the God which they "know" to exist; therefore, they are merely angry at or rebelling against God.
  
Some modern apologists such as [[Alvin Plantinga]] make a more moderate claim, which is that everyone has a sensus divinitatis, but that sin interferes with this sense. In order to restore this sense, one has to request God's help to fix it, presumably through conversion or worship or repentance or supplication. On this view, you can be an atheist by not using this natural sense, but only in the same sense as a person can be functionally blind by never opening her eyes.
+
Some modern apologists such as [[Alvin Plantinga]] make a more moderate claim, which is that everyone has a sensus divinitatis, but that sin interferes with this sense. In order to restore this sense, one has to request God's help to fix it, presumably through conversion or worship or repentance or supplication. On this view, you can be an atheist by not using this natural sense, but only in the same sense as a person can be functionally blind by never opening their eyes.
  
 
==Counter-apologetics==
 
==Counter-apologetics==
Line 10: Line 10:
 
===Contradicted by scripture===
 
===Contradicted by scripture===
  
Even the Bible contradicts the simplest view, that everyone knows about God deep down.  {{bible|Psalms 14:1}} says, "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."  It seems hard to argue that anyone could say "in his heart" that there is no God while not believing that there is no God. Therefore, the Bible acknowledges that at least some atheists exist (and they are "fools" by Biblical definition).
+
Even the Bible contradicts the simplest view, that everyone knows about God deep down.  {{bible|Psalms 14:1}} says, "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."  It seems hard to argue that anyone could say "in his heart" that there is no God while not believing that there is no God. Therefore, the Bible acknowledges that at least some atheists exist (and they are "fools" by Biblical definition).
  
 
===Competing views that can't be decided upon===
 
===Competing views that can't be decided upon===
Line 16: Line 16:
 
People have disagreed on the details of the sense itself, whether it is blocked by sin or available to all people, what triggers experiences of God, whether it gives one a mere experience of God or more useful details... Even [[William Lane Craig]], who uses some of the same arguments generally as Plantinga does, has been hesitant to endorse the idea of an innate "sense", and prefers the idea that there is instead an externally controlled "experience" that the believer has in encountering God. An obvious problem here is that it's not possible to objectively settle this question, especially when Christians who in theory believe similar things, find that they can't agree on the nature of the experience that they supposedly share. The problem gets worse when a similar idea inevitably arises within Muslim apologetics.
 
People have disagreed on the details of the sense itself, whether it is blocked by sin or available to all people, what triggers experiences of God, whether it gives one a mere experience of God or more useful details... Even [[William Lane Craig]], who uses some of the same arguments generally as Plantinga does, has been hesitant to endorse the idea of an innate "sense", and prefers the idea that there is instead an externally controlled "experience" that the believer has in encountering God. An obvious problem here is that it's not possible to objectively settle this question, especially when Christians who in theory believe similar things, find that they can't agree on the nature of the experience that they supposedly share. The problem gets worse when a similar idea inevitably arises within Muslim apologetics.
  
If the "sense" really is just a type of personal experience, then we're really talking about [[a different sort of argument|Argument from personal experience]], which has its own problems.
+
If the "sense" really is just a type of personal experience, then we're really talking about [[Argument from personal experience|a different sort of argument]], which has its own problems.
  
 
===Unverifiable and unfalsifiable===
 
===Unverifiable and unfalsifiable===
  
If someone lacks a particular sense, such as if she is blind, she can always figure out that [[other]] people can see, and not merely because they can tell her. They would be able to sense certain things at a distance, in a way that she would not be able to sense, and she could infer the existence of sight without just taking anyone's word for it.
+
If someone lacks a particular sense, such as if she is blind, she can always figure out that other people can see, and not merely because they can tell her. They would be able to sense certain things at a distance, in a way that she would not be able to sense, and she could infer the existence of sight without just taking anyone's word for it.
  
 
But the sensus divinitatis only provides people with a subjective conviction, not information about the world that can be objectively evaluated. So, from the perspective of someone without such a functioning sense, there's no reason to believe that anyone else has such a sense either. That is, no one has a way of showing that they actually have a way to sense God that is actually accurate, and not merely a form of delusion or mistake.
 
But the sensus divinitatis only provides people with a subjective conviction, not information about the world that can be objectively evaluated. So, from the perspective of someone without such a functioning sense, there's no reason to believe that anyone else has such a sense either. That is, no one has a way of showing that they actually have a way to sense God that is actually accurate, and not merely a form of delusion or mistake.
 +
 +
An atheist could cite a universal "''sensus faeces taurorum''" and claim that the theist's is malfunctioning, or that they are suppressing it.
  
 
==See also==
 
==See also==
Line 32: Line 34:
 
[[Category:Epistemology]]
 
[[Category:Epistemology]]
 
[[Category:Reformed epistemology]]
 
[[Category:Reformed epistemology]]
 +
 +
 +
In recent philosophy, the divine sense has been articulated as a divine awareness that does not limit one to a confrontation with a specific relational being, but that one can become aware of divinity. The being of God is not affirmed by the sensus divinitatus because it infers nothing about the person of God that one needs to become aware of in order to have an authentic conversion to Christianity and is therefore not enough to defend an epistemological basis for God's existence or non-amgiguity.

Revision as of 03:18, 25 November 2012

Sensus divinitatis or Sense of Divinity was posited by John Calvin as the inherent awareness of God which is implanted in every human being.

It is sometimes used to "prove" that atheists don't exist. Anyone who claims to be an atheist is in denial of the God which they "know" to exist; therefore, they are merely angry at or rebelling against God.

Some modern apologists such as Alvin Plantinga make a more moderate claim, which is that everyone has a sensus divinitatis, but that sin interferes with this sense. In order to restore this sense, one has to request God's help to fix it, presumably through conversion or worship or repentance or supplication. On this view, you can be an atheist by not using this natural sense, but only in the same sense as a person can be functionally blind by never opening their eyes.

Contents

Counter-apologetics

Contradicted by scripture

Even the Bible contradicts the simplest view, that everyone knows about God deep down. Psalms 14:1 Bible-icon.png says, "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." It seems hard to argue that anyone could say "in his heart" that there is no God while not believing that there is no God. Therefore, the Bible acknowledges that at least some atheists exist (and they are "fools" by Biblical definition).

Competing views that can't be decided upon

People have disagreed on the details of the sense itself, whether it is blocked by sin or available to all people, what triggers experiences of God, whether it gives one a mere experience of God or more useful details... Even William Lane Craig, who uses some of the same arguments generally as Plantinga does, has been hesitant to endorse the idea of an innate "sense", and prefers the idea that there is instead an externally controlled "experience" that the believer has in encountering God. An obvious problem here is that it's not possible to objectively settle this question, especially when Christians who in theory believe similar things, find that they can't agree on the nature of the experience that they supposedly share. The problem gets worse when a similar idea inevitably arises within Muslim apologetics.

If the "sense" really is just a type of personal experience, then we're really talking about a different sort of argument, which has its own problems.

Unverifiable and unfalsifiable

If someone lacks a particular sense, such as if she is blind, she can always figure out that other people can see, and not merely because they can tell her. They would be able to sense certain things at a distance, in a way that she would not be able to sense, and she could infer the existence of sight without just taking anyone's word for it.

But the sensus divinitatis only provides people with a subjective conviction, not information about the world that can be objectively evaluated. So, from the perspective of someone without such a functioning sense, there's no reason to believe that anyone else has such a sense either. That is, no one has a way of showing that they actually have a way to sense God that is actually accurate, and not merely a form of delusion or mistake.

An atheist could cite a universal "sensus faeces taurorum" and claim that the theist's is malfunctioning, or that they are suppressing it.

See also


v · d Arguments for the existence of god
Anthropic arguments   Anthropic principle · Natural-law argument
Arguments for belief   Pascal's Wager · Argument from faith · Just hit your knees
Christological arguments   Argument from scriptural miracles · Would someone die for a lie? · Liar, Lunatic or Lord
Cosmological arguments   Argument from aesthetic experience · Argument from contingency · Cosmological argument · Fine-tuning argument · Kalam · Leibniz cosmological argument · Principle of sufficient reason · Unmoved mover · Why is there something rather than nothing?
Majority arguments   Argument from admired religious scientists
Moral arguments   Argument from justice · Divine command theory
Ontological argument   Argument from degree · Argument from desire · Argument from the origin of the idea of God
Dogmatic arguments   Argument from divine sense · Argument from uniqueness
Teleological arguments   Argument from design · Banana argument · 747 Junkyard argument · Laminin argument · Argument from natural disasters
Testimonial arguments   Argument from observed miracles · Argument from personal experience · Consciousness argument for the existence of God · Emotional pleas
Transcendental arguments   God created numbers · Argument from the meaning of life
Scriptural arguments   Scriptural inerrancy · Scriptural scientific foreknowledge · Scriptural codes


In recent philosophy, the divine sense has been articulated as a divine awareness that does not limit one to a confrontation with a specific relational being, but that one can become aware of divinity. The being of God is not affirmed by the sensus divinitatus because it infers nothing about the person of God that one needs to become aware of in order to have an authentic conversion to Christianity and is therefore not enough to defend an epistemological basis for God's existence or non-amgiguity.

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox