Calvin on the Sensus Divinitatis

[Ale Martinez]

“There is within the human mind, and indeed by natural instinct, an awareness of divinity. This we take to be beyond controversy. To prevent anyone from taking refuge in the pretense of ignorance, God himself has implanted in all men a certain understanding of his divine majesty. . . . Men of sound judgment will always be sure that a sense of divinity which can never be effaced is engraved upon men’s minds. Indeed, the perversity of the impious, who though they struggle furiously are unable to extricate themselves from the fear of God, is abundant testimony that this conviction, namely, that there is some God, is naturally inborn in all, and is fixed deep within, as it were in the very marrow.”

from, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 43, 45-46.

[Impenitent]

obviously predetermined...

-Imp

[Arising_uk]

“There is within the human mind, and indeed by natural instinct, an awareness of divinity. This we take to be beyond controversy. To prevent anyone from taking refuge in the pretense of ignorance, God himself has implanted in all men a certain understanding of his divine majesty. . . . Men of sound judgment will always be sure that a sense of divinity which can never be effaced is engraved upon men’s minds. Indeed, the perversity of the impious, who though they struggle furiously are unable to extricate themselves from the fear of God, is abundant testimony that this conviction, namely, that there is some God, is naturally inborn in all, and is fixed deep within, as it were in the very marrow.”

from, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 43, 45-46.

Nah! As someone not raised within a religious upbringing I can assure you that its taught that there's one 'God'. Although I'll give you that existence is 'divine' and if there's a 'God' then there's assuredly many.

[Ale Martinez]

Sensus Divinitais is a philosophical argument based in a Priori postulate. The Calvin/Aquinas model theory indicates that in every human mind there is an Innate tendendy to believe in some sort of Divine idea. This is more observable when is "triggered" by an external experience, seeing a beautiful sushine, trigger the sensation a the Existence of a Creator or Designer.

#I suppose for some of the "IGNORANTS" who made the first comments against me without knowing what was about, I encorauge you guys to take a Philosophical Introduction to Philosophy of Religion, may be you learn something new.

[Ale Martinez]

Arisin-Uk.

"I can assure you that its taught that there's one 'God'"

That is wrong. There is nothing out there in the phenomenal world in which can learn via senses or experience that there is such properties as Omnipotence, Infinite, Eternalness. Those ideas and concepts are within our cognitive faculties since we´re are born. . When triggered we encounter some idea of the divinity. Calvin’s basic claim is that there is a sort of instinct, a natural human tendency, a disposition, a nisus to form beliefs about God under a variety of conditions and in a variety of situations. What is called calls a "sensus divinitatis" or sense of divinity, which in a wide variety of circumstances produces in us beliefs about God. These circumstances, we might say, trigger the disposition to form the beliefs in question; they form the occasion on which those beliefs arise. Under these circumstances, we develop or form theistic beliefs—or, rather, these beliefs are formed in us; in the typical case we don’t consciously choose to have those beliefs. Instead, we find ourselves with them, just as we find ourselves with perceptual and memory beliefs. (You don’t and can’t simply decide to have this belief, thereby acquiring it.) And later on are triggered by external incentives such the admiration of beauty. Calvin replied with an common example:
"Even the common folk and the most untutored, who have been taught only by the aid of the
eyes, cannot be unaware of the excellence of divine art, for it reveals itself in this innumerable
and yet distinct and well-ordered variety of the heavenly host. It is, accordingly, clear that there
is no one to whom the Lord does not abundantly show his wisdom. (I, v, 2, p. 53)"

[Arising_uk]

Arisin-Uk.

"I can assure you that its taught that there's one 'God'"

That is wrong. There is nothing out there in the phenomenal world in which can learn via senses or experience that there is such properties as Omnipotence, Infinite, Eternalness. Those ideas and concepts are within our cognitive faculties since we´re are born. . When triggered we encounter some idea of the divinity. Calvin’s basic claim is that there is a sort of instinct, a natural human tendency, a disposition, a nisus to form beliefs about God under a variety of conditions and in a variety of situations. What is called calls a "sensus divinitatis" or sense of divinity, which in a wide variety of circumstances produces in us beliefs about God. These circumstances, we might say, trigger the disposition to form the beliefs in question; they form the occasion on which those beliefs arise. Under these circumstances, we develop or form theistic beliefs—or, rather, these beliefs are formed in us; in the typical case we don’t consciously choose to have those beliefs. Instead, we find ourselves with them, just as we find ourselves with perceptual and memory beliefs. (You don’t and can’t simply decide to have this belief, thereby acquiring it.) And later on are triggered by external incentives such the admiration of beauty. Calvin replied with an common example:
"Even the common folk and the most untutored, who have been taught only by the aid of the
eyes, cannot be unaware of the excellence of divine art, for it reveals itself in this innumerable
and yet distinct and well-ordered variety of the heavenly host. It is, accordingly, clear that there
is no one to whom the Lord does not abundantly show his wisdom. (I, v, 2, p. 53)"

Then you'd have to explain why I, who was not taught theism before I could reason, do not have this belief about 'God'?

If you mean "divine" as in beautiful then I'd agree.

What you say above sounds nice but you have also claimed that its by observing the phenomenal world, e.g. "beautiful sunshine" that triggers these sensations so I think you want your cake with bread and jam as well.

[Immanuel Can]

Although I'll give you that existence is 'divine' and if there's a 'God' then there's assuredly many.

This is conceptually incorrect. If by "God" we mean "Supreme Being," that would necessarily entail that if there were One there would be only One. Were there two or more, they would not be "supreme" anymore, by definition.

The polytheistic concept "gods" really means something equivalent to "superpowered aliens," that is, multiple beings with relatively more power than humans but none "supreme."

For this reason, usage usually uses "God" for the Supreme Being, and "gods" (small "g") for multiple supernatural beings.

I should also add that if there is a God there is assuredly not many. And if there are many, then there is no single "God." And likewise, if there are none of the above, then there are none at all. It's a true trichotomy: no gods, one God, many gods -- two out of three have to be erroneous, by definition.

[Arising_uk]

This is conceptually incorrect. If by "God" we mean "Supreme Being," that would necessarily entail that if there were One there would be only One. Were there two or more, they would not be "supreme" anymore, by definition.

Fair enough. You'd have to say what "supreme" means in this instance then as I have it as 'at the top' and I'd have to ask what its being compared to?

The polytheistic concept "gods" really means something equivalent to "superpowered aliens," that is, multiple beings with relatively more power than humans but none "supreme."

Nah! Most polytheistic religions have a big boss.

The Christians just call the rest 'archangels', demons, whatever, instead of 'god's'.

For this reason, usage usually uses "God" for the Supreme Being, and "gods" (small "g") for multiple supernatural beings.

Semantics by the Judeo-Christians I think.

I should also add that if there is a God there is assuredly not many. And if there are many, then there is no single "God." And likewise, if there are none of the above, then there are none at all. It's a true trichotomy: no gods, one God, many gods -- two out of three have to be erroneous, by definition.

Fair enough. No 'God' and no 'gods' either. At least not in this Universe.

For myself, if one claims a 'God' then one would have to say why the 'Gods' before weren't ones as the ones who believed before seem to have as good a case as any.

[Immanuel Can]

Nah! Most polytheistic religions have a big boss.

Like Zeus or Odin, you mean? Yes, but they're not "supreme." They lack attributes that are inherent to the big-G "God" concept, such as eternality and omnipotence. They were limited deities for limited duties, by all accounts. The monotheistic conception is quite different from all that.

For myself, if one claims a 'God' then one would have to say why the 'Gods' before weren't ones as the ones who believed before seem to have as good a case as any.

When you say "they have as good a case as any," do you mean to say that you've heard both "cases"? Or do you mean simply that you are unaware of any "case," and so think it's unlikely there's one to be had by a conception of God or gods?

If you investigate, I think you'll find the polytheists don't actually have much of a case, and the philosophy of religion doesn't take them seriously in anything but a phenomenological way. But you're welcome to check this out, of course.

The big-G "God" concept is much harder to dismiss, and has some currency as a philosophical postulate.

[Arising_uk]

Like Zeus or Odin, you mean? Yes, but they're not "supreme." They lack attributes that are inherent to the big-G "God" concept, such as eternality and omnipotence. They were limited deities for limited duties, by all accounts. The monotheistic conception is quite different from all that.

I take your point.

When you say "they have as good a case as any," do you mean to say that you've heard both "cases"? Or do you mean simply that you are unaware of any "case," and so think it's unlikely there's one to be had by a conception of God or gods?

In the sense that I've heard a few cases made and think them all unlikely.

If you investigate, I think you'll find the polytheists don't actually have much of a case, and the philosophy of religion doesn't take them seriously in anything but a phenomenological way. But you're welcome to check this out, of course.

What do you mean by a "phenomenological" way? Since I don't take philosophy of religion seriously I'll take your word for this but personally think that none of the any theists have much of a case. At least in the sense of knowing any truth about such things as 'Gods'.

The big-G "God" concept is much harder to dismiss, and has some currency as a philosophical postulate.

Depends what you'd count as evidence for such a thing I'd say. If you use "show me one" then I think the concept very easy to dismiss. I also think that sine some of 'its' proposed attribute are contradictory points to the concept being dismissible, e.g. the unliftable rock appears to put the kibosh upon omnipotence.

[Immanuel Can]

Hello, Arising...always nice to hear from you.

By "phenomenological" I meant only, "the study of things that happen," rather than "the study of truth." For phenomenologists, religion is "a thing people believe," regardless of whether or not it has referent to any external reality beyond that. Because people's beliefs issue in actions, habits, values and lifestyles, so they have sociological interest, regardless of the truth value question.

In the purest sense, a Phenomenologist does not observe distinctions between whether people believe in God or Zeus or Vishnu...but it remains interested in the question of *what* people believe.

the unliftable rock appears to put the kibosh upon omnipotence.

Oh dear...the "unliftable rock"! Ha. Whatever will I do?

The unliftable rock problem is silly and easily debunked. In the first place, it's premised on an unnuanced understanding of omnipotence, as if it entailed contradictory things. Secondly, the question itself is self-contradictory. It's no more sensible than asking, "Can God make a square circle?" or "Can He make an unmarried bachelor?" The silliness is in the question before it's in any answer. Thirdly, it simply supposes what isn't true -- that God can "do anything." For in the Christian tradition, there are quite a few things the Supreme Being is said not to be able to do -- such as "tell a lie," "deny Himself" or "change His nature," as well as "abandon His promises."

Interestingly, some theist philosophers also suggest that these "impossibilities" are not the kind of impossibilities you and I experience, but are particular and anaytical to the meaning of "Supreme." (i.e. if a Supreme Being says something, reality automatically conforms to it, so it is impossible for Him to lie because the reality we use to discern truth from falsehood actually depends on what His word *is*) In any case, you can see there are plenty of good answers to this old nonsense riddle. It's no show stopper for us; and it shouldn't be for you, either.

As for the "show me" response, could you really be surprised if I can't make the Supreme Being dance for you? If I could, He wouldn't be the Supreme Being -- I would!

(I'm not, by the way.)

[Arising_uk]

...

the unliftable rock appears to put the kibosh upon omnipotence.

Oh dear...the "unliftable rock"! Ha. Whatever will I do?

Wasn't positing it as a problem for you as experience has long taught me that the theist's faith is a rock not shaken by evidence or the absence of such.

The unliftable rock problem is silly and easily debunked. In the first place, it's premised on an unnuanced understanding of omnipotence, as if it entailed contradictory things. ...

So this 'God's' attributes can be understood in a nuanced way can they? How convenient.

Secondly, the question itself is self-contradictory. It's no more sensible than asking, "Can God make a square circle?" or "Can He make an unmarried bachelor?" The silliness is in the question before it's in any answer. ...

Take your point but it appears that this 'God' is limited by logic and causation applies to it? If so then 'it' must have had a cause? If not then why can I not have the sciences explanation for existence on the same grounds?

Thirdly, it simply supposes what isn't true -- that God can "do anything." For in the Christian tradition, there are quite a few things the Supreme Being is said not to be able to do -- such as "tell a lie," "deny Himself" or "change His nature," as well as "abandon His promises."

And yet the KJ bible says 'it' lied to Adam and Eve right at the beginning?

This 'God' sounds limited? So not so supreme but just another 'god' making claims.

Interestingly, some theist philosophers also suggest that these "impossibilities" are not the kind of impossibilities you and I experience, but are particular and anaytical to the meaning of "Supreme." (i.e. if a Supreme Being says something, reality automatically conforms to it, so it is impossible for Him to lie because the reality we use to discern truth from falsehood actually depends on what His word *is*) In any case, you can see there are plenty of good answers to this old nonsense riddle. It's no show stopper for us; and it shouldn't be for you, either.

I think this phrase 'theist philosophers' nonsensical, I think you mean Theologians.

As for the "show me" response, could you really be surprised if I can't make the Supreme Being dance for you? If I could, He wouldn't be the Supreme Being -- I would!

(I'm not, by the way.)

No need for that as there's an easy solution, the next time your 'God' is with you give me a bell and I'll pop round all unexpected like and take a peak.

[Immanuel Can]

Wasn't positing it as a problem for you as experience has long taught me that the theist's faith is a rock not shaken by evidence or the absence of such.

Well, I can't blame you for the old belief "faith means believing what you know ain't true" dodge. Actually, a proper understanding of faith might be more nuanced as something like "faith means being able to project from the available evidence to things not yet fully confirmed." If so, it is something a scientist does every time he creates a hypothesis. He has some "faith" that his hypothesis will work. If it does not, he is corrigible. So is real religious faith: it is premised on evidence and works through logic, but it does not pretend complete knowledge -- just as appropriately modest science does.

So this 'God's' attributes can be understood in a nuanced way can they? How convenient

Not "convenient," perhaps: but certainly wonderful.

Take your point but it appears that this 'God' is limited by logic and causation applies to it? If so then 'it' must have had a cause? If not then why can I not have the sciences explanation for existence on the same grounds?

Great question: it shows me your suppositional problem. You're thinking I'm thinking of a "caused" God. But that's not the classical theistic understanding of God at all. Rather, it posits God as the ultimate ground of Being. As for science, as you rightly notice, it has precisely the problem of explaining where it's chain of causes originates. If time is linear (and there's no scientifically validated alternative at the moment), then the chain of causality has to start with an Uncaused Cause, even for the secularist. The only problem is that the secularist has suppostionally cut himself off from having an Uncaused Cause as the explanation, so he has no access to any explanation at all. Not so, the theist.

And yet the KJ bible says 'it' lied to Adam and Eve right at the beginning?

Actually, no, it doesn't. You seem to be misreading something here. Can you elaborate?

I think this phrase 'theist philosophers' nonsensical, I think you mean Theologians.

No, I don't. Theologians operate only within their own discipline. Theistic philosophers operate within the general field of philosophy, competing on an equal footing with secular philosophers, and discussing the same issues. If you haven't met any yet, you're really missing something. Try Wolterstorff, Plantinga, Craig or Hart, on the heavy side, or Lewis, McGrath or Lennox on the easier side. I promise you it will be worth it, even if all you want to do is swot up on the opposing views.

Sorry for the delay in responding. So busy right now. But a little time chatting with you does me good.

[Arising_uk]

Well, I can't blame you for the old belief "faith means believing what you know ain't true" dodge. ...

Not my belief, mine is that faith means believing that because you believe it's true.

Actually, a proper understanding of faith might be more nuanced as something like "faith means being able to project from the available evidence to things not yet fully confirmed." If so, it is something a scientist does every time he creates a hypothesis. He has some "faith" that his hypothesis will work. If it does not, he is corrigible. So is real religious faith: it is premised on evidence and works through logic, but it does not pretend complete knowledge -- just as appropriately modest science does.

And this evidence is?

Not "convenient," perhaps: but certainly wonderful.

For the believer I grant you but for this 'God'? Seems a pauce 'God' if the believer can nuance 'it'.

Great question: it shows me your suppositional problem. You're thinking I'm thinking of a "caused" God. But that's not the classical theistic understanding of God at all. Rather, it posits God as the ultimate ground of Being. As for science, as you rightly notice, it has precisely the problem of explaining where it's chain of causes originates. If time is linear (and there's no scientifically validated alternative at the moment), then the chain of causality has to start with an Uncaused Cause, even for the secularist. The only problem is that the secularist has suppostionally cut himself off from having an Uncaused Cause as the explanation, so he has no access to any explanation at all. Not so, the theist.

Spinoza's 'God' is fine by me, it's the theists interfering one I can have no truck with. The secularist does not have an issue with an uncaused cause so at present the Big Bang and the Theory of Evolution seems good enough an explanation for existence and the variety of life. This 'God' adds nothing to any explanation of things or being. Time in Physics is far from linear at either the relativistic or quantum levels and at the macro-level it just appears to be change as recognised by thinking things.

Actually, no, it doesn't. You seem to be misreading something here. Can you elaborate?

The serpent had the right of it. Of course you could be nuanced and say this 'God' meant, eat and I will cause you to die later and if 'it' had said that then I doubt we'd have learnt about good and evil although my take is we should have eaten from the tree of life first and then the tree of knowledge but apparently this 'God' 'created' us, or at least man, stupid and naive.

No, I don't. Theologians operate only within their own discipline. Theistic philosophers operate within the general field of philosophy, competing on an equal footing with secular philosophers, and discussing the same issues. If you haven't met any yet, you're really missing something. Try Wolterstorff, Plantinga, Craig or Hart, on the heavy side, or Lewis, McGrath or Lennox on the easier side. I promise you it will be worth it, even if all you want to do is swot up on the opposing views.

I stand corrected. Although I think it a fairly semantic nuance as they the still chat about the same things the theologians did and stand on the same theist belief.

I doubt I'm missing much as I have a vague memory of Plantinga and he didn't convince me then so I doubt swotting up will change my mind but feel free to remind me. "Lewis", C.S.?

Sorry for the delay in responding. So busy right now. But a little time chatting with you does me good.

Likewise.

[Immanuel Can]

And this evidence is?

Wide and various, though by no means uncontested. For example, I've always been fascinated by the inability of naturalists to see order and design in the universe. It appears they find my recognition of it surprising, and yet it seems to perfectly obvious to me that I cannot believe they cannot see it on every side. Or take consciousness...how does a purely material world suddenly "cough up" this completely non-material property, something the dead opposite of "material"? Or take the question of evil: atheists think it is a serious problem for theists...and yet it's surely far greater for atheists, who don't even have a way of legitimizing a category by which evil can be recognized. If "evil" actually exists, then that fact alone argues very powerfully for the existence of objective value, and objective value argues for God.

You realize, of course, that I cannot do any justice to all these lines of thoughts here, because of space. The only important point for our purposes is that you can see I think I see plenty of evidence, and by faith connect the dots to God. For some reason, the atheist does not.

For the believer I grant you but for this 'God'? Seems a pauce 'God' if the believer can nuance 'it'.

No, I didn't say a person could "nuance" God, only that discussing the attributes of God has to be nuanced, in the sense that you're dealing with something profound that is capable of nuance.

Actually, the secularist has a huge problem with an Uncaused Cause. Something had to precipitate the Big Bang, and before that, the existence of the "noble gasses," so called, that prepared for the Big Bang. This "Cause" had to set into motion all the laws upon which science itself depends, and convert an accident (a "bang"), into a creative and generative force. We can argue afterwards about what mechanism took over after that, but the problem remains: why is there something rather than nothing, since "nothing" is precisely what we should expect from nothing -- if that's all there was at the start. Why did *anything* start to exist? Being itself is what is incomprehensible, from a materialist perspective.

That's a hard problem to grasp, but it's fundamental. It's not just "what is" that we need to account for, but for the property of "being" itself. On a naturalist worldview, it can never be explained, and yet the naturalist is just as bound to have to locate the origin of being in an Uncaused Cause as the theist is.

In any case, how should purely material processes suddenly generate entirely different properties like qualia and consciousness? That's a question that the worlds greatest scientists and philosophers cannot answer. Something very spooky is going on in this universe, in addition to the purely material stuff.

The serpent had the right of it.

You're being sarcastic, of course. There's actually a lot one can learn from that passage, even if one is only prepared to see in it a human legend. But you won't get anything out of it by getting the details wrong. If you want, we can discuss it further; but I have a sense you don't actually care a whole lot about Biblical exegesis, perhaps, and would rather simply "take your shot" and then move on: correct?

Yes, C.S. Lewis. He's very simple, straightforward and homespun. A lot of people have found him helpful in catching the broad outlines of certain theistic issues (like "mere Christianity"), though like any theist he is not without his detractors, of course.

Wolterstorff has the very best philosophical book I have read so far on the issue of "Justice," and Plantinga is really good on a number of things. Both are very highly regarded in secular circles as well as theistic ones. There are very, very bright minds around that operate from a theistic perspective, just as there are bright atheists. What we have to stop doing is dismissing each other out of hand. We need to start talking and listening sympathetically.

Rather like you and I are doing right now, I think.