On the Sensus Divinitatis

[FallentoReason]

You have that question ass backwards. If the (moral) sense is there and religions (I don't know of others that do) draw a logical conclusion from it, that's all they need to do.

I just realised that you're using the word "sense" wrong. The S.D. is a sense just like eye sight is one of the 5 senses. We're not talking about e.g. a "sense" of fashion.

Any system that valued morals would have to acknowledge what might be perfectly moral. Hence God.

So you're talking about inductive thinking, not a literal sense that picks up on the divine.

I've seen atheists champion secular morality. So they should see benefit in perfect morality and it's attainment. Ergo, they are naturally drawn to God.... Calvin's argument.

Sure, through inductive reasoning they might be compelled to do that, but I'm not arguing against inductive reasoning, I'm arguing against Calvin's concept which you've distorted.

More on the concept:

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.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?t...ivinitatis

Your line of thought is built on a strawman.

[fr0d0]

I just realised that you're using the word "sense" wrong. The S.D. is a sense just like eye sight is one of the 5 senses. We're not talking about e.g. a "sense" of fashion.

No it's not like fashion sense lol. This sense isn't reasoned at all. It's innate. I reject your objection.

Do you think that criminals lose their moral compass or that they override it? You can see from the Christian idea of forgiveness for all that we believe that everyone can be good. No one is bad/ without this 'sense'.

[FallentoReason]

I just realised that you're using the word "sense" wrong. The S.D. is a sense just like eye sight is one of the 5 senses. We're not talking about e.g. a "sense" of fashion.

No it's not like fashion sense lol. This sense isn't reasoned at all. It's innate. I reject your objection.

I agree. It's in our instinct to behave morally. So what?

Do you think that criminals lose their moral compass or that they override it?

Since my view is that morality is subjective, I'd have to say that they have partly found reasons to justify whatever action they decided on. This reminds me of my workplace (I like staying anonymous here, so I'll just say it's a pizza place) where our employer let us know that there was an in-store thief. On the surface of it, I'm sure we can both agree that it's downright immoral to be stealing from your own workplace. As more information finally surfaced though, I couldn't help but feel sympathetic for the "criminal". It turned out that it was this girl who I knew had recently been kicked out of home and had no choice but to start renting. She was stealing out of a basic need to survive.

In short, I think the answer is neither. The above real-life scenario demonstrates that our relationship with what we call "morals" is in the grey area. I have no doubt in my mind that this girl would otherwise not have been stealing.. but given the circumstances..

You can see from the Christian idea of forgiveness for all that we believe that everyone can be good. No one is bad/ without this 'sense'.

In the greater scheme of things, I still fail to see how morality is a sense that reveals God. I still think you're misinterpreting Calvin's original thought, and even if morality was somehow tied to it, then in practicality, your argument accomplishes nothing; everyone has a fairly good "sense of morals" and yet it's not the case that this has provided a religious encounter with any god(s), like how the sensus divinitatis allegedly would.

I think what's required here, is a somewhat detailed argument explaining why we should expect mere morals to give rise to an encounter with the divine, because that's what I'm objecting to: the claim that there is some part of us (call it whatever you will) that can sense the divine.