Wikipedia Wrote:Sensus divinitatis ("sense of divinity"), also referred to as sensus deitatis ("sense of deity") or semen religionis ("seed of religion"), is a term first used by John Calvin to describe a hypothetical human sense. Instead of knowledge of the environment (as with, for example, smell or sight), the sensus divinitatis is alleged to give humans a knowledge of God.
In Calvin's view, there was no reasonable non-belief. The sensus divinitatis is sometimes used to argue that there are no genuine atheists.
"That there exists in the human mind and indeed by natural instinct, some sense of Deity [sensus divinitatis], we hold to be beyond dispute, since God himself, to prevent any man from pretending ignorance, has endued all men with some idea of his Godhead…. …this is not a doctrine which is first learned at school, but one as to which every man is, from the womb, his own master; one which nature herself allows no individual to forget."
I think this most accurately describes what a theist would subconsciously/indirectly be referring to whenever they claim we can come to know of God. The sensus divinitatis is claimed, by Plantinga, to be the sense that produces knowledge -- not belief -- in God, much like our other senses which give us non-inferentially justified knowledge about our surroundings.
At face value, the atheist would reject the notion of the sensus divinitatis because quite clearly, there is no such sense that they are aware of. This, Plantinga says, is due to sin:
Alvin Plantinga posits a modified form of the sensus divinitatis whereby all have the sense, only it does not work properly in some humans, due to sin. - Wikipedia.
There are some decisive reasons as to why the notion of the sensus divinitatis should be rejected altogether, and these reasons have to do with the theists, not the atheists, of this world (and in history):
(1) Polytheism, not monotheism, was the first system of religion to spring up in the human race.
(2a) The surviving religions of today can hardly come to a consensus on the nature of god(s).
(2b) The surviving denominations of today can hardly come to a consensus on the nature of their god(s). [example: I'm amazed that every Christian on here tells me God isn't all-loving, but everyone I've ever known in real life tells me he is.]
(3) An argument between two people with differing religious beliefs will hardly ever come to a definite conclusion.
Motivating reason (1)
It seems odd that if the majority of people today claim that there is ONE god, that such a god couldn't be conceived by humanity since the dawn of civilization, considering that said god planted the sensus divinitatis into humanity from the very beginning. Surely such a sense would most likely derive knowledge of the ONE god responsible for said sense instead of a multitude of fake gods.
Motivating reason (2a, 2b)
With our other senses, we can generally agree on most things. For example, if two people witnessed a crime, they would collectively describe what they saw extremely well. Likewise, with our memories, two people who went to a football game would be able to collectively recall memorable moments extremely well. If neither of these things were true, we would encounter huge problems in our courts and in everyday life from being unable to reliably recall what our senses picked up, and hence disagreement would ensue every time. This isn't the case. As with the sensus divinitatis, it seems that it is the case. This surely isn't to be expected if this sense existed and gave the believer knowledge of the divine, just like our other senses reliably give us knowledge of our surroundings.
Motivating reason (3)
Any religious person can be said to be non-inferentially justified in believing what they believe i.e. they have first-hand experience with what they're claiming (most likely from the alleged sensus divinitatis). As a result, both parties will fervently assert that what they have witnessed/encountered is genuine. This leaves them with no way of undermining the other's beliefs because they are both non-inferentially justified. So at most, the sensus divinitatis is an extremely unreliable mechanism for forming knowledge, unlike sight, memory and even deductive reasoning.
Under these various considerations, it follows that such a sense most likely does not exist, as it certainly appears that the ones who claim to have it are no better than the claimant next to them in regards to giving a concise account about God. As a consequence, agnosticism about the nature of God follows since this alleged sense leaves us in the dark, with the appalling effect of making the blind lead the blind; a most counter-intuitive effect for a sense to have.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
![[Image: artworks-000032041702-sdemhi-original.png?8864323]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i1.sndcdn.com%2Fartworks-000032041702-sdemhi-original.png%3F8864323)
