(June 11, 2013 at 1:52 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: 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.
Quote: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.
Quote: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.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
