Atheism & Sensus Divinitatus
What is the sensus divinitatus?
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.
(John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, pp.43, 45-46)
What is the true nature of atheism?
The descent into atheism is caused by a complex of moral-psychological factors, not a perceived lack of evidence for God’s existence. The atheist willfully rejects God, though this is precipitated by immoral indulgences and typically a broken relationship with his or her father. Thus, the choice of the atheistic paradigm is motivated by non-rational factors, some of which are psychological and some of which are moral in nature.
The hardening of the atheistic mind-set occurs through cognitive malfunction due to two principal causes. First, atheists suffer from paradigm-induced blindness, as their worldview inhibits their ability to recognize the reality of God that is manifest in creation. Second, atheists suffer from damage to the sensus divinitatus, so their natural awareness of God is severely impeded. Both of these mechanisms are aspects of the noetic effects of sin [the damaging effects of sin on cognitive and thought processes].
This combination of factors amounts to a deadly cognitive cocktail when it comes to religious belief. However, thankfully, even the atheist is not beyond reach of the redemptive power of God.
(Prof James Spiegel, The Making of an Atheist, 2010, p.113-144)
Lisa Guinther
on February 28th, 2011
Ok Roger, the first paragraph you posted of Spegal is where I beg to differ…although where he points out the noetic effect of sin, that I do agree with…but he seems to me to be apealing to Freudian psycology, that is what I have a problem with.
To use a naturalisticly based psycological assesment to judge how one loses the sensus divintatus seems to me a inorrect mesuring stick.
It is simplistic to blame a person’s fall into Atheism on having an inifectual or damaged relationship with one’s father, and quite framkly, unfair to the fathers out there who try there darndest to present the love of God to their children, and to those of us who serve God with all our hearts are confused by the connection, for we came out of households with Atheists for fathers and had horribly damaged relationships with them.
But as always Roger, you have thought provoking posts.
Thanks,
Lisa
rogermorris
on February 28th, 2011
Hi Lisa,
Obviously the reasons for unbelief are complex, multifactorial and individual specific.
The reference to Freudian father-relationship psychology is as much an illustration of how Freud’s father wish-fulfillment theory of religious belief can be turned back and used as a similar argument for atheism. It is hard to deny though that many prominent atheists have had absent, abusive, neglectful or ineffectual father figure modelling during their formative years of psychological development. One can see how this may rub up against traditional Christian metaphors as God as a loving Father.
I agree with Spiegel in his thesis that many, perhaps most, avowed atheists are non-believers for reasons more likely to be psychological, existential and moral, rather than due to rational reasoning and lack of evidence. I assert that most atheists prefer the existential and moral autonomy of atheism and use rational arguments to sure up and give a respectible intellectual veneer to their atheistic presuppositions.
As always, it is dangerous to generalise. However Spiegel’s thesis holds true for a significant proportion of public atheists.
Lisa Guinther
on March 1st, 2011
And on your last paragraph, yes I agree with you there.
Interestlingly though, having heard Christopher Hitchens “live and in color”, it seems to me he was hurt by geting non-answers or bad answers from his church as a youth. Now we, as Christians can do someting about that! And that is the great effort put into better education within Evangelical circles with increased teaching in Apologetics…yet never forget to show the love of Christ.
Trying to offer better teaching to equip “the saints” is my driving passion…as should it be for all in the body of Christ…there are not exceptions to 1 Pet. 3:15.
It is a shame that a very negative, very vocal minority of militant Atheists tends to drive these generalites.
Nice “chatting” with you Roger!
Blessings,
Lisa
rogermorris
on March 1st, 2011
Hi Lisa,
With you completely on these issues!
Response to Paul Baird’s Response! | Faith Interface
on March 29th, 2011
[...] Regarding your question of non-Christian moral codes, I want to make it clear that I am NOT claiming that non-Christians cannot live what others would consider “morally good” lives. I am also not suggesting that non-Christian cultures cannot develop moral codes by which to successfully live. What I am claiming is that the whole concept of objective moral standards is incoherent without the existence of God, as described by Judeo-Christian theology. So, while non-Christian individuals and cultures may “develop” or at least unwittingly adhere to pre-conceived objective moral standards, they are doing so (whether they realise it or not) by borrowing capital that originates from God. This may be consciously or subconsciously in the case of individuals and cultures that came after the advent of Judeo-Christianity, or innately and intuitively in the case of pre-JudeoChristians individuals and cultures via the sensus divinitatus. [...]