The Epistemology of the Divine

Post Reply New Topic

When talking about spirituality, people often refer back to an "inner feeling", some sort of special thing that allows them to know the truth, but the problem I've raised a number of times is how this can be trusted as a source of truth.

Think about it:
There is no mechanism by which this thing can really have knowledge.
The conclusions arrived at are fundamentally different for each person. (# of Gods, aspects of their nature, etc)
The conclusions arrived at often involve contradictions with other tendencies. (the immoral things in many theological texts)
Human beings have a number of cognitive flaws as is.

It seems to me that whatever this inner feeling is, it must be a cognitive flaw.

I know that some philosophers following Alvin Plantinga argue that there is a mechanism, a sensus divinitatis that allows us access to the divine, however, that problem certainly runs into problems 2 and 3 on our list. For that reason, is it really reasonable to believe in this "life force"? If so, then why?

This is part of the Awesomelyglorious initiative to assert the superiority of atheist peoples and to STRIDENTLY show the flaws in the ideas of God.
(This message has been paid for by the commission to awesomize Awesomelyglorious)

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 02 Jun 2010, 10:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Did Alvin Plantinga argue that belief in God is foundational?

Anyway I think that the argument for the existence of God should have some justification instead of just relying on a "divine sense".

Yes, he did. It is part of his Reformed Theology.


I agree with you, particularly in facing down the problems with it.

It cannot be, but neither because it does not exist nor because it is some kind of cognitive flaw. Rather, the "flaw" here lies in the human inability to correctly and accurately process information on one's own.

I suppose that might be possible, but how would one distinguish a source of information that cannot be correctly and accurately processed and a flaw?

It isn't as if we cannot make our flaws make more sense, but often we do try to make them make more sense in some form or fashion.

Do you mean "distinguish between"?

Scientists monitor frequencies for signals from outer space, and they are continually trying to discern whether the things they "hear" are real or anomolies or mere static or whatever else. There might be some kind of flaw in the systems they use for monitoring, and their systems of analysis and/or conclusions drawn might be flawed ... but are you suggesting some kind of "inner feeling" that something or someone might actually be out there is a flaw?

By distinguish between, I mean something like "tell the difference".

Yes, I mean that this feeling might be a cognitive flaw. Scientists tend to test their equipment and find a coherency in observation. If we can't find this with an inner sense, then how do we know that this isn't all just glitch?

Personally, I have ... and now someone will say I make that claim because I am flawed, correct?!

Well, the problem is that a lot of people will disagree with your claim, even appealing to their own sense of these matters. This means that there is not a coherency in observation. You might coherently observe one thing, and Orwell might coherently observe another, but put all of this together and we get nonsense.

Also, you are flawed.

What they're feeling is as real as any feeling can be. Whether it's accurate or not doesn't matter. I've had people mad at me for the wrong reasons, they still felt anger.

Are you familiar with the concept of dithering? Basically, the idea of purposefully introducing a small amount of error to get a smooth progression from one set of results to another. Most often it applies to mechanical testing equipment, but also includes the addition of noise to a digital sound signal in order to reduce quantization error.

No, I wasn't. I am guessing this is mostly important in music, yes?

And what if just as many might agree? For example:

"Here are thousands of men and women ... [who] flatly declare that since they have come to believe in a Power greater than themselves, to take a certain attitude toward that Power, and to do certain simple things, there has been a revolutionary change in their way of living and thinking ...
"... faith did for us what we could not do for ourselves ...
"God is doing for us what we could not do for ourselves." ("A.A.", the book)



No, that only means not all people accept the "coherency in observation" already being reported.



It would be impossible for Orwell or anyone else to investigate and act as I have and not end up with the same actual experience.



Yes, and my personal admission of that was absolutely essential for getting the process started ... and there is where we can so often both easily and sadly observe contempt and/or fear holding people in everlasting ignorance:

"... my friend sat before me, and he made the point-blank declaration that God had done for him what he could not do for himself. His human will had failed. Doctors had pronounced him incurable. Society was about to lock him up. Like myself, he had admitted complete defeat. Then he had, in effect, been raised from the dead, suddenly taken from the scrap heap to a level of life better than the best he had ever known!
"Had this power originated in him? Obviously it had not. There had been no more power in him than there was in me at that minute; and this was none at all."

However, even your own inital question reveals the reality of "the sense of the divine" by calling precisely that:

"Is the sense of the divine a real sense?" (emphasis added)

Otherwise, you would have asked whether *a* (or *an alleged*) "sense of the divine" is a real sense.

Providence rules!

Last edited by leejosepho on 02 Jun 2010, 8:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ok, but the problem is how many will be Muslims? How many will be Hindus? How many will be Buddhists? How many will uphold their ancestors? How many will just be spiritual?

As it stands, Christians are a large group, but they are not a majority.


As I stated earlier, Christians are a large group, but they are nowhere close to being the majority. Even within and between Christian subgroups, none come close.


I somehow doubt this, it could merit some research, but honestly I think there is a real basis for doubts about this. Even among people with a similar religious environment, there are different views towards God.

But what? Religion?

Bringing religion into this would only confuse things.

That's been my point from the beginning. These intuitions are connected to religions that are confusing on the matter. We can talk about the vagueness of "higher power", but many people talk about different higher powers with different ethical teachings and so many differences that one has to question whether this is truth-bearing in the first place.