DUNS: "How do you know? Maybe he has not communicated with or shown
himself to you. Evidently you have never heard divine locution. But
some of us have. What is more, every human seems to possess the
sensus divinitatis. I know that I think I sure possess the SD."
PROP: What precisely is "SD"? It is either similar to ordinary
sense experience or it is not. Let us conclude that it is similar
to ordinary sense experience. This would be your strongest position
because people generally trust their senses. Let us suppose that
there is an isolated group of people who occasionally experience a
headache as "a demon hitting the inside of my head". Would this
experience tend to prove that there were in fact demons inside
their heads? Or does the phrase "a demon hitting the inside of my
head" simply describe a feeling that could just as easily have been
described by the word "headache"? There are problems we encounter
when we ascribe unverifiable causes to experiences which are
private to each individual.
DUNS: The abbreviation SD refers to the sensus divinitatis. The SD is, according to John Calvin, the inborn tendency to believe in God. God himself has graciously implanted this nisus in us. Calvin writes:
"There is within the human mind, and indeed by natural instinct, an awareness of divinity."
He adds:
"Therefore, since from the beginning of the world there has been no region, no city, in short, no household, that could do without religion, there lies in this a tacit confession of a sense of deity inscribed in the hearts of all."
While one cannot verify the sensus divinitatis in an empirical fashion, there are other so-called innate dispositions that cannot be verified in this way either. This fact does not mean that the SD is not an innate disposition. But I bring up other dispositions to point out the fact that non-verifiability does not = invalid or untrue.
I also quote Calvin to show remind you that the SD is not a nisus that is common to one or two people in one or two cultures. In fact, Calvin aptly notes that there "is no nation so barbarous, no people so savage, that they have not a deep-seated conviction that there is a God."
PROP: How do we test this
supposed "SD"? . We would have to already know that God exists and
is communicating before we could find out whether "SD"
was reliable in detecting such communication. This is because a
test would consist of discovering whether in fact God was
communicating when the theist using his "SD" makes
that assertion. To do that we would have to have some independent
means of knowing that God is communicating. It is hard to believe
a loving, God would expect humans to grope in this manner. If
there is a God the loving thing for him to do would be to make
himself known in an obvious manner.
DUNS: Keep in mind that all human tests have their limitations and drawbacks. What is more, a number of lived experiences cannot fittingly be subjected to some type of positivistic test. This point has been argued by Lewis R. Gordon. Gordon contends that the concept of race--that is, the quiddity of race--is outside the purview of science. For while scientific tests may provide sufficient warrant that there is no such thing as "race," lived experience tells us differently. You may say that race can be observed, but God cannot. If you put forth such an objection, however, you would be mistaken. We certainly cannot always observe "race." Depending on how we define the term, we may never observe race simply by beholding the epidermal schemata of various individuals. Tests normally are influenced by a person's presuppositions as well.
As far as God wanting us to grope, read Acts 17:26-31.
Duns the Scot