Calvin states in the Institutes, (I.3) that man has an awareness of the divine (divinitatis sensum). In light of this fact, consider how this concept could be explained to a Marxist. Consider their objections and write a response drawing together information derived from the lecture and from the reading.
The crux of the Marxian objection to divinitatis sensum (i.e. that man has an innate sense of the divine) is that 1) religion has been used by the ruling class to oppress the masses, and 2) that religion is nothing but an “opiate for mankind” and therefore only offers a false placation of man’s existential suffering.
To address the first objection, we must admit that abuses and atrocities have been done in the name of religion (and Christianity). History is littered with examples. Although these examples offer some existential force for the denial of efficacious religion and they severely damage the good witness of true Christianity, abuses and atrocities in and of themselves do not offer anything close to a logical abrogation of God’s existence. As one philosopher puts it, “religion cannot be rightly judged by its abuses.” If a Nazi scientist, for example, discovers a cure for HIV, does that scientist’s repugnant anti-Semitic views negate the truth that a cure of HIV had been discovered? His warped morality may tarnish the wonderful truth (like vomit on a diamond), but the glorious fact that a cure exists still remains. In the same way, an abhorrent Christian witness does not logically negate the existence of God (although it most definitely will not forward that "Christian’s" evangelistic efforts). At most, the abuses that we see in Christendom call into question the efficacy of Christianity and the genuineness of that "Christian's" faith. For genuine faith will produce a harvest of genuine works.
The second Marxian objection also fails because of similar grounds: just because something offer comfort or relief of anguish does not logically negate its intrinsic reality. Both a placebo and a cure can offer relief to a patient. But the relief of pain in and of itself does not prove one way or another whether the patient took the placebo or the cure. It may be that the patient feels better simply because he has been freed from his disease.
The crux of the Marxian objection to divinitatis sensum (i.e. that man has an innate sense of the divine) is that 1) religion has been used by the ruling class to oppress the masses, and 2) that religion is nothing but an “opiate for mankind” and therefore only offers a false placation of man’s existential suffering.
To address the first objection, we must admit that abuses and atrocities have been done in the name of religion (and Christianity). History is littered with examples. Although these examples offer some existential force for the denial of efficacious religion and they severely damage the good witness of true Christianity, abuses and atrocities in and of themselves do not offer anything close to a logical abrogation of God’s existence. As one philosopher puts it, “religion cannot be rightly judged by its abuses.” If a Nazi scientist, for example, discovers a cure for HIV, does that scientist’s repugnant anti-Semitic views negate the truth that a cure of HIV had been discovered? His warped morality may tarnish the wonderful truth (like vomit on a diamond), but the glorious fact that a cure exists still remains. In the same way, an abhorrent Christian witness does not logically negate the existence of God (although it most definitely will not forward that "Christian’s" evangelistic efforts). At most, the abuses that we see in Christendom call into question the efficacy of Christianity and the genuineness of that "Christian's" faith. For genuine faith will produce a harvest of genuine works.
The second Marxian objection also fails because of similar grounds: just because something offer comfort or relief of anguish does not logically negate its intrinsic reality. Both a placebo and a cure can offer relief to a patient. But the relief of pain in and of itself does not prove one way or another whether the patient took the placebo or the cure. It may be that the patient feels better simply because he has been freed from his disease.
Posts
