Home More advice Religion, Spirituality & Folklore
In Descartes meditations on first philosophy Decartes decides to discard of any belief he has that have any doubt. He then attempts to use logic to find if those beliefs are true or false. However if you read these meditations he seems to fail at discarding preconceived notions about god. Example: God is perfect Existence is more perfect than non existence. God must exist. This is one of many ways Descrates tries to prove god but both of these assumptions hold doubt. He follows this mistake thru out all his ideas.
Argument 1 1. Something cannot come from nothing. 2. The cause of an idea must have at least as much formal reality as the idea has objective reality. 3. I have in me an idea of God. This idea has infinite objective reality. 4. I cannot be the cause of this idea, since I am not an infinite and perfect being. I don't have enough formal reality. Only an infinite and perfect being could cause such an idea. 5. So God — a being with infinite formal reality — must exist (and be the source of my idea of God). 6. An absolutely perfect being is a good, benevolent being. 7. So God is benevolent... 8. So God would not deceive me and would not permit me to error without giving me a way to correct my errors. ( Who says that an imperfect being can't conceive of a perfect being. This argument is absurd)
Argument 2 1. I exist. 2. My existence must have a cause. 3. The cause must be either: a) myself b) my always having existed c) my parents d) something less perfect than God e) God 4. Not a. If I had created myself, I would have made myself perfect. 5. Not b. This does not solve the problem. If I am a dependent being, I need to be continually sustained by another. 6. Not c. This leads to an infinite regress. 7. Not d. The idea of perfection that exists in me cannot have originated from a non-perfect being. 8. Therefore, e. God exists. (Who says existence has a cause? That is an assumption to make someone feel better but has no truth)
Proof for the body being distinct from the mind 1. It is possible for God to create anything I can clearly and distinctly perceive. 2. If God creates something to be independent of another, they are distinct from each other. 3. I clearly and distinctly understand my existence as a thinking thing (which does not require the existence of a body). 4. So God can create a thinking thing independently of a body. 5. I clearly and distinctly understand my body as an extended thing (which does not require a mind). 6. So God can create a body independently of a mind. 7. So my mind is a reality distinct from my body. 8. So I (a thinking thing) can exist without a body. (Why does he think one can think without a body)
Proof of the reality of external material things 1. I have a "strong inclination" to believe in the reality of external material things due to my senses. 2. God must have created me with this nature. 3. If independent material things do not exist, God is a deceiver. 4. But God is not a deceiver. 5. So material things exist and contain the properties essential to them. (Way to many assumption in this one)
Does anyone agree?
well for the first argument, my counter-argument would run more along the lines of, if something cannot come from nothing, where did God come from?
As for the second argument. When you use the word cause do you really mean purpose or a reason? Because life exists. Therefore there is something that caused it to exist (whether you believe in the big bang theory or God as the causal agent, there is still something that set it into motion). I dont think Decartes meant the word cause to mean there was a purpose or reason to life in that particular argument. However, he has a point with the infinite regress. Only he does not seem to include God in his theory of infinite regress. Who created God?
IMHO, he is the father of the modern scientific approach. In that sense he was very successful. Ans he was no dummy. I think he must have been aware of the fallacies in Meditations.
Descartes was accused of being a deist/atheist in his own day. Considering Meditations was written after he had already become famous, I think it was a CYA attempt. He lived in a time when it was commonplace to execute heretics.
Well I see your point with infinite regress. However there are so many holes in his logic. I've heard theist try to use these arguments or the like and fail. I don't see how Descartes was successful in his attempt at a system of doubt which was the goal. Traditional epistemology sees it as a successful attempt which is one of the reasons I tend to lean towards naturalized epistemology.
