Analysis of the Cartesian Proof for the Existence of God - Essay Example

February 13, 2006 Analysis of the Cartesian Proof for the Existence of God Rene Descartes’ philosophical enterprise is best understood within the context of the influential philosophical school of rationalism. Regarded as the father of modern philosophy, Descartes’ proof for God’s existence is characterized by a rational inquiry, purporting to prove through the faculty of reason that God must necessarily exist. In this paper, the author initially examines Descartes’ arguments for the existence of God by taking into account his philosophical project as outlined in the Meditations on First Philosophy. The author then argues that while the contribution of Descartes’ philosophy is without doubt undeniably significant, there are important problems that become evident upon the examination of his thoughts. It will be shown that because Descartes’ proof that God exists is not original, his arguments are just as open and susceptible to the same criticisms as the similar argument that preceded his, and that his whole philosophy might in fact be rendered dubious, if understood as a circular form of reasoning. To understand how Descartes came to offer a proof for God’s existence, it must be understood that his philosophical venture in the Meditations is in fact some sort of veiled theological treatise. In his letter to the Faculty of Theology of Paris, he writes: I have always been of the opinion that the two questions respecting God and the Soul were the chief of those that ought to be determined by help of Philosophy rather than Theology; for although to us, the faithful, it be sufficient to hold as maters of faith, that the human soul does not perish with the body, and that God exists, it yet assuredly seems impossible ever to persuade infidels of the reality of any religion, or almost even any moral virtue, unless, first of all, those two things be proved to them by natural reason. (Popkin 122). It can be seen that Descartes’ aim in offering the Meditations was precisely for the purpose of providing rational proof for accepting the belief in God and the Soul, that is, rational proof that is sufficient to convince even the infidels. However, it should be noted at this point that the value of this rather veiled undertaking is the fact that in the process of formulating such a proof, Descartes was able to come up a whole philosophical system, one that is, as mentioned above, characterized by a rational inquiry into a subject that is previously seen as simply a matter of faith. In his book A History of Western Philosophy, Bertrand Russell acknowledges Descartes as “the first man of high philosophic capacity whose outlook is profoundly affected by the new physics and astronomy” (557). More importantly, Russell believes that while Descartes is still very much influenced by scholastic philosophy, “he does not accept foundations laid by predecessors, but endeavours to construct a complete philosophic edifice de novo” (557). This philosophic temper is one of the major contributions of Cartesian philosophy. More so, is the so-called Cartesian or Methodic Doubt. In trying to establish what ought to be considered as the reliable foundation of one’s beliefs, Descartes began his rational inquiry by doubting everything that can be doubted. It is only rational as per Descartes, to base all beliefs upon a foundation that cannot be doubted. Hence, he assumed that if he can arrive at that belief which can no longer be doubted, then he would have arrived at the only reliable foundation of knowledge. Material or physical foundations simply will not do, because they are not reliable. In the first meditation, he states: All that I have, up to this moment, accepted as possessed of the highest truth and certainty, I received either from or through the senses. I observed however, that these sometimes misled us; and it is the part of prudence not to place absolute confidence in that by which we have even once been deceived (Popkin 129). Thus he justified his method of doubting everything, until he reached what he accepted as his first principle: that he exists, since in order to doubt, he must first exist. Doubting, as a form of thinking, seemed to prove to him that he is at least certain of the fact that he is a thinking thing. He is thereby able to conclude, “Cogito, ergo, sum”, or “I think, therefore, I exist.” It should be understood that to simply argue for one’s existence because a Deity guarantees it is insufficient because such a belief can still be rendered doubtful. Thus Descartes needed to start with the certainty of one’s existence. However, it becomes evident that this idea opens up the problem of solipsism. How can one claim certainty on things that lie outside of one’s mind? It became apparent that he needed to prove the existence of God if only to guarantee the external world. Because even though what an individual perceives might appear to be clear and certain, an evil being might in fact be deceiving this individual. Only a benevolent God can ensure that no such deception is occurring. Descartes’ argument essentially flows in this manner: Empirical foundations of knowledge are unreliable, because these tend to mislead. In order to find the source of certainty, one must doubt everything that can be doubted. Having done so, the only belief that cannot be doubted is the fact that one is doubting. This guarantees one’s existence, because in order to doubt, one must exist first. The external world in turn seems to exist because of clear and distinct ideas about it. Only such ideas should be accepted as true. However, it can be asked how clear and distinct ideas are to be considered certainly true. The only way to do this is by appealing to a benevolent God to ensure that such ideas are in fact true. The existence of God therefore needed to be demonstrated, but if his letter to the theology faculty is once again considered, this is Descartes’ primary aim in the first place. How does Descartes accomplish this? He subscribes to the ontological argument, originally of Saint Anselm, a Benedictine monk who was the first to offer a rational proof for God’s existence. Anselm argues that to have an understanding of God as that than which nothing greater can be conceived, entails the acceptance of God’s existence since such a conception necessitates existence. He states: Therefore, if that than which nothing greater can be conceived, exists in the understanding alone, the very being than which nothing greater can be conceived, is one than which a greater can be conceived. But obviously, this is impossible. Hence, there is no doubt that there exists a being than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality (Fremantle 89). Following this lead, Descartes elaborates in the third meditation that the idea of a God as a perfect and supreme being is a clear and distinct idea. This notion of perfection is incredibly clear, that for it to come from an imperfect being such as him is impossible. There must be someone responsible for such an idea in Descartes’ mind, and the one responsible for such must be perfect. Now it would be an imperfection not to exist, so therefore it is only logical to infer that that being, God, exists. That is how Descartes essentially argues for God’s existence. Notice however, that the ontological argument, whether by Anselm or Descartes, fails because, as Kant argues, it wrongly understands existence as a predicate (Fremantle 97). To argue that a perfect X must exist by virtue of its having perfection as a quality is a faulty inference, since one can for example, conceive of a perfect island (Fremantle 92) without that island necessarily existing in actuality. In short, a quality that is used as a predicate does not serve as an existential guarantee. More significantly, Descartes seems to argue in a circle. Consider once again the flow of his thoughts, including his proof for God’s existence this time: 1. Empirical foundations of knowledge are unreliable, because these tend to mislead. The only belief that cannot be doubted is the fact that one is doubting. This guarantees one’s existence, because in order to doubt, one must exist first. 2. The external world in turn seems to exist because of clear and distinct ideas about it. Only such ideas should be accepted as true, and the only way to guarantee the truth of these ideas is by appealing to a benevolent God to ensure that such ideas are in fact true. 3. God can be proven to exist by arguing that since the idea of a perfect being in the mind is clear and distinct, there must be such a being responsible for putting such an idea of perfection in the mind. Since it would be an imperfection not to exist, this being, God, must exist. Notice that if God is to guarantee the truth of clear and distinct ideas, then He is supposed to guarantee Himself, since the mind only has a clear and distinct idea of God. This is to beg the question. If the existence of God is now denied, Descartes’ philosophy lapses to solipsism, since the former is the supposed guarantee against the latter. If his “cogito ergo sum” is accepted, then that is the only belief an individual can be sure of. This paves the way for the problem of other minds. There appears to be no way to even assume the existence of other minds, since there is no way to gain access to the external world. These are rational criticisms of a rational enterprise. Thus it appears that Descartes seems to fall into a fallacious inference. This tends to undermine his philosophy, rendering his rational inquiry useless. If value is to be sought in Descartes’ philosophy, it is in the philosophic attitude that he displayed in his quest for truth. Man is capable of rational thought, and to deny this rational nature is to live a life bereft of meaningful reflection. Works Cited Fremantle, Anne. The Age of Belief. New York: The New American Library of World Literature, Inc., 1954. Popkin, Richard H. The Philosophy of the 16th and 17th Centuries. New York: The Free Press, 1966. Russell, Bertrand. A History of Western Philosophy. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1945. Read More