Wednesday, October 8, 2014
The Role of God
Descartes attempts to prove God's existence in Meditation III in order to rule out the possibility of an evil genius and to ensure that everything he clearly and distinctly perceives to be true is in fact true. Without discussing the merits of the argument (which we only summarized in class), discuss the role of the existence of God in Descartes' project. Assuming he can prove God's existence, can God guarantee the truth of clear and distinct ideas? Can God guarantee sense perception? Is it wise that God plays such a prominent role in his project?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Throughout Meditation III, Rene Descartes attempts to prove that God is a supremely perfect and omnipotent being while at the same time questioning the perception of the human mind. He argues that since god gave us our minds, in theory, our minds must also be perfect. But what happens when our mind fails us? Does that mean that God is imperfect or that he is an omnipotent deceiver? But can it also resolve that it is not God’s responsibility that our mind deceived us, but rather our own responsibility. I reside with the latter. Yes God created us and our minds, but he is not responsible for our clear perception of the world. We are free-thinking beings and the fact that we are able to have this discussion alone proves that assertion. God has infinite abilities and can reach us in any way possible, but sense perception is based upon our own actions and occurrences. Though Descartes gets stuck in the Cartesian circle I still reside with his opinion that God is no deceiver, but how he comes to this assumption is circuitous. He knows God is perfect because he perceives him so. But to get back on track think of parents raising their offspring. When two people have children they do indeed pass along hereditary traits and some traits that are acquired over time, but does this mean if the child turns out differently from the parents, the parents are responsible for this occurrence. In simpler, but more drastic terms for the sake of argument, picture the perfect parents whose son turns out to be a serial killer. Is that then the responsibility of the parents? Is it their fault? Though this argument is a stretch, in a similar manner, God is not responsible for the misperception of us humans.
ReplyDeleteIgnoring the Cartesian circle, Descartes argument that God guarantees perception and truth is still massively flawed. Descartes puts god on a massive pedestal thinking that since god exists, and must be perfect, everything must be perfect. He relies on God to prove his arguments where he should be seeking other easier alternatives to prove some of his theories. He reaches several questionable conclusions from god’s existence, thinking that our facilities for knowledge must be perfect since god makes everything perfect. This then reaches the conclusion that our sense of judgment is perfect, and therefore our choices are perfect. The fact that we make mistakes disproves that quite easily. Descartes makes many claims boldly on only the premise that god is a perfect. He does not take in the account that God may deceive us for our own benefit, or that god might not take on the exact role that Descartes plans for him. He thinks of god not as an amorphous figure, but someone who clearly and distinctly formed us to have clear and distinct ideas. Even if Descartes argument that god exists holds up how does he know the form and role that god takes? He assumes too much from the fact that god exists, and uses his existence to form a being that justifies all of his arguments. Desecrates molds the existence of god into a questionable tool to justify his arguments, without taking into account if god has other plans for mankind.
ReplyDeleteIn Descartes’ argument against skepticism, God’s existence proves that we are not being deceived because both God and a great deceiver cannot exist at the same time. Descartes identifies God as the epitome of perfection; a being with infinite goodness and power. Since deception is not within the realm of good actions, a perfect being such as God would oppose deception. Also, since God is infinitely capable, his universe would contain only what he desired. In other words, God would have both the desire and the ability to eliminate Descartes’ “evil genius”. Therefore, God’s role is to rule out the possibility that we are continually being deceived. According to Descartes, if we are not being deceived, it follows that whatever we clearly and distinctly perceive is true. Despite this assertion, Descartes recognizes that we still often produce mistaken ideas. As a result, God’s existence does not necessarily mean that our ideas will always be true. Rather, it means that we have an undeniable capacity to perceive the truth provided that our judgment does not exceed our intellect. God’s existence would also guarantee the validity of our sense perception. As Descartes puts it, God has convinced us that all ideas of material reality come from corporeal things. Since God is not a deceiver, corporeal things therefore must exist as we perceive them so sense perception is mostly trustworthy.
ReplyDeleteI think that Descartes’ role for God in his project is necessary if he wishes to make any progress at all. The God whose existence Descartes seeks to prove does not seem to have any religious connections. Instead, I see his God only as the idea that there is some perfect state, even if nothing in the material world has attained it yet. If this is the case, Descartes’ God is instrumental to the search for true knowledge since God represents the potential for knowledge.
In Meditation III, Descartes argues that if god exists, I exist, and I am a thinking think, then obviously everything that I clearly and distinctly perceive is true. If we assume that his argument for god existing is valid and solely investigate this argument, there are few problems that arise very quickly. Earlier in Meditation I, Descartes argues that because some of our perceptions through the senses are false so therefore we can never trust our senses. Here, Descartes uses the argument in the opposite way, saying that if in one instance where I clearly and distinctly perceive god and he in fact exists, then everything that I distinctly perceive is true as well. This is hypocrisy at its finest. In one instant Descartes uses one argument to prove that he knows nothing and in another he uses the complete opposite argument, one that is mutually exclusive to the first, to say that now you know anything that you clearly perceive. As valiant as his effort is, any schmuck can look at those two arguments and say that you can’t say both of those things. Setting aside god’s role in all of this, either Descartes can argue that one false perception negates all perceptions or that one true perception validates all perceptions. That way, either all sense and intellectual perceptions are false or they are all true, but either way, we accomplish nothing. One way, we give in to the skeptics and admit that we really know nothing, and the other way we can say that all of our sense perceptions are true and we don’t even need to continue past Meditation I. At this point, it doesn’t even matter which one is correct, it just matters that you can’t have both. Overall, when realizing the hypocritical flaw in Descartes work, we see that either way he argues, we don’t achieve our goal of finding foundational beliefs, we either negate all beliefs or include all beliefs to be valid. When looking at a whole, this particular instant is a good example of the whole book, as it fails to argue anything well, but by doing so, it shows how hard answering these questions are and how they might not be as important as we think they are.
ReplyDeleteIn Meditation three Descartes makes the argument that if God exists, and he is truly not a deceiver, then everything I clearly and perceive is true. He proves this by saying that he clearly and distinctly perceives, so God exists, but then he says that we clearly and distinctly perceive, because God exists.
ReplyDeleteThis is a circular argument, but Descartes tries to tip toe around the circular argument by saying that God helps us with our memory, but not clearly and distinctly perceive things. However, if God does not help us clearly and distinctly perceive things, then these “clear and distinct” perceptions can be created by an evil genius. With no one to help us form our own perceptions, we are open to be influenced by an evil genius into creating false perceptions. If so, Descartes would have to start over with his argument, because the whole reason for the search for knowledge stems from his original false perceptions.
Another problem with this argument is God’s role in Descartes’ project. Descartes does not account for the role of different religions, why would God place a different image of himself in different people’s minds. Would this not be a form of placing distorted images in different people’s minds, consequentially God becomes a deceiver. According to Descartes argument, “It is impossible for God ever to deceive me, for trickery or deception is always indicative of some imperfection. And although the ability to deceive seems to be an indication of cleverness or power, the will to deceive undoubtedly attest to maliciousness or weakness. Accordingly, deception is incompatible with God” (35). Therefore, there is a false premise in Descartes argument! Another aspect of the role of religion is the current wave of evolutionists. Of course Descartes did not live in modern times, but by assessing Descartes theories from a current standpoint, we must consider the new scientific discoveries. Many believe that God exists, but many also believe in theories such as the big bang theory, that refutes the existence of any God or places a fairly diminished role of God in everyday life.
In Descartes’ project to create the general rule that “everything I very clearly and distinctly perceive is true” (Descartes 24), he incorrectly assumes that God is perfect. Descartes argues that we clearly and distinctly perceive God, and God is perfect. Because God is perfect, God would not allow anyone to interpret God as anything but perfect because God cannot deceive. Because God cannot deceive, God would not allow us to interpret God in any way other than very clearly and distinctly. Also, god would not let us perceive god in a way that is untrue, because god is perfect and would not allow falsehoods. Therefore, the way we perceive god is true. Because we interpret God clearly and distinctly, Descartes extends this argument to say that anything we clearly and distinctly perceive must be true. If Descartes’ premises were correct, his general rule would also be correct but there is one large flaw with his premises. Descartes assumes that God is a perfect being. Assuming God exists, there is evidence in biblical stories and in everyday life that shows God behaving in less than perfect ways. One example is the story of Job. In this biblical story, Satan tells God that he believes Job only serves God because God protects Job. God allows Satan to destroy Job’s life and make him as miserable as possible without killing him for the purpose of proving a point. If God were truly perfect, God would resist the temptation to be right at the expense of a human. Another example is something Descartes addresses, but indirectly. Knowing he will be faced with the question of “Why do bad things happen to good people?”, Descartes says that the imperfections in life are a result of free will, which was given to humans by God. Yet a perfect and all-knowing being such as God cannot cause harm and knows all of the effects of their actions. If God is perfect, God would not give humans the power of free will because free will is harmful and God would not do anything harmful. If God is in fact perfect, Descartes’ general rule is true, but there are objections to God’s perfection that refute Descartes’ rule.
ReplyDeleteAs Descartes mentions multiple times in his first meditation, the main role of the skepticism outlook is to assume falsehood in every idea that cannot be clearly and distinctly proven. In his first proof where he attempts to show his own existence is entirely undeniable, Descartes uses only undeniable logic in his attempt to remain true to the rules of skepticism. As soon as God was introduced into the plans to move forward with gaining new knowledge based on only foundationalism, many issues began to arise.
ReplyDeleteObviously it is very difficult to prove the existence of God, but since this is a premise which we will assume is true for the purpose of this argument, there are further questions that must be answered before some of the conclusions could be made. Throughout the meditations involving God, Descartes seemed to make many premises based off of the ideas regarding God that were instilled upon him throughout his life; although the existence of God will be considered undeniable for the sake of this argument, any true skeptic will realize that ideas told to us about him can still very well be false. Descartes however, uses the qualities of God that he has heard in his past as concrete, undeniable truths to base his entire argument off of.
In many points that Descartes tried to make, the role of God involved him being a supreme being, one who will neither lie, create imperfection, or in any way attempt to hinder our knowledge of the world, and for this reason, things that we “know to be true” are inherently true, as God is not a deceiver and our perception is his creation. While it is very comforting to want to think these things about our own existence, it is not a given fact of the universe in the same way that Descartes tries to treat it, and basing any arguments off of these assumptions will, by default, make those arguments invalid. Even with the assumption of God’s existence, his qualities are still unproven, and trying to hinge an argument on the basis that God is exactly as we think is simply foolish. In the end, it was simply unwise for Descartes to try to base so many of his arguments off of his own ideal image of God, instead of attempting to face these arguments off of a more concrete, agreeable truth. In the end, the reason that Descartes failed in his search for the fundamental truths of life, was at least partially, if not entirely, by the fault of his attempt to base almost everything off of something too arguable to be a foundation for truths he wants to call unarguable.
I am still not convinced of the God argument. Not only does the argument for his existence not hold, but I don’t believe that the significance he followed with does either. He claims that God exists because he can “clearly and distinctly perceive” (Descartes, 24) the perfect being that is God. We discussed in class how this arguments dances in a circle and eventually proves itself (for our own sanity) to be untrue. However, even if we accepted it as true, I still find holes in the way God is to be used. A lot of assumptions of Gods role in justifying our knowledge are made.
ReplyDeleteDescartes says, given that god exists, “it is impossible for god to ever deceive me” (Descartes, 36). Descartes, here, assumes gods intentions and assumes which figure for god is to be implemented. He (attempts) to prove gods existence by our perceptions, but never proves why gods intentions are those of which he uses to prove our knowledge. Here, he resorts to the faith and trust that religion is popular and known for. These virtues might be all well and good; they make for fair topics of study, however, they are no proof for a solid, sequential argument regarding the existence of knowledge. The literal definitions of these two words are to avoid explanation and proof. On top of that, as we know of many faiths or religions in our world, it is further not justified to assign certain (faithful) beliefs as these explanations for our knowledge. We learn about God figures that depict enlightened ways of thinking and we learn about ones that depict all-powerful, humanlike creatures. Keep in mind that there are millions of depictions that fall in between those two. Faith should never be used as proof for an argument, especially since there many equally believed faiths in the first place.
Descartes describes god as a being who is perfect in every way. God is “supremely intelligent and supremely powerful” (30). Because god is supremely powerful, he can even thwart the evil genius mentioned from the previous chapter. Without god, the potential for this evil genius to be real prevents us from being secure in our knowledge of distinct and clear thoughts. If god exists, he will not let anyone interfere with thoughts because clear perception is perfection. The existence of Descartes all-powerful god proves that it is certain that thoughts are clear and distinct. However, this does not guarantee that the thoughts are true. This is because the information used to think is gathered from perceptions. God’s perfection does not guarantee us to perceive anything outside the mind distinctly and clearly, meaning that everything perceived is not guaranteed to be true. Although this vastly limits the scope of what we can clearly and distinctly perceive, it does not disprove that what we distinctly and clearly perceive is true.
ReplyDeleteI believe that it is unwise that god plays such a prominent role in Descartes argument. Primarily, the usage of god to prove clear and distinct perception creates a very narrow argument. If Descartes proof of God’s existence does not seem adequate to the reader, the whole argument is unjustified. Additionally, God does not appear in the logical flow of his arguments. Descartes has the intention of bringing God into the argument from the start and leads the argument astray by trying to incorporate God.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDescartes argues that given the existence of God, that he himself must exist, and that with any thoughts that I possess, they must be true and just. Descartes’s entire argument hinges heavily on the true existence of God, who, as a supremely benevolent being would never grant us senses that could deceive us, and thus if we make observations based upon the senses with which God has granted us, we must be correct. Descartes goes as far in his support of this notion by stating, “[I]t is impossible for God to ever deceive me” (Descartes, 36), and thus builds his argument off of the very sort of unprovable concept he warns against earlier.
ReplyDeleteDescartes has no logical basis for his belief in God - in fact just as little as in any other concept - but continues to argue as if God’s existence is a provable, unquestioned fact. Because of this, Descartes argues for a very narrow, unstable argument in his claim of God’s existence and thus the credence of any of our thoughts as a perceptive human being, and because of God’s prominence within the framework of his argument, Descartes fails to make any concrete, justifiable claims to support this notion.
Not only does Descartes try to prove God’s existence, but he also tries to prove that there is no possible way that God deceives us into believing things that aren’t true. Descartes makes the argument that humans need God to help us with our memory, but humans do not need God to think and understand clear things that have already been proven. With this being said, it is logical to think that Descartes means that God can only help us with our thoughts that we are trying to remember as opposed to ideas that we need to prove are true. If this is true, there is no way for humans to prove that God can guarantee the truth of clear and precise thoughts and ideas, even if Descartes did prove God’s existence somehow. The doubt to his argument is most obvious in the fact that humans often have false ideas, thoughts, and facts in their minds. However, although God may not be able to guarantee accurate information when it comes to a human’s mind, God may be able to guarantee an accurate sense perception, because the way we perceive things through our senses cannot be false. Also, a human’s senses are often associated with previous memories, so according to Descartes’ theory that humans need God to assist us with our memory, it is possible that God allows us to understand things accurately using our senses.
ReplyDeleteDescartes's role for God in the third meditation is to disprove the evil genius and to attempt to prove that everything he clearly and distinctly perceives is true. Descartes says that it is not possible for there to be an evil genius and an omnipotent being at the same time. By stating that Descartes is telling us that if he can prove that God exists then he can eliminate the idea of the evil genius. If Descartes eliminates the evil genius then there is no longer a being who is trying to deceive us. After Descartes proves that God exists he says that with God everything we clearly and distinctly perceive is true. Because God gave us our minds then our minds are perfect. In other words our faculties of perception are always right meaning everything we ever perceive is true. But Descartes can not guarantee that our faculties of the senses are true. God can not guarantee that everything we ever sense is true. That is our responsibility. What God does is allow Descartes to state that anything we every perceive about or senses is true but we can not prove that those senses, which we are basing our perceptions off of, are true.
ReplyDeleteI believe that it is a bad idea to give God such a prominent role. If anyone, such as Arnauld, comes along and argues that God does not exist and succeeds, then Descartes whole arguments falls apart. What Descartes is doing is "putting all of his eggs in one basket" which is widely regarded as a very bad decision. Descartes needs a back up plan or another piece of the argument besides God.
Through the Meditations, Rene Descartes argues that since God exists we cannot be deceived. He argues that God is prefect and because God is perfect and created our minds, which perceive, then our perceptions of God must also be perfect. Descartes argues that we cannot be deceived because a great deceiver cannot exist at the same time as God, and God does not deceive. But there is a problem here. None of us think or perceive things perfectly, like it is said we should since God is the creator. Then doesn’t that mean we are being deceived? If God and a deceiver cannot exist at the same time, that makes God a deceiver. Rene Descartes relies on God for most of his doubtful conclusions. Everyone perceives God. Descartes argues that God created our perceptions, but doesn’t the simplicity of this argument make it obvious that this is not true? Would God allow perceptions to believe that he is a deceiver? Descartes fails to mention this obvious problem. God cannot guarantee us the truth. He cannot guarantee us sense perception. God cannot guarantee sense perception because he cannot truthfully perceive. A great deceiver cannot truly perceive. Descartes tries to give us these false beliefs without noting that God himself is a deceiver. God should not be in such a position. He should not be in the position to play such a prominent role in Descartes Meditations. God is the base for all of Descartes arguments and is also the conclusion to all of Descartes argument. Descartes fails to see that God is a deceiver not the perceiver.
ReplyDelete