2 Descartes on God and His Existence - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 42
About This Presentation
Title:

2 Descartes on God and His Existence

Description:

2 Descartes on God and His Existence TAs none Bibliographical Resources (reminder): Descartes Meditations (with Critics and Replies) + Discourse free at: http ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:210
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 43
Provided by: httpserve
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: 2 Descartes on God and His Existence


1
2Descartes on God and His Existence
2
  • TAs
  • none

3
  • Bibliographical Resources (reminder)
  • Descartes Meditations (with Critics and Replies)
    Discourse free at
  • http//www.earlymoderntexts.com/f_descarte.html
  • Leibnizs Nouveau Essays free at
  • http//www.earlymoderntexts.com/f_leibniz.html

4
  • Further bibliography on Descartes
  • Cottingham J. (1986). Descartes. Blackwell,
    Oxford
  • Further bibliography on/by Chomsky
  • Chomsky N. (2000). New Horizons in the Study of
    Language and Mind. Cambridge UP Cambridge
  • McGilvray J. (1999). Chomsky Language, Mind,
    and Politics. Polity Press Cambridge

5
  • The following can also be useful
  • Antony L. M. Hornstein N. (eds.) (2003).
    Chomsky and His Critics. Blackwell Oxford
  • Smith, N. (1999) Chomsky Ideas and Ideals.
    Cambridge UP Cambridge
  • Wilson C. (2003). Descartess Meditations An
    Introduction. Cambridge UP Cambridge

6
The Need of God
  • Main Goal To discover the fundamental ideas and
    notions, the innate truths, that God implemented
    in us.
  • Gods Existence Descartes proposed a causal
    explanation, but the effects he focuses on are
    entirely within the mind.

7
The Trademark Argument
  • God has placed within us the idea of himself as a
    craftsmans stamp on his work.
  • This argument presents four phases

8
  • 1. To make an inventory of the ideas found
    within oneself. The chief idea Descartes founds
    is the one of a supreme God, eternal,
    infallible, omnipotent and the creator of all
    things that exist a part of Himself.

9
  • I decided to inquire into the source of my
    ability to think of something more perfect than I
    was and I recognized very clearly that this had
    to come from some nature that was in fact more
    perfect. it was manifestly impossible to get
    this idea of a being more perfect than my own.
    For it was manifestly impossible to get this from
    nothing and I could not have got it from myself
    since it is no less contradictory that the more
    perfect should result from the less perfect, and
    depend on it, than something should proceed from
    nothing. So there remained only the possibility
    that the idea had been put into me by a nature
    truly more perfect than I was and even possessing
    in itself all the perfections of which I could
    have any idea, that isto explain myself in one
    wordby God. (Discourse on the Method CSM I 128)

10
  • 2. The Causal Adequacy Principle.
  • Its the self-evident principle that there must
    be as much reality in the efficient and total
    cause that there is in the effect of that cause
    ex nihilo nihil fit.

11
  • The objective reality of our ideas needs a
    cause which contains this reality not merely
    objectively but formally or eminently. It should
    be noted that this axiom is one which we must
    necessarily accept, since on it depends our
    knowledge of all things, whether they are
    perceivable through the senses or not. How do we
    know, for example, that the sky exists? Because
    we see it? But this seeing does not affect the
    mind except in so far as it is an ideaI mean an
    idea which resides in the mind itself, not an
    image depicted in the corporeal imagination. Now
    the only reason why we can use this idea as a
    basis for the judgement that the sky exists is
    that every idea must have a really existing cause
    of its objective reality and in this case we
    judge that the cause is the sky itself. And we
    make similar judgements in other cases. (Second
    Set of Replies CSM II 116-7)

12
  • 3. The Causal Adequacy Principle also applies to
    the realm of ideas and the features depicted by
    them (ideas are often conceived along images).
  • E.g. if an idea X depicts/represents an object
    which is F, then the cause of the idea must
    itself contain at least as much F-ness as it must
    be found/represented in the idea X.

13
  • 4. Given (1), i.e. that I have an idea of God
    being eternal, omnipotent, benevolent, etc. it
    follows from (2) and (3) that
  • The cause of my idea must contain in itself all
    the features represented by my ideas.

14
  • Since I am a finite and imperfect being I cannot
    myself be the cause of this idea representing
    perfection, omnipotence, etc.
  • The ultimate cause of my idea of God must be
    something possessing all these perfections
    represented in my idea.
  • Thus God exists.

15
  • Ideas are images
  • Thoughts are about things as images are images
    of things.
  • Some of my thoughts are as it were the images of
    things, and it is only in these cases that the
    term idea is strictly appropriatefor example,
    when I think of a man, or a chimera, or the sky,
    or an angel, or God. (Third Meditation CSM II
    25)

16
  • Ideas, as images, cannot in themselves be false.
  • Now as far as ideas are concerned, provided they
    are considered solely in themselves and I do not
    refer them to anything else, they cannot strictly
    speaking be false for whether it is a goat or a
    chimera that I am imagining, it is just as true
    that I imagine the former as the latter. (Third
    Meditation CSM II 26)

17
  • Causal Adeq. Princ. Ideas as images ? God
  • Now it is manifest by the natural light that
    there must be at least as much ltrealitygt in the
    efficient and total cause as in the effect of
    that cause. For where, I ask, could the effect
    get its reality from, if not from the cause? And
    how could the cause give it to the effect unless
    it possessed it? It follows from this both that
    something cannot arise from nothing, and also
    that what is more perfectthat is, contains in
    itself more realitycannot arise from what is
    less perfect. if we suppose that an idea
    contains something which was not in its cause, it
    must have got this from nothing yet the mode of
    being by which a thing exists objectively ltor
    representativelygt in the intellect by way of an
    idea, imperfect though it may be, is certainly
    not nothing, and so it cannot come from nothing.
    (Third Meditation CSM II 28-9)

18
  • Ideas in me are like ltpictures, orgt images
    which can easily fall short of the perfection of
    the things from which they are taken, but which
    cannot contain anything greater or more perfect.
    (Third Meditation CSM II 29)

19
Hierarchy of Ideas
  • (i) idea of God
  • (ii) idea of finite substances
  • (iii) idea of accident and modes

20
  • Because of the Causal Adequacy Principle
  • Descartes can argue that ideas of things less
    perfect than myself can be wholly
    invented/created by myself whereas ideas of
    things more perfectly than myself cannot be
    wholly created/invented by myself.

21
  • The idea of God is neither an
  • (i) an adventitious idea (coming from the
    senses)
  • (ii) nor invented.
  • It is simply found within the mind and yet it
    corresponds to something outside the mind.

22
  • The Idea of God is innate
  • It is innate, for if it cannot be caused by an
    external thing and yet corresponds to an external
    thing.
  • As such it must be stamped into the mind at the
    first instance of its existence.

23
  • By the word God I understand a substance that
    is infinite, lteternal, immutable,gt independent,
    supremely intelligent, supremely powerful, and
    which created both myself and everything else (if
    anything else there be) that exist. All these
    attributes are such that, the more carefully I
    concentrate on them, the less possible it seems
    that they could have originated from me alone. So
    from what has been said it must be concluded that
    God necessarily exists.
  • It is true that I have an idea of substance in
    me in virtue of the fact that I am a substance
    but this would not account for my having the idea
    of an infinite substance, when I am finite,
    unless this idea proceeded from some substance
    which really was infinite. (Third Meditation CSM
    II 31)

24
  • Descartes does not discuss Marsennes assertion
    that there are human beings with no innate idea
    of God
  • The fact that the native of Canada, the Hurons
    and other primitive people, have no awareness of
    any idea of this sort seems to establish that the
    idea does come from previous held notions.
    (Marsenne Second Set of Objections CSM II 89)
  • Furthermore Descartes does not tackle the
    question how there can be natural atheists if the
    idea of God is innate.

25
God as Final Cause
  • Problem with Causal Adequacy Principle
  • The Causal Adequacy Principle does not seem to
    account for new or emergent properties.
  • E.g. the property of sponginess created in
    mixing and backing some flowers emerge from some
    chemical changes.

26
  • Idea of God?
  • Hobbes (Third Set of Objections with Replies
    CSM2 127) objected that we cannot have an idea
    of God.
  • For, if ideas are images what is our image of
    God?

27
  • Hobbes
  • But when I think of an angel, what comes to mind
    is an image, now of a flame, now of a beautiful
    child with wings I feel sure that this image has
    no likeness to an angel, and hence that it is not
    the idea of an angel. But I believe that there
    are invisible and immaterial creatures who serve
    God In the same way we have no idea or image
    corresponding to the sacred name of God. It
    seems, then, that there is no idea of God in us.
    (Third Set of Objections with Replies CSM II
    126-7

28
  • Descartes reply
  • Although ideas may be somewhat like picture or
    images theyre not actually images
  • idea stands for what is immediately perceived
    by the intellect.
  • One can know and understand something without
    fully grasping it.

29
  • Descartes Reply
  • Here my critic wants the term idea to be taken
    to refer simply to the images of material things
    which are depicted in the corporeal imagination
    I am taking the word idea to refer to whatever
    is immediately perceived by the mind. (Third Set
    of Objections with Replies CSM II 127)

30
The Ontological Argument
  • It is an a priori proof of Gods existence.
  • One can imagine a triangle even if this figure
    were not to exist anywhere outside one thought.
    To do so it suffices to imagine that it has tree
    angles whose sum is 180 degrees, and so on.
  • Thus we can deduce that a triangle has an
    essence whether or not it exists outside our
    mind.

31
  • The same (a priori reasoning) with God
  • We can imagine his existence because the latter
    cannot be separated from his essence.
  • It would be contradictory to think of God (a
    supremely perfect being) lacking existence.

32
  • Lack of existence entails imperfection.
  • Since I must attribute all perfections to God
    and since existence is among the perfections, God
    cannot lack it.
  • Descartes argument rests on the very idea that
    existence, like omniscience and omnipotence, is a
    perfection. If so it should be a property of some
    kind.

33
  • But, is existence a property?
  • Cf., for instance, Freges view that existence
    is a second order predicate.

34
  • Importance of the Argument for Gods Existence
  • It constitutes the only way we can transcend the
    subjective self-awareness knowledge and progress
    to the knowledge of the external world and
    reality.
  • Thus within the Cartesian framework God can be
    viewed as a scientific posit/necessity.

35
  • The Avoidance of Error
  • We should recognize the impossibility for God to
    deceive.
  • Yet we often do make mistakes.
  • It seems thus that there should be evil in the
    world.

36
  • How do we conciliate the presence of error with
    the idea that God is perfect and benevolent?
  • To avoid error we should suspend most of our
    judgements. We should restrict them to the sphere
    of pure mathematics, which is the only reliable
    strategy for avoiding error.
  • Mathematical judgements constitute the paradigm
    of properties that the intellect can clearly and
    distinctly perceive.

37
  • Why mathematics?
  • Mathematical judgements help understanding
    reality insofar as ordinary three-dimensional
    objects can be defined in pure mathematical
    terms.

38
  • The physical nature is the proper subject of
    mathematical reasoning.
  • When we make errors we improperly embrace a
    proposition without having sufficient grounds for
    doing so. And we do so because the scope of our
    will transcend the scope of the intellect
  • So what then is the source of my mistake? It
    must be this the scope of the will is wider than
    that of the intellect but instead of restricting
    it with the same limits, I extend its use to
    matter I do not understand. (Fourth Meditation
    CSM II 40)

39
  • Cartesian Circle
  • To prove Gods existence I need to trust my
    intellect.
  • Yet without prior knowledge of Gods existence I
    have in principle no reason to trust my
    intellect.

40
  • If all knowledge depends on God, then to know
    this premise (that all knowledge depends on God)
    one needs to prove the existence of God without
    first knowing God.
  • It is only on relying on clear and distinct ideas
    that Descartes can proves the existence of God,
    yet it is only by the existence of God that one
    can have clear and distinct ideas.

41
  • Out of the circle?
  • The way out of the circle is for Descartes to
    claim that there are certain propositions (e.g.
    cogito) presenting self-evident knowledge that
    one can grasp as long as one is attending them.
  • These self-evident propositions do not require
    Gods intervention.

42
  • The Need of God
  • Why on top of the self-evident elementary truth
    we need God?
  • Because of the temporary nature of these
    self-guaranteeing truths, i.e. because they last
    only as long as one is entertaining them.
  • Once Gods existence in established we can
    progress beyond the temporality of these
    self-evident truths.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com