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.