Why does Descartes think he can be sure that a God who is no deceiver exists? Are his arguments con

Authors Avatar

Why does Descartes think he can be sure that a God who is no deceiver exists?  Are his arguments con

In the Meditations, Descartes presents three arguments for the existence of God.  Each of these arguments is intended to answer the third and most radical wave of doubt which Descartes postulated in the First Meditation - the malignant demon hypothesis.  Therefore, each argument is an attempt to prove not only that a god exists, but that God, a being of all perfection, exists.  If this is the case, there is no longer any reason to fear the malignant demon hypothesis, since such a God would not allow Descartes to be systematically deceived, possessing as he must the perfections of omnipotence and omni-benevolence.  This matter of God’s existence is essential to Descartes’ epistemology, since without it he is unable to claim knowledge of anything which lies outside his own mind, and may indeed be forced to doubt even many of the contents of his mind because of the possibility, however remote it is thought to be, that there is a malignant demon continually leading him astray.

 

The first argument which Descartes advances for the existence of God has been dubbed the “trademark argument” by commentators, for reasons which will become clear.  As has already been stated, at this stage in his argument Descartes is only able to claim knowledge of the contents of his own mind, and therefore his argument must begin there.  He therefore begins by classifying the contents of his mind, dividing them into three broad categories.  The first and most important things in Descartes’ mind are his ideas.  These are “images of things” - mental representations of things which may or may not exist in the real world.  The second category is made up of volitions and emotions, such as “I fear the dark” or “I want a hamburger”.  The third category is made up of judgements.  Of these three broad categories, Descartes states that the first two cannot be doubted in any way.  If I have an idea, it cannot be doubted that I do in fact have that idea.  If I desire something, or have a certain emotion, it cannot be denied that the desire or emotion in question is really present in me.  However, judgements are more problematic.  Descartes points out that we frequently err in our judgements, and that they must therefore be subject to doubt.  In particular, he finds that he must doubt his former judgement that sensory experiences were caused by real things in the external world.

 

Descartes, wishing to extend his knowledge to things outside his own mind, seeks a firm basis for this judgement, but is forced to reject his first two possible solutions (that he has a natural inclination to believe the judgement and that sensory experiences arise in his mind involuntarily) because they can certainly be doubted.  The third method which he proposes for finding out whether any of the things of which he has an idea exist outside him is to consider the content of the ideas.  Thus far he has only considered the means by which he appears to obtain these ideas to see whether they are trustworthy.  Now he examines the ideas themselves, and asks whether it is possible that these ideas which he has could have arisen from within himself.  With regard to most ideas - those of corporeal things and substances - Descartes is able to entertain the idea that they could have originated from himself, in which case there is no proof that the ideas do in fact represent something in the real world.

 

However, Descartes believes that he cannot explain away the idea of God.  This is because of his belief in the principle of causal adequacy, which means “there must be at least as much reality in the efficient and total cause as in the effect of that cause”.  Therefore, it is possible for Descartes to have caused an idea of substance, because he himself is a substance.  However, it is not possible for him to have conceived of God, because God is an infinite being, and would therefore require an infinite being to have caused him.  Thus God has left his stamp, or trademark, on Descartes in the form of an idea of himself.

Join now!

 

At first glance, it appears that this argument stands or falls on the causal adequacy principle.  If it is possible for a cause to be less than its effect, then Descartes could indeed by the cause of his idea of God.  Moreover, Descartes does not attempt to argue for the causal adequacy principle, but instead simply states that “it is manifest by the natural light”.  He appears to have simply inherited the idea from medieval scholastic philosophy, and assumed that everyone would accept it.  Philosophers like Bertrand Russell and Bernard Williams have rejected this as an arbitrary rule, which ...

This is a preview of the whole essay