Compare and contrast Descartes two proofs for the existence of God

So if, as we have seen here, there are instances where the effect does not contain its cause, (a key premise of the trademark argument) then on the basis of Descartes Radical Doubt that “It is a mark of prudence never to place our complete trust in those who have deceived us even once” then Descartes should have been compelled to dismiss this argument as proof of God’s existence.  And since the heirloom view of causation is not the only model of causation then the conclusion that “The being on whom I depend has in himself all those greater things…He is God” can no longer be true in this line of reasoning by Descartes own standards of certainty and doubt.

Descartes adaptation of the Ontological Argument in Meditation V focuses instead upon the definition of an infinitely perfect being and not upon the apparent design evident within himself as proof of God’s existence.  Using existence as a quality or predicate, Descartes argues that for God to be infinitely perfect he must possess omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence and necessary existence.  For if we can think of an ultimately perfect being as not existing in reality as well as in the mind, this would hinder that beings perfection resulting in a logical contradiction.  Leibniz described this argument as being a ‘reductio absurdum’, which reduces the non-existence of a perfect being to the point of absurdity.  By using existence as a predicate in the same way that three sides and three angles which add up to 180 degrees belong as defining characteristics or predicates of a triangle so is existence logically necessary to a being of absolute perfection.

Descartes sees this proof as being as certain as mathematical and geometrical proofs.  It is a priori, and so the conclusion is contained within the premises of the argument.  

Premise 1: This shape has three sides.

Premise 2: This shape has three angles

Premise 3: The angles of this shape add up to 180 degrees.

Here, it need not be said ‘In conclusion, this shape is a triangle’ as we already know that the three premises describe a triangle.  Similarly, Descartes argument runs as follows;

Premise 1: I have an idea of a perfect being.

Premise 2: A perfect being entails all qualities of perfection such as omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence and necessary existence.

Conclusion: God necessarily exists.

For Descartes, the conclusion here need not be said, from the very definition of infinite perfection God must exist, to say God (meaning a being possessing all the aforementioned qualities) does not exist is a logical impossibility in the same way that a five sided triangle is.  

There are many objections to this approach, largely aimed at the assumption that existence is a predicate.  If this were the case then could we not render a great many things into existence merely by adding ‘it exists’ to end of a list of defining predicates.  An attack on Anselm’s Ontological Argument found in his work ‘The Prologion’ was put forward by a contemporary of his, Guanillo, in the form of an analogy.  He posed the perfect island, which was perfect in every way, in adding ‘it exists’ all Guanillo would have to do would be to go out and find it.  

This attack was answered by Anselm in much the same way as Descartes would, an island is a contingent entity unlike an infinite being whose very definition contains its necessary existence.  An island, perfect or not, can be thought of as not existing, but as Descartes has laid down in his previous Meditations, his existence is contingent upon the existence of God.  God has to exist whereas Guanillo’s Island does not and this is why we cannot attach existence to anything we choose.  The notion of necessary existence applies only to God, God has inimitability and so the argument cannot be applied to contingent entities.

Immanuel Kant agreed that necessary existence belonged analytically to God as three sides belong analytically to a triangle; both predicates are necessarily linked to the subject.  However, this only means that if triangles exist they must have three sides or else that triangularity is annulled.  In the same way, IF there exists a supremely perfect being then that being must have necessary existence.  A things definition does not render it into existence.  We must first be able to establish whether something exists before we can ascribe qualities to it, as David Hume pointed out, we cannot use x to analyse x.

William P Alston criticised the argument in a similar way focussing upon Descartes starting point being within the mind.  “Dissection of what is in the understanding can never tell us what is in the real world, any more than the analysis of my dreams will ever tell me which of their contents, if any, faithfully represent real objects…To do this would mean lifting ourselves by our bootstraps.” Once we have established that there is a supreme being we can then predicate that being with that which we are then able to observe, but like David Hume’s attack, Alston does not accept that we can attribute predicates to an entity which we have not yet established the existence of.

The success of Descartes argument and the Ontological Argument in general rests upon whether it is valid to have existence functioning as a predicate in a logical sense as well as the grammatical.  Predicates serve the purpose of ascribing new information about a thing, when existence is used as a predicate it tells us nothing new about a thing at all.

The weakness of Descartes Trademark Argument lies in its presumption that only God could have been the author of the idea of supreme perfection.  Hypothetically speaking, if one has an idea of a supremely perfect being, we must also have an idea of a supremely evil being, since we too have only pale reflections of such evil (we are not evil as such, yet like Descartes suggests he possesses less potent qualities of goodness ascribed to God it could be argued that we possess less substantial or potent qualities of evil) If, as Descartes did, I empty my mind of all preconceived ideas, yes the idea of a supremely perfect being remains and along with it, its opposite.  Would it not be as equally valid to say that we are the creation of a malignant demon since we seem to possess certain unattractive qualities?  They are two opposite ends of the same spectrum and if one exists I cannot see why the other would not.  Neither do I have reason to believe that either is the more powerful.  So using Descartes reasoning, a supremely perfect being is not the only ‘craftsman’ that can be thought of.  If this is the case then by Descartes own standards he should not have concluded that God must be his creator and must exist, since there are other (though they may be far fetched) explanations.

However, I do not believe that because one has an idea of a supremely perfect being (or a supremely evil being for that matter) that my existence and the existence of everything around me is attributed to it.  As we have seen in the examples of jelly and sponge cake, it is not always the case that there is as much reality in the cause as is in the effect.  For this reason, due to Descartes standards of doubt, He should have abandoned this line of reasoning.

Since the Trademark Argument is an argument from design it is a posteriori and can only ever yield probability.  So regardless of Descartes high standards of certainty, it still remains a probability that God is the creator and maintainer of the cosmos, (regardless of how much one thinks that the effect not always being evident in the cause devalues the argument) as this is the nature of aposteriori arguments.  

The weakness of the trademark argument is inexorably linked to its strength; aposteriori arguments can only ever yield probability.  The trademark argument, whether accepted as credible or not, can never be a proof of Gods existence as it can never be 100% certain, since a human judgement must be made, that judgement is subject to human error.

The Ontological Argument depends largely upon whether existence can be used as a predicate.  Norman Malcolm suggests that a predicate belongs to the essence of an entity if whenever that entity is brought to mind that essence is recalled also.  “Does the essence of a thing contain everything that is necessary for the existence of the thing…One would think so, for otherwise the essence of a thing would fail to contain something that was essential to that thing-which seems like a contradiction in terms.”

But this makes it no clearer whether existence is in fact a predicate.  When we think of ultimate perfection, it is true that God is inevitably linked with that attribute in the mind but that does not mean to say that because it would be better if God existed (or had existence) that He actually exists.  If Kant is to be believed then existence adds nothing to an entity and is therefore not a predicate.  A perfect being would be more perfect if it existed in reality as well as in the mind, but this does not mean to say that such a being necessarily exists.  Alston puts this more elegantly “We can predicate…only if we purport to have already settled that there is a perfect being…I cannot conclude that it is necessarily true that the bachelor next door is unmarried unless I have been assured that there is a bachelor next door.”

The Ontological Argument has a priori premises; the conclusion rests upon a definition which must be accepted.  We can accept that a supremely perfect being would have omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence but many find it hard to accept that from this definition God must exist, which is the conclusion that follows.  If we do accept that existence is a predicate then the strength of this argument is in the nature of the conclusion.  Unlike the Trademark Argument and other forms of Teleological or Cosmological Argument, the premises of the a priori Ontological Argument must be 100% conclusive.  Such arguments rest upon analytic and not synthetic premises and so there is no room for human error or doubt.  

So where the Trademark Argument at best can only yield probabilities, the Ontological Argument tries to yield proof, that is to say if we accept that existence is a predicate.  But since it is problematic to use existence as a predicating quality for reasons already discussed then the Ontological Argument fails as an absolute proof for the existence of God for an atheist, whereas the Trademark Argument does ask an atheist to reflect upon whether the idea of perfection points to a perfect being.  Descartes Meditations where an attempt to reveal God as the creator and maintainer of the universe for the atheist, and though they may fail on many grounds to do this, they do act as a cumulative case for the believer.  So for Descartes efforts to appeal to the atheist the Ontological Argument can be thought of as being a complete failure whereas the Trademark Argument is still a debatable probability.  For this reason it could be said that the Trademark Argument is the stronger of the two in fulfilling the purposes that Descartes had set out to fulfil.

Word Count 2878

Bibliography

Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy, Rene Descartes

        Translated by Donald A Cress, Hackett Publishing Company 1998

Descartes: A Collection of Critical Essays, Edited by Willis Doney

        Macmillan and Co Ltd 1968

Demons, Dreamers and Madmen, Harry.G.Frankfurt

        The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc 1970

Descartes Meditations, Catherine Wilson

        Cambridge University Press 2003

Descartes: Belief, Scepticism and Virtue, Richard Davies

        Routledge 2001

Eternal Truths and the Cartesian Circle, Edited by Willis Doney

        Garland Publishing Inc1987

---