Rene Descartes's Argument For The Existence Of God
Is there a God? Is it true that there is one or many Supreme beings that created the universe within it including humans? There are atheist that say no, and theist that say yes. But who is truly right in their conclusions of God’s existence. Philosophers have debated the highly controversial issue, and many proofs have been claimed of God’s existence. However, for every good claim there is a counter to the claim as well. There are many reasons which people have argued the existence of a God, but the main four points; there is no scientific proof, religion contradicts itself, the idea that God is omniscient, and omnipotent, and if a God created the universe, then who created God? Philosopher Rene Descartes tries to explain the
…show more content…
existence of God within his Meditation works. Rene Descartes was born in La Haye March 31st, 1596.1 His father was a lawyer, and magistrate, which lead to him not being able to spend time with family. Rene Descartes began college at the age of 10 at Jesuit College of La Fleche and finished in 1614.2 In 1615 entered the University of Poitiers, where a year later he received his Baccalaureate and License in Canon & Civil Law. Short after he began to write his work “Discourse on the Methods”. The discourse was later recognized as the Meditations. The Meditations is a set of works chaptering from I-VI.
Meditations I also called, ‘What Can Be Called Into Doubt’, the Meditation begins with Descartes stating himself as a meditator. The meditator reflects on the number of untruths he has believed throughout his life. From these lies he has established knowledge he believes he knows what is certain. The meditator believes he must get rid of everything he knows to begin a foundation to rebuild his knowledge. He sits by a fire and states:
“Reason now leads me to think that I should hold back my assent from opinions which are not completely certain and indubitable just as carefully as I do from those which are patently false…And to do this I will not need to run through them all individually, which would be an endless task.”3
From this we can see the meditator has not decided to adopt skepticism, he holds all opinions as being false. In doing so, he holds truths as being false as well. Instead, he is creating his opinions into categories of true and false.4 Catherine Wilson calls this Withholding Policy, which, appears to anything that can be uncertain, or can be doubted.5 Descartes wants to get rid of all that is uncertain and anything he can doubt, which correlates with Wilson’s Withholding Policy. The meditator recalls his childhood and how he was perceived through the senses. Through the senses the mediator is certain he can accept some truths. Descartes states:
“Whatever I have up till now accepted as most true I have acquired either from the senses or through the senses. But from time to time I have found that the senses deceive, and it is prudent never to trust completely those who have deceived us even once.”6
The meditator is going back and forth with the policy, the policy of not trusting. First he doubts, but then assures himself he can trust through the senses. Even though he can trust through the senses, the senses can still deceive him. Therefore, he can doubt everything he knows, because most of his experience have come through the senses; smell, touch, and taste.
The meditator comes to the conclusion that his senses are a concern. There is no reason to doubt many claims such as, snow is white, or grass is green. Some claims are indubitable through sensory experience. He cannon doubt, “that I am here, sitting by the fire, wearing a winter dressing-gown, holding a piece of paper in my hands…that these hands or this whole body is mine.”7 To doubt these intermediate things he is certain about will make him seem like a madman. Some of these experiences the mediator has are through dreaming. He believes the dreams come from a waking experience or experiencing the sensory while awake.8 The meditator might in fact be meditating while he is asleep dreaming and it is only dreaming that he is writing about dreaming. “How often, asleep at night, am I convinced of just such familiar events that I am here dressed-gown, sitting by the fire- when in fact I am lying undressed in bed!”9 The meditator decides that, while he may be dreaming that he is meditating and writing.
Meditation One is concluded with the meditator reasoning that he can doubt composite things, but not simple things. Simple things are shape, size, quantity, or time, which are universal parts of everything. Composite things such as physics, medicine, and astronomy can be doubted, because careless mistakes can be made. The reason these mistakes can be made comes from a deceivable demon.
“I will suppose therefore that not a God, who is supremely good and the source of the truth, but rather some malicious demon of the utmost power and cunning has employed all his energies in order to deceive me.”10
He still believes nothing about himself or his world, or the existence of any natural or supreme beings exist. He is certain that he is being deceived by a demon.
Meditation II, called “Cogito ergo sum” or, the nature of the human mind. From the last meditation it can be seen Descartes has doubt of a good God, some sensory experiences, physics, astronomy, medicine, and certain form of mathematics. Within meditation two, he tries to focus his mind on what is certain. The mediator recalls a quote from Archimedes, “I could shift the entire earth given one immovable point.”11 This shows the mediator hopes to achieve great things if he can be certain of just one thing.
He supposes that what he sees does not exist, that his memory is faulty, that he has no senses and no body, that extension, movement and place are mistaken notions. The meditator asks, what remains true? The only thing he is certain of, is there is no certainty.
There is no certainty, so he wonders where does his thoughts come from? Is God placing the thoughts into his mind? The meditator has already stated that he has no mind or body. Does this mean he does not exist too? This is too naïve, he deduces he has to exist, because if the demon deceiving him exist, then he has to exist undoubtedly.12 He concludes with the proposition, “I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind.”13 Descartes is certain he exist, but is still in some doubt of what the “I” is. He considers that he has physical features, such as face, hands, arms, and legs. He also considers that he is nourished, and he can move, engage in sensory things, and think; he contributes these features to the soul.14 The mediator is certain he exist, also cannot doubt the body he has exist. The meditator states, “As to the body, however, I had no doubts about it, but thought I knew its nature distinctly.”15 Since the meditator exist “I” then his body has to exist, because he cannot doubt.
The meditator then tries to make sense of imagination. He states, “Imagination can conjure up ideas of all sorts of things that are not real, so it cannot be the guide to knowing his own essence.”16 From imagination Descartes produces the wax argument. This argument will help him come to terms with; what is the body, and when can he think? He still believes the demon is deceiving his senses, which imagination is tied into. Even though the demon is deceiving him, he can still hear and see things. The meditator uses wax from a honeycomb. He knows it is a piece of wax from the senses smell, taste, color, shape, size, and hardness. The mediator asks, what would happen if I place the wax near fire? When the wax is placed near fire the physical features change, but it still remains the same piece of wax. The meditator understands the wax can go through these types of changes, but asks, whether his imagination go through the same changes? He cannot grasp what changes his imagination goes through, but he can relate the mind or intellect to changes. He relates these changes to his last mediations. First he believes, then doubts everything, but he has deduce he exist, so his mind goes through changes. Meditation II is concluded by understanding that his mind is changing constantly. He further explains how he exist. Since he can perceive the wax, and make judgments on the wax he exist. The meditator states, “For if I judge that the wax exists from the fact that I see it, clearly this same fact entails much more evidently that I myself also exist.”17 He concludes that things cannot be conceived only by the senses or imagination but by the intellect. Intellect cannot touch things, but it helps to understand, which can help the mind be certain of what it perceives. Mediations III is also called “The existence of God”. The meditation beings with the meditator reciting what he already knows is certain. The mediator states:
“I am a thing that thinks: that is, a thing that doubts, affirms, denies, understands a few things, is ignorant of many things, is willing, is unwilling, and also which imagines and has sensory perceptions; for as I noted before, even though the objects of my sensory experience and imagination may have no existence outside me, nonetheless the modes of thinking which I refer to as cases of sensory perception and imagination, in so far as they are simply modes of thinking, do exist within me – of that I am certain.”18
This shows the meditator gives a list of everything he knows as true. The things he knows of himself are true, which makes them clear and distinct. In order to confirm what he knows as truth of clear and distinct perceptions, however, he must prove the existence of a benevolent God. If God were a deceiver, he could be deceived from what clear and distinct perceptions are.
Before he writes about the existence of God, he clarifies a few concepts. The meditator mentions about emotions and judgments, which is the object of a thought, and also a further thing, such as an affirmation or a fear, which is directed toward the object of that thought.19 He states, I can only make mistakes with respect to judgments. The most common error in judgment is to judge that the ideas in one 's mind conform to, or resemble, things outside the mind. Considering ideas in the mind only as modes of thought and not referring them to anything outside the mind should render him immune from doubt.20
The question at this point, what thoughts can be derived from outside of the meditator? He explains how he can experience things even when he does not want to. For example, “I feel the heat whether I want to or not, and this is why I think that this sensation or idea of heat comes to me from something other than myself.”21 The idea of heat does not solely depend on him. The idea of heat is external and internal, which makes him immune to doubt the heat, since he can feel it and think of heat. This establishes that it is not reliable judgment but merely blind impulsiveness that there are things that exist external from the self. Things are transmitted from the senses or in other ways through the intellect. Even though these ideas are external to oneself, they are in the same since internal to oneself.22 He tries to prove this in the existence of God. The idea of God is objective reality. Objective reality represents something of a higher degree or perfection. Objective reality reasons that all ideas are mere modes of thought, and in that sense they are all equal: they all have the same amount of formal reality, that is, reality intrinsic to themselves.23 Descartes states: “the idea that gives me my understanding of a supreme God, external, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, and the creator of all things that exist apart from him, certainly has in it more objective reality than the ideas that represent finite substances.”24 Descartes is using objective reality as something independent from the mind. God is so perfect to the high degree that finite beings cannot grasp the idea of God. Descartes realizes that the idea of God must have far more objective reality than he has formal reality. God is objective reality since he exist independent to the mind, whereas, finite beings only have formal reality. Finite beings lack something and make mistakes, and an infinite being is perfect, so it has what finite beings lack. Insofar, he realizes he exist, because he is a thinking being. As a thinking beings he can have thought of a perfect being, God, which proves a clear proof that God exist.25
The meditator concludes meditation III with a firm understanding that he exist, and he is certain God exist.
“I recognize that would be impossible for me to exist with the kind of nature I have – that is, having within me the idea of ‘God’ I mean the very being idea of whom is within me, that s, the possessor of all the perfections which I cannot grasp, but can somehow reach in my thought, who is subject to no defects whatsoever.”26
This shows how God is perfect in Descartes eyes. He cannot grasp the idea of God, which finite beings are not capable of being able to do. Finite beings have this error since they are finite beings and not perfect. God is infinite, so he cannot make any error since he is infinite. Meditation IV, “Truth and falsity”, Descartes refreshes what he already knows. He has accustomed himself to not use the senses; he has taken note that things related to the body can be doubted, but things related to the mind are certain. The idea of the human mind is not an extended to anything, but merely just a thinking thing.27 He thinks of himself being finite with error, and when he thinks of an infinite being, God. Thinking of a finite being that does not depend of anything is clear and distinct that God exist.
First, he knows that God would not deceive him, since the will to deceive is a sign of weakness, and God 's perfection would not allow it. Second, if God created him, God is responsible for his judgment, and so his faculty of judgment must be infallible so long as he uses it correctly.28 He realizes, he was created by a supreme or infinite being, and nothingness, but he was also created by a finite being. Nothingness is the negative to what is perfect, or something that is lacked. When he is wrong, it is not the result of a faulty idea created by God. It is the result of his lack of perfection from being a finite being born from perfection and nothingness.
The meditator believes, everything that God has created is perfect, but God has created him as a finite being whose finitude still leaves room for error. He looks for the source of errors. Descartes believes errors depend on the intellect and will, or knowledge and free choice. He states, the intellect, however, only allows us to perceive ideas, not to make judgments on them. Hence, the intellect is not the source for errors.29
When it comes to knowledge, the meditator knows he is limited, the meditator reflects on how he could not conceive of the will God.30 Therefore, the will of God is unlimited since he cannot grasp the idea of Gods will on finite beings. Since finite beings cannot grasp Gods will, will is not the source for error.
The mediator concludes Mediation IV, he cannot complain about the imperfections God has given him. It is through nature that he has finite intellect, will is inseparable. He cannot complain about wrong judgments he has, because God has a bigger picture and he is just a small part of it. God must is perfect, so his being is perfect, because his intellect is finite to grasp what Gods ultimate plan is. Descartes can avoid error by suspending all judgments where he is uncertain, and only judge when something is clear and distinct.
Meditation V, The essence of material things, and the existence of God, begins with the meditator trying to make sense of material things outside of the body. He can distinctly imagine extension, size, shape, position, and local motion, which is associated with duration.31 The meditator considers there are intangible geometric figures which do not exist in the world. He gives an example of triangles:
“I imagine a triangle, even if perhaps no such figure exist, or have ever existed, anywhere outside my thought, there is still a determinate nature, or essence, or form of a triangle which is immutable and eternal, and not invented by me or independent on my mind.”32
This shows the meditator is trying to explain how non-existent objects can exist, even if they are independent to the mind. Relating this case to God, whom is independent to the mind as well. Just as the triangles do not exist externally they have an essence internally, however, God does not have an external form, but can be internal. Therefore God exist since he can exist internally to finite beings.
Meditation VI, also called “The existence of material things and the real distinction between the mind and body”. The meditator began building an understanding of imagination and pure understanding. He uses a triangle as an example. Using understanding he can perceive the triangle has 3 sides, and can derive other properties as well. The meditator can also perceive the properties through imagination. Through imagination understanding is weak, because a thousand sided figure cannot be imagined.33 A thousand sided figure can be perceived through pure understanding. Using mathematics the figures properties can be made distinct and clear, which we cannot doubt what is clear and distinct.
Imagination cannot be an essential part of the mind, since the meditator can exist without imagination. Since the meditator can exist without imagine, hence, imagination must depend on something else.34 This something else Descartes calls the body.
“When the mind understands, it in some way turns towards itself and inspects one of the ideas which are within it; when it imagines, it turns towards the body and looks at something in the body which conforms to an idea understood by the mind or perceived by the senses.”35
Therefore the body has to exist since images look towards the body to make external things clear and distinct.
The meditator is puzzled as to why his mind seems particularly attached to one particular body, which he calls his own. Why does he feel pain and tickling in this body but not in any body external to it? And why should a tugging in the stomach of that body suggest to his mind that he should eat, since there is no obvious connection between the tugging and the decision to eat? He concludes that he is inclined by nature to assume the things he does about his body and about the world external to it, since he accepts these assumptions prior to developing any arguments regarding them.
The meditator is certain he cannot doubt material things entirely. First, he clearly and distinctly perceive he is a thinking thing. The body is extended externally, and the mind is non-extended internally, hence, he is distinct from his body and consist without it.
Descartes reasons sensory perception and imagination are modes of thought.36 He can exist without both, so they are not essential to him, hence, they cannot both exist without the mind. Moreover, there are modes of extension that cannot exist without a body.
The Meditator next considers ideas about the body that he perceives only blankly and unclearly, hoping that his knowledge that God is not a deceiver will help. First, he reasons that he must have a body, as nature teaches him clearly and distinctly. Therefore, mind and body are intermingled to form one unit. If the mind were in the body like a sailor in a ship, he would be able to perceive pains and hungers by purely intellectual understanding.37 Instead, he feels these sensations sharply and directly as if his mind itself were suffering; sensation of pain. The confused modes of thinking that arise with respect to these sensations result precisely because the mind and body are intermingled and the mind cannot survey the matter disinterestedly.38
Though the meditator concludes that there are other bodies which are the source of his sensory perceptions, there are still things he can still doubt. He cannot be certain heat, color, and taste that he perceives in an object is going to be presented in the same way to his senses. By nature, both mind and body tells us to avoid pain and seek pleasure.39 The correct judgments depend on knowledge alone and not from the senses. Descartes notes:
“It would be unreasonable to infer from the sensation of heat or pain in approaching a flame that the heat or the pain reside in the flame itself.
The fact of the matter is that the senses are meant only to inform us as to what is beneficial and what is harmful, and in that respect they are perfectly clear and distinct. Our mistake comes in expecting them also to inform us of the true nature or essence of the things we are perceiving, when they can only give us very obscure information in this regard.”40
This shows that we often makes mistakes into things that can be harmful to us. The meditator is still certain the body is detached and is attached. Descartes mentions, “The mind cannot be broken into smaller parts, which extended things can.”41 There are no different parts in the mind, hence if the mind imagines, the entire mind imagines not just parts of the mind. Therefore, the body can be separated and the mind cannot, it is clear and distinct they are different things. The meditator concludes that, he is certain of things he was able to doubt in Meditation I. When in doubt of things one can use intellect or memory to be certain in the world.42 Descartes also notes, our memory can dismiss any doubt we have about the Dream Argument.43 Experiences that happen why you are awake are connected through memory, where dreams happen as a disconnect. Descartes is certain God is not a deceiver, which makes him safe from error.
Criticism of Meditation
III Meditation III, “The existence of God”, I believe Descartes needs to address. Reading the meditations he anticipates this being refuted, but needs to clarify a few things. The thought of something being infinite is not satisfying. We can derive an explanation from our experiences. If I imagine a perfect line drawn on a board, I would have to know from experience what a straight line looks like. Once I have the knowledge of what a straight line looks like, I can perceive whether a line is straight or crooked. Therefore, making Descartes wrong, since he claims one can perceive something perfect before mistake. Nonetheless, there is a problem between the ideal of things and actual things. Could an external force really bring ideas into human thoughts? No, complex beings such as humans think from their experiences. Just because someone can think of an external force does not mean the force provides thoughts to the intellect. In the case that unicorns; they do not exist, and I can think of one perfectly. The unicorn also, does not have an effect on my thoughts just from thinking of it. If I did not have the experience to view what a unicorn may look like, it would have no effect on my intellect. Therefore, proving Descartes wrong of the existence of God. Just because you can think of a perfect being, does not mean the being has an effect on the intellect.
Teleological Argument Descartes did not believe that science could explain the existence of God. He doubted science, because in science mistakes could be made. Just as Descartes tried to explain Gods existence in the 1600’s. Peter Collins I tries to modernize Gods existence Physics.
Robin Collins argument “The Teleological Argument an Exploration of the Fine-Tuning of the Universe” he argues the existence of God or an intelligent designer. Collins argues three propositions’ that must have to be in place; in order to have life: (i) The fine-tuning of the laws of physics; (ii) The fine-tuning of the constants of physics; (iii) The fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the universe. He states, modern science discoveries show that there must have to be an intelligent designer. This precise setting of the structure of the universe for life is called the “fine-tuning of the cosmos.” The first, major type of fine-tuning is the laws of nature. These laws and principles of nature themselves have just the right form to allow for the existence embodied moral agents. Collins states that these “embodied moral agents are conscious beings that can make morally significant choices, without prejudging the status of moral truths.”44 The Natural laws of nature that have to be in place, he breaks down into five main laws of physics: “(1) a universal attractive force, such as gravity; (2) a force relevantly similar to that of the strong nuclear force, which binds protons and neutrons together in the nucleus; (3) a force relevantly similar to that of the electromagnetic force; (4) Bohr’s Quantization Rule or something similar; (5) the Pauli Exclusion Principle.”45 If any one of these laws or principles did not exist then life could not exist. The first law of gravity, gravity is a long-range attractive force between all material objects, whose strength increases in proportion to the masses of the objects. He states:
“Now consider what would happen if there were no universal, long-range attractive force between material objects, but all the other fundamental laws remained If no such force existed, then there would be no stars, since the force of gravity is what holds the matter in stars together against the outward forces caused by the high internal temperatures inside the stars. This means that there would be no long-term energy sources to sustain the evolution (or even existence) of highly complex life.”46
From Collins quote, we can comprehend that the world would not exist if all the laws did not exist. The second law, he says consider the strong nuclear force. The strong nuclear force is the force that binds protons and neutrons together in the nucleus of an atom.47 Collins mentions without this law, the nucleons would not stay together. Third, consider electromagnetism. Without electromagnetism, there would be no atoms, since there would be nothing to hold the electrons in orbit. Further, there would be no means of transmission of energy from stars for the existence of life on planets.48 Fourth, from this law Collins says to consider Bohr’s rule of quantization. Bohr’s rule is “a theory in early quantum physics: “an atom consists of a positively charged nucleus about which revolves one or more electrons of quantized energy.”49 Finally, Collins mentions to consider the Paul Exclusion Principle. This principle dictates that no two fermions (spin-½ particles) can occupy the same quantum state. From the last statement, breaking it down into layman terms; two particles (protons or electrons) cannot occupy the same space. Collins second proposition, constants of physics, states that, “the constants of physics are fundamental numbers that, when plugged into the laws of physics, determine the basic structure of the universe.”50 Collins gives an example, by using Newton’s gravitational theory. Lastly, the proposition of the initial conditions of the universe refers to the fact that the initial distribution of mass-energy as measured by entropy must fall within an exceedingly narrow range for life to occur. Collins states:
“These initial conditions are expressed by various cosmic parameters, such as the mass density of the early universe, the strength of the explosion of the Big Bang, the strength of the density perturbations that led to star formation, the ratio of radiation density to the density of normal matter, and the like.”51
Collins quotes Roger Penrose who is one of Britain’s leading theoretical physicists. “In order to produce a universe resembling the one in which we live, the Creator would have to aim for an absurdly tiny volume of the phase space of possible universes.”52 This is the precision of which protons and neutrons are created from the big bang. I disagree with Robin Collins position, who says that the universe needs an intelligent being? Throughout this paper, I will maintain my position by giving examples and objections of what a theologian would say to my position. Looking at nature we cannot rule out the design in nature. However, the problem is in the defining intelligent designer. If a bird makes a well-designed nest; is the bird a designer? We can call the bird a creator, because the bird created the nest. The question is can we call the bird an intelligent designer? Because the bird created the nest to its liking and to its perfection. Does a creator necessarily have to be original or rational? I say no a designer does not need to be original or rational. From the bird example, mammals can simply just create things for the survival of their spices. Furthermore, Collins view is not justified based off reason, but instead based off of science. The number of the constants, which the theory needs, cannot be calculated by the human brain. Therefore, the theory cannot be justified if it relies on computer technology to get the answers.
Also, we know nothing comes from nothing. So since we know nothing comes from nothing, then where did this intelligent being come from? Who created this designer? Steven Hawking’s argues that the Big Bang, rather than occurring following the intervention of a divine being, was inevitable due to the law of gravity.53 He quotes in his new book "because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.”54 From Hawking’s quote, we can see that the universe did not come from nothing. Gravity already on the universe and the solar system helped to create the universe.
In conclusion, I disagree with both, Robin Collins and Rene Descartes’ arguments for the existence of God. Rene Descartes idea of a being that is greater to himself needs to be clearer. It is not infallible that a being can exist externally only through the intellect. Descartes has trouble making this clear. There are many other things that can be thought of perfect external to the mind. Nonetheless, they are not presented as God. Robin Collins also leave room for criticism. The laws on Earth are perfect to sustain life, but what happens if one of the laws was to change by a degree. If the gravitational pull from the moon was not 23 degree and changed to 32 degrees. Then what would happen to life on planet Earth? The fine-tuning of the one of the laws of physics would be different, hence, changing life on Earth. In science the term existence can be explained as, anything that has a probable impact on the universe. When it comes to the existence of God, not even can be found to be tested. Therefore, the existence of God cannot be determined, so God does not exist.
Work Cited
Collins, Robin. The Teleological Argument: An Exploration of the Fine-Tuning of the Universe. The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Blackwell, 2009. 213
Descartes, René, John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, and Dugald Murdoch.The philosophical writings of Descartes. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire: Cambridge University Press, 2005., 15
Hawking, Steven. "God Didn 't Create Universe." CNN World (2010). Print.
Penrose, Roger. The emperor 's new mind: concerning computers, minds, and the laws of physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. 343
Smith, Kurt. "Descartes ' Life and Works." Stanford University. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-works/ (accessed April 19, 2014).
Webster dictionary
Wilson, Catherine. Descartes 's Meditations an introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
existence of God within his Meditation works. Rene Descartes was born in La Haye March 31st, 1596.1 His father was a lawyer, and magistrate, which lead to him not being able to spend time with family. Rene Descartes began college at the age of 10 at Jesuit College of La Fleche and finished in 1614.2 In 1615 entered the University of Poitiers, where a year later he received his Baccalaureate and License in Canon & Civil Law. Short after he began to write his work “Discourse on the Methods”. The discourse was later recognized as the Meditations. The Meditations is a set of works chaptering from I-VI.
Meditations I also called, ‘What Can Be Called Into Doubt’, the Meditation begins with Descartes stating himself as a meditator. The meditator reflects on the number of untruths he has believed throughout his life. From these lies he has established knowledge he believes he knows what is certain. The meditator believes he must get rid of everything he knows to begin a foundation to rebuild his knowledge. He sits by a fire and states:
“Reason now leads me to think that I should hold back my assent from opinions which are not completely certain and indubitable just as carefully as I do from those which are patently false…And to do this I will not need to run through them all individually, which would be an endless task.”3
From this we can see the meditator has not decided to adopt skepticism, he holds all opinions as being false. In doing so, he holds truths as being false as well. Instead, he is creating his opinions into categories of true and false.4 Catherine Wilson calls this Withholding Policy, which, appears to anything that can be uncertain, or can be doubted.5 Descartes wants to get rid of all that is uncertain and anything he can doubt, which correlates with Wilson’s Withholding Policy. The meditator recalls his childhood and how he was perceived through the senses. Through the senses the mediator is certain he can accept some truths. Descartes states:
“Whatever I have up till now accepted as most true I have acquired either from the senses or through the senses. But from time to time I have found that the senses deceive, and it is prudent never to trust completely those who have deceived us even once.”6
The meditator is going back and forth with the policy, the policy of not trusting. First he doubts, but then assures himself he can trust through the senses. Even though he can trust through the senses, the senses can still deceive him. Therefore, he can doubt everything he knows, because most of his experience have come through the senses; smell, touch, and taste.
The meditator comes to the conclusion that his senses are a concern. There is no reason to doubt many claims such as, snow is white, or grass is green. Some claims are indubitable through sensory experience. He cannon doubt, “that I am here, sitting by the fire, wearing a winter dressing-gown, holding a piece of paper in my hands…that these hands or this whole body is mine.”7 To doubt these intermediate things he is certain about will make him seem like a madman. Some of these experiences the mediator has are through dreaming. He believes the dreams come from a waking experience or experiencing the sensory while awake.8 The meditator might in fact be meditating while he is asleep dreaming and it is only dreaming that he is writing about dreaming. “How often, asleep at night, am I convinced of just such familiar events that I am here dressed-gown, sitting by the fire- when in fact I am lying undressed in bed!”9 The meditator decides that, while he may be dreaming that he is meditating and writing.
Meditation One is concluded with the meditator reasoning that he can doubt composite things, but not simple things. Simple things are shape, size, quantity, or time, which are universal parts of everything. Composite things such as physics, medicine, and astronomy can be doubted, because careless mistakes can be made. The reason these mistakes can be made comes from a deceivable demon.
“I will suppose therefore that not a God, who is supremely good and the source of the truth, but rather some malicious demon of the utmost power and cunning has employed all his energies in order to deceive me.”10
He still believes nothing about himself or his world, or the existence of any natural or supreme beings exist. He is certain that he is being deceived by a demon.
Meditation II, called “Cogito ergo sum” or, the nature of the human mind. From the last meditation it can be seen Descartes has doubt of a good God, some sensory experiences, physics, astronomy, medicine, and certain form of mathematics. Within meditation two, he tries to focus his mind on what is certain. The mediator recalls a quote from Archimedes, “I could shift the entire earth given one immovable point.”11 This shows the mediator hopes to achieve great things if he can be certain of just one thing.
He supposes that what he sees does not exist, that his memory is faulty, that he has no senses and no body, that extension, movement and place are mistaken notions. The meditator asks, what remains true? The only thing he is certain of, is there is no certainty.
There is no certainty, so he wonders where does his thoughts come from? Is God placing the thoughts into his mind? The meditator has already stated that he has no mind or body. Does this mean he does not exist too? This is too naïve, he deduces he has to exist, because if the demon deceiving him exist, then he has to exist undoubtedly.12 He concludes with the proposition, “I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind.”13 Descartes is certain he exist, but is still in some doubt of what the “I” is. He considers that he has physical features, such as face, hands, arms, and legs. He also considers that he is nourished, and he can move, engage in sensory things, and think; he contributes these features to the soul.14 The mediator is certain he exist, also cannot doubt the body he has exist. The meditator states, “As to the body, however, I had no doubts about it, but thought I knew its nature distinctly.”15 Since the meditator exist “I” then his body has to exist, because he cannot doubt.
The meditator then tries to make sense of imagination. He states, “Imagination can conjure up ideas of all sorts of things that are not real, so it cannot be the guide to knowing his own essence.”16 From imagination Descartes produces the wax argument. This argument will help him come to terms with; what is the body, and when can he think? He still believes the demon is deceiving his senses, which imagination is tied into. Even though the demon is deceiving him, he can still hear and see things. The meditator uses wax from a honeycomb. He knows it is a piece of wax from the senses smell, taste, color, shape, size, and hardness. The mediator asks, what would happen if I place the wax near fire? When the wax is placed near fire the physical features change, but it still remains the same piece of wax. The meditator understands the wax can go through these types of changes, but asks, whether his imagination go through the same changes? He cannot grasp what changes his imagination goes through, but he can relate the mind or intellect to changes. He relates these changes to his last mediations. First he believes, then doubts everything, but he has deduce he exist, so his mind goes through changes. Meditation II is concluded by understanding that his mind is changing constantly. He further explains how he exist. Since he can perceive the wax, and make judgments on the wax he exist. The meditator states, “For if I judge that the wax exists from the fact that I see it, clearly this same fact entails much more evidently that I myself also exist.”17 He concludes that things cannot be conceived only by the senses or imagination but by the intellect. Intellect cannot touch things, but it helps to understand, which can help the mind be certain of what it perceives. Mediations III is also called “The existence of God”. The meditation beings with the meditator reciting what he already knows is certain. The mediator states:
“I am a thing that thinks: that is, a thing that doubts, affirms, denies, understands a few things, is ignorant of many things, is willing, is unwilling, and also which imagines and has sensory perceptions; for as I noted before, even though the objects of my sensory experience and imagination may have no existence outside me, nonetheless the modes of thinking which I refer to as cases of sensory perception and imagination, in so far as they are simply modes of thinking, do exist within me – of that I am certain.”18
This shows the meditator gives a list of everything he knows as true. The things he knows of himself are true, which makes them clear and distinct. In order to confirm what he knows as truth of clear and distinct perceptions, however, he must prove the existence of a benevolent God. If God were a deceiver, he could be deceived from what clear and distinct perceptions are.
Before he writes about the existence of God, he clarifies a few concepts. The meditator mentions about emotions and judgments, which is the object of a thought, and also a further thing, such as an affirmation or a fear, which is directed toward the object of that thought.19 He states, I can only make mistakes with respect to judgments. The most common error in judgment is to judge that the ideas in one 's mind conform to, or resemble, things outside the mind. Considering ideas in the mind only as modes of thought and not referring them to anything outside the mind should render him immune from doubt.20
The question at this point, what thoughts can be derived from outside of the meditator? He explains how he can experience things even when he does not want to. For example, “I feel the heat whether I want to or not, and this is why I think that this sensation or idea of heat comes to me from something other than myself.”21 The idea of heat does not solely depend on him. The idea of heat is external and internal, which makes him immune to doubt the heat, since he can feel it and think of heat. This establishes that it is not reliable judgment but merely blind impulsiveness that there are things that exist external from the self. Things are transmitted from the senses or in other ways through the intellect. Even though these ideas are external to oneself, they are in the same since internal to oneself.22 He tries to prove this in the existence of God. The idea of God is objective reality. Objective reality represents something of a higher degree or perfection. Objective reality reasons that all ideas are mere modes of thought, and in that sense they are all equal: they all have the same amount of formal reality, that is, reality intrinsic to themselves.23 Descartes states: “the idea that gives me my understanding of a supreme God, external, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, and the creator of all things that exist apart from him, certainly has in it more objective reality than the ideas that represent finite substances.”24 Descartes is using objective reality as something independent from the mind. God is so perfect to the high degree that finite beings cannot grasp the idea of God. Descartes realizes that the idea of God must have far more objective reality than he has formal reality. God is objective reality since he exist independent to the mind, whereas, finite beings only have formal reality. Finite beings lack something and make mistakes, and an infinite being is perfect, so it has what finite beings lack. Insofar, he realizes he exist, because he is a thinking being. As a thinking beings he can have thought of a perfect being, God, which proves a clear proof that God exist.25
The meditator concludes meditation III with a firm understanding that he exist, and he is certain God exist.
“I recognize that would be impossible for me to exist with the kind of nature I have – that is, having within me the idea of ‘God’ I mean the very being idea of whom is within me, that s, the possessor of all the perfections which I cannot grasp, but can somehow reach in my thought, who is subject to no defects whatsoever.”26
This shows how God is perfect in Descartes eyes. He cannot grasp the idea of God, which finite beings are not capable of being able to do. Finite beings have this error since they are finite beings and not perfect. God is infinite, so he cannot make any error since he is infinite. Meditation IV, “Truth and falsity”, Descartes refreshes what he already knows. He has accustomed himself to not use the senses; he has taken note that things related to the body can be doubted, but things related to the mind are certain. The idea of the human mind is not an extended to anything, but merely just a thinking thing.27 He thinks of himself being finite with error, and when he thinks of an infinite being, God. Thinking of a finite being that does not depend of anything is clear and distinct that God exist.
First, he knows that God would not deceive him, since the will to deceive is a sign of weakness, and God 's perfection would not allow it. Second, if God created him, God is responsible for his judgment, and so his faculty of judgment must be infallible so long as he uses it correctly.28 He realizes, he was created by a supreme or infinite being, and nothingness, but he was also created by a finite being. Nothingness is the negative to what is perfect, or something that is lacked. When he is wrong, it is not the result of a faulty idea created by God. It is the result of his lack of perfection from being a finite being born from perfection and nothingness.
The meditator believes, everything that God has created is perfect, but God has created him as a finite being whose finitude still leaves room for error. He looks for the source of errors. Descartes believes errors depend on the intellect and will, or knowledge and free choice. He states, the intellect, however, only allows us to perceive ideas, not to make judgments on them. Hence, the intellect is not the source for errors.29
When it comes to knowledge, the meditator knows he is limited, the meditator reflects on how he could not conceive of the will God.30 Therefore, the will of God is unlimited since he cannot grasp the idea of Gods will on finite beings. Since finite beings cannot grasp Gods will, will is not the source for error.
The mediator concludes Mediation IV, he cannot complain about the imperfections God has given him. It is through nature that he has finite intellect, will is inseparable. He cannot complain about wrong judgments he has, because God has a bigger picture and he is just a small part of it. God must is perfect, so his being is perfect, because his intellect is finite to grasp what Gods ultimate plan is. Descartes can avoid error by suspending all judgments where he is uncertain, and only judge when something is clear and distinct.
Meditation V, The essence of material things, and the existence of God, begins with the meditator trying to make sense of material things outside of the body. He can distinctly imagine extension, size, shape, position, and local motion, which is associated with duration.31 The meditator considers there are intangible geometric figures which do not exist in the world. He gives an example of triangles:
“I imagine a triangle, even if perhaps no such figure exist, or have ever existed, anywhere outside my thought, there is still a determinate nature, or essence, or form of a triangle which is immutable and eternal, and not invented by me or independent on my mind.”32
This shows the meditator is trying to explain how non-existent objects can exist, even if they are independent to the mind. Relating this case to God, whom is independent to the mind as well. Just as the triangles do not exist externally they have an essence internally, however, God does not have an external form, but can be internal. Therefore God exist since he can exist internally to finite beings.
Meditation VI, also called “The existence of material things and the real distinction between the mind and body”. The meditator began building an understanding of imagination and pure understanding. He uses a triangle as an example. Using understanding he can perceive the triangle has 3 sides, and can derive other properties as well. The meditator can also perceive the properties through imagination. Through imagination understanding is weak, because a thousand sided figure cannot be imagined.33 A thousand sided figure can be perceived through pure understanding. Using mathematics the figures properties can be made distinct and clear, which we cannot doubt what is clear and distinct.
Imagination cannot be an essential part of the mind, since the meditator can exist without imagination. Since the meditator can exist without imagine, hence, imagination must depend on something else.34 This something else Descartes calls the body.
“When the mind understands, it in some way turns towards itself and inspects one of the ideas which are within it; when it imagines, it turns towards the body and looks at something in the body which conforms to an idea understood by the mind or perceived by the senses.”35
Therefore the body has to exist since images look towards the body to make external things clear and distinct.
The meditator is puzzled as to why his mind seems particularly attached to one particular body, which he calls his own. Why does he feel pain and tickling in this body but not in any body external to it? And why should a tugging in the stomach of that body suggest to his mind that he should eat, since there is no obvious connection between the tugging and the decision to eat? He concludes that he is inclined by nature to assume the things he does about his body and about the world external to it, since he accepts these assumptions prior to developing any arguments regarding them.
The meditator is certain he cannot doubt material things entirely. First, he clearly and distinctly perceive he is a thinking thing. The body is extended externally, and the mind is non-extended internally, hence, he is distinct from his body and consist without it.
Descartes reasons sensory perception and imagination are modes of thought.36 He can exist without both, so they are not essential to him, hence, they cannot both exist without the mind. Moreover, there are modes of extension that cannot exist without a body.
The Meditator next considers ideas about the body that he perceives only blankly and unclearly, hoping that his knowledge that God is not a deceiver will help. First, he reasons that he must have a body, as nature teaches him clearly and distinctly. Therefore, mind and body are intermingled to form one unit. If the mind were in the body like a sailor in a ship, he would be able to perceive pains and hungers by purely intellectual understanding.37 Instead, he feels these sensations sharply and directly as if his mind itself were suffering; sensation of pain. The confused modes of thinking that arise with respect to these sensations result precisely because the mind and body are intermingled and the mind cannot survey the matter disinterestedly.38
Though the meditator concludes that there are other bodies which are the source of his sensory perceptions, there are still things he can still doubt. He cannot be certain heat, color, and taste that he perceives in an object is going to be presented in the same way to his senses. By nature, both mind and body tells us to avoid pain and seek pleasure.39 The correct judgments depend on knowledge alone and not from the senses. Descartes notes:
“It would be unreasonable to infer from the sensation of heat or pain in approaching a flame that the heat or the pain reside in the flame itself.
The fact of the matter is that the senses are meant only to inform us as to what is beneficial and what is harmful, and in that respect they are perfectly clear and distinct. Our mistake comes in expecting them also to inform us of the true nature or essence of the things we are perceiving, when they can only give us very obscure information in this regard.”40
This shows that we often makes mistakes into things that can be harmful to us. The meditator is still certain the body is detached and is attached. Descartes mentions, “The mind cannot be broken into smaller parts, which extended things can.”41 There are no different parts in the mind, hence if the mind imagines, the entire mind imagines not just parts of the mind. Therefore, the body can be separated and the mind cannot, it is clear and distinct they are different things. The meditator concludes that, he is certain of things he was able to doubt in Meditation I. When in doubt of things one can use intellect or memory to be certain in the world.42 Descartes also notes, our memory can dismiss any doubt we have about the Dream Argument.43 Experiences that happen why you are awake are connected through memory, where dreams happen as a disconnect. Descartes is certain God is not a deceiver, which makes him safe from error.
Criticism of Meditation
III Meditation III, “The existence of God”, I believe Descartes needs to address. Reading the meditations he anticipates this being refuted, but needs to clarify a few things. The thought of something being infinite is not satisfying. We can derive an explanation from our experiences. If I imagine a perfect line drawn on a board, I would have to know from experience what a straight line looks like. Once I have the knowledge of what a straight line looks like, I can perceive whether a line is straight or crooked. Therefore, making Descartes wrong, since he claims one can perceive something perfect before mistake. Nonetheless, there is a problem between the ideal of things and actual things. Could an external force really bring ideas into human thoughts? No, complex beings such as humans think from their experiences. Just because someone can think of an external force does not mean the force provides thoughts to the intellect. In the case that unicorns; they do not exist, and I can think of one perfectly. The unicorn also, does not have an effect on my thoughts just from thinking of it. If I did not have the experience to view what a unicorn may look like, it would have no effect on my intellect. Therefore, proving Descartes wrong of the existence of God. Just because you can think of a perfect being, does not mean the being has an effect on the intellect.
Teleological Argument Descartes did not believe that science could explain the existence of God. He doubted science, because in science mistakes could be made. Just as Descartes tried to explain Gods existence in the 1600’s. Peter Collins I tries to modernize Gods existence Physics.
Robin Collins argument “The Teleological Argument an Exploration of the Fine-Tuning of the Universe” he argues the existence of God or an intelligent designer. Collins argues three propositions’ that must have to be in place; in order to have life: (i) The fine-tuning of the laws of physics; (ii) The fine-tuning of the constants of physics; (iii) The fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the universe. He states, modern science discoveries show that there must have to be an intelligent designer. This precise setting of the structure of the universe for life is called the “fine-tuning of the cosmos.” The first, major type of fine-tuning is the laws of nature. These laws and principles of nature themselves have just the right form to allow for the existence embodied moral agents. Collins states that these “embodied moral agents are conscious beings that can make morally significant choices, without prejudging the status of moral truths.”44 The Natural laws of nature that have to be in place, he breaks down into five main laws of physics: “(1) a universal attractive force, such as gravity; (2) a force relevantly similar to that of the strong nuclear force, which binds protons and neutrons together in the nucleus; (3) a force relevantly similar to that of the electromagnetic force; (4) Bohr’s Quantization Rule or something similar; (5) the Pauli Exclusion Principle.”45 If any one of these laws or principles did not exist then life could not exist. The first law of gravity, gravity is a long-range attractive force between all material objects, whose strength increases in proportion to the masses of the objects. He states:
“Now consider what would happen if there were no universal, long-range attractive force between material objects, but all the other fundamental laws remained If no such force existed, then there would be no stars, since the force of gravity is what holds the matter in stars together against the outward forces caused by the high internal temperatures inside the stars. This means that there would be no long-term energy sources to sustain the evolution (or even existence) of highly complex life.”46
From Collins quote, we can comprehend that the world would not exist if all the laws did not exist. The second law, he says consider the strong nuclear force. The strong nuclear force is the force that binds protons and neutrons together in the nucleus of an atom.47 Collins mentions without this law, the nucleons would not stay together. Third, consider electromagnetism. Without electromagnetism, there would be no atoms, since there would be nothing to hold the electrons in orbit. Further, there would be no means of transmission of energy from stars for the existence of life on planets.48 Fourth, from this law Collins says to consider Bohr’s rule of quantization. Bohr’s rule is “a theory in early quantum physics: “an atom consists of a positively charged nucleus about which revolves one or more electrons of quantized energy.”49 Finally, Collins mentions to consider the Paul Exclusion Principle. This principle dictates that no two fermions (spin-½ particles) can occupy the same quantum state. From the last statement, breaking it down into layman terms; two particles (protons or electrons) cannot occupy the same space. Collins second proposition, constants of physics, states that, “the constants of physics are fundamental numbers that, when plugged into the laws of physics, determine the basic structure of the universe.”50 Collins gives an example, by using Newton’s gravitational theory. Lastly, the proposition of the initial conditions of the universe refers to the fact that the initial distribution of mass-energy as measured by entropy must fall within an exceedingly narrow range for life to occur. Collins states:
“These initial conditions are expressed by various cosmic parameters, such as the mass density of the early universe, the strength of the explosion of the Big Bang, the strength of the density perturbations that led to star formation, the ratio of radiation density to the density of normal matter, and the like.”51
Collins quotes Roger Penrose who is one of Britain’s leading theoretical physicists. “In order to produce a universe resembling the one in which we live, the Creator would have to aim for an absurdly tiny volume of the phase space of possible universes.”52 This is the precision of which protons and neutrons are created from the big bang. I disagree with Robin Collins position, who says that the universe needs an intelligent being? Throughout this paper, I will maintain my position by giving examples and objections of what a theologian would say to my position. Looking at nature we cannot rule out the design in nature. However, the problem is in the defining intelligent designer. If a bird makes a well-designed nest; is the bird a designer? We can call the bird a creator, because the bird created the nest. The question is can we call the bird an intelligent designer? Because the bird created the nest to its liking and to its perfection. Does a creator necessarily have to be original or rational? I say no a designer does not need to be original or rational. From the bird example, mammals can simply just create things for the survival of their spices. Furthermore, Collins view is not justified based off reason, but instead based off of science. The number of the constants, which the theory needs, cannot be calculated by the human brain. Therefore, the theory cannot be justified if it relies on computer technology to get the answers.
Also, we know nothing comes from nothing. So since we know nothing comes from nothing, then where did this intelligent being come from? Who created this designer? Steven Hawking’s argues that the Big Bang, rather than occurring following the intervention of a divine being, was inevitable due to the law of gravity.53 He quotes in his new book "because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.”54 From Hawking’s quote, we can see that the universe did not come from nothing. Gravity already on the universe and the solar system helped to create the universe.
In conclusion, I disagree with both, Robin Collins and Rene Descartes’ arguments for the existence of God. Rene Descartes idea of a being that is greater to himself needs to be clearer. It is not infallible that a being can exist externally only through the intellect. Descartes has trouble making this clear. There are many other things that can be thought of perfect external to the mind. Nonetheless, they are not presented as God. Robin Collins also leave room for criticism. The laws on Earth are perfect to sustain life, but what happens if one of the laws was to change by a degree. If the gravitational pull from the moon was not 23 degree and changed to 32 degrees. Then what would happen to life on planet Earth? The fine-tuning of the one of the laws of physics would be different, hence, changing life on Earth. In science the term existence can be explained as, anything that has a probable impact on the universe. When it comes to the existence of God, not even can be found to be tested. Therefore, the existence of God cannot be determined, so God does not exist.
Work Cited
Collins, Robin. The Teleological Argument: An Exploration of the Fine-Tuning of the Universe. The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Blackwell, 2009. 213
Descartes, René, John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, and Dugald Murdoch.The philosophical writings of Descartes. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire: Cambridge University Press, 2005., 15
Hawking, Steven. "God Didn 't Create Universe." CNN World (2010). Print.
Penrose, Roger. The emperor 's new mind: concerning computers, minds, and the laws of physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. 343
Smith, Kurt. "Descartes ' Life and Works." Stanford University. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-works/ (accessed April 19, 2014).
Webster dictionary
Wilson, Catherine. Descartes 's Meditations an introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003.