When constructing his foundation of knowledge, there are two separate arguments used by Descartes to prove the existence of God. There is some irony in this sense he had claimed formerly that educated men as well as all of the philosophers that had come before him had only been able to present very doubtful opinions on the matter (Shoulder.) Descartes made the claim that everyone has a concept of God as an infinite being, and that we cannot fail to believe this because it is innate (Principles of Philosophy: René Descartes.) This paper will discuss Descartes’ proofs of God’s existence, and evaluate their differences as well as their persuasiveness.
The causal argument for God’s existence contained Descartes’ argument that he believes will demonstrate that all perfection is derived by God. Although Descartes recognizes that God may be an imperfect being, he also can consider him as a perfect being as well. Because he alone is not capable of developing such an idea on his own, there must be some greater cause for the idea (Shoulder.) This proof is based on the principle that there must be as much validity in a cause as in its effect, therefore any conceptions of perfection require perfect causes of them; the conclusion is that God, the perfect cause, must surely exist. One argument against this belief would be that the premise is false and that there is no perfect idea of God; instead, there is only an approximation of that perfect concept. Therefore, since our idea about God would be imperfect, it would not need a perfect cause so that the conclusion would not necessarily follow.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Descartes and the Existence of God".
The second argument by Descartes relating to the existence of God appears in the fifth meditation, and even though the wording of that proof is somewhat different, it resembles an ontological argument from the eleventh century. In this proof, Descartes thinks about the idea of a most perfect being and what such a concept would involve. If the being is actually perfect, then it would not lack anything so that it would not lack existence. Therefore, God’s essence includes his existence. This also has implications for the consideration of the evil deceiver, because if God is perfect, he is not capable of being deceptive. He is unable to cause anybody to make mistakes, because deceit and intentional errors are inconsistent with the character of a being that is imperfect. This is akin to saying that once a person accepts the concept of God, he or she cannot rationally deny its existence.
Both of these proofs focus on the existence of God, but they approach this concept from different directions. The causal proof focuses on God’s perfection, because one’s conception of God cannot be experienced solely by one’s own abilities but rather, it has been innately provided by God; therefore, this is proof of God’s existence. The cause of the idea of belief in God’s existence must have at least as much reality as the content of the idea itself (Descartes: God in Human Nature.) The ontological proof argues that the nature of God’s being perfect means that any such being would not lack anything, including existence so therefore God must exist. I do not find these arguments convincing, because not all people have an innate belief that God is a being that has infinite perfection. Perhaps people who are raised in families or societies that believe in a supreme being who is perfect and is the only true God would have an easier time being convinced that Descartes proofs are valid. Also, why did Descartes assumed that in order for a being to be perfect, they must possess existence when there is no evidence that existence must naturally accompany perfection?
Descartes needed to have two proofs because he did not feel that either of them was necessarily strong enough to stand on their own merits. In addition, he may have believed that they were not strong enough to convince people who were skeptical about them in the first place. Descartes believes that human error is attributable to human failings, a deliberate choice not to use my free will to the fullest extent possible in pursuit of understanding. God has been benevolent in giving people the cognitive abilities to both make choices and to comprehend, and when there are mistakes, people have chosen not to exercise these abilities appropriately.
According to Descartes, there is a perfect being that is powerful enough to deceive me at any point. However, God does not deceive people, because deception would suggest imperfection so that a true supreme being is not motivated to deceive. As a result, Descartes says, there is no reason to further question the existence of God, and people can be completely confident that their cognitive abilities, which are given to them by a benevolent God, are perfectly adequate to understand truthfulness and to avoid errors except for when they choose to ignore those gifts. It seems like this argument is somewhat convincing for people who want to believe in a supreme being, because it states that although God gives people the tools to achieve perfection and avoid making mistakes, their humanness causes them to bypass these gifts and make mistakes.
Descartes proofs are convincing to people who are either already believers in the existence of God, or are open to exploring and examining reasons for these beliefs. However, for people who are not at all inclined to believe in the existence of God, it is most likely that they will not change their beliefs based on his proofs.
- “Descartes: God in Human Nature.” 12 November 2011. Philosophy Pages. Web. 9 November 2013.
- “Principles of Philosophy: René Descartes.” 2013. Spark Notes. Web. 9 November 2013.
- Shoulder, Kenneth. “Descartes’s Two Arguments for the Existence of God.” n.d. Net Places.com. Web. 9 November 2013.
