|
In the 17th century, philosopher Renee Descartes updated a classic St. Anselm argument for God with his own reflections on thought and existence.
“Cogito, ergo sum.” That’s Latin for what the famous words uttered by French philosopher Renee Descartes: “I think, therefore I am.” One of the most foundational principles of western logic and philosophy, Descartes’ phrase has actually been misconstrued by many down through the ages.
Contrary to some interpretations, Descartes did not argue that thinking in and of itself leads to existence. Rather, he is saying that the presence of thought would be impossible without existence. In other words, a thing can still exist without thinking. But thought necessitates the existence of a thing. Thought may not be necessary for existence, but it proves existence.
This understanding of thought’s correlation to existence is the basis of the ontological argument for God. For Descartes took his principle of thought=existence one step further. By doing so, he provided one of the most thought-provoking (no pun intended) yet misunderstood arguments for the existence of God in human history.
In Meditations, Descartes endorses the idea that “from the simple fact that I can draw from my thought the idea of anything it follows that all that I recognize clearly and distinctly to pertain to this thing pertains to it in reality…” In other words, it would not be possible to think of something that does not, in some form, exist.
Wait a minute! What about unicorns? If you think of a unicorn, does that mean a unicorn exists? Yes and no. The unicorn may not exist in reality, but it does exist as a mythical creature conceived by an earlier person or society. The concept of a unicorn is very much real, even if the unicorn itself does not exist.
“Well, fine,” argues the critic. “God exists as a concept, but this theory of Descartes’ proves nothing in terms of God’s reality.”
This would be a valid objection, if Descartes stopped at this point. Descartes elevates God to a unique status, one that many critics will not accept. Nevertheless, Descartes’ argument is worthy of our attention.
According to Descartes, everyone can conceive of a Supreme Being, which he calls “God.” The idea of God is, of course, that of a “supremely perfect,” which he understands to be infinite and unlimited. This concept of God closely mirrors the characteristics that would be present in a “Necessary Being,” the reality of which is logically essential for the universe itself to exist.
Like most western philosophers before him and many afterward, Descartes accepts that every thought, action, phenomena requires a cause. Therefore, the presence of the idea of God – an infinite, unlimited, “supremely perfect” Being – in his mind (and the minds of other finite human beings) necessitates an adequate cause to that presence.
Since we, as human beings, are not infinite or perfect, we cannot be the cause of this concept of God. Therefore, the cause must be external to humanity. Accordingly, we come to the logical conclusion that such a “supremely perfect” Being exists – outside of humanity.
To be sure, the theory has some problems, namely the suspect premise that we can deduce the existence of a being from the idea of a being. Moreover, Immanuel Kant argued that a human concept of God can’t automatically establish God’s actual existence.
Nevertheless, Descartes never intended for the ontological argument to be a stand-alone. He understood it as follow-up to the causality argument. What’s more, the ontological argument comports well with the Apostle Paul’s writings in Romans 1-2.
The bottom line is that this is a weak argument for the reality of God, if used to persuade a skeptic or atheist. It is, however, effective in clarifying and strengthening the cosmological and teleological arguments for God.
The copyright of the article Descartes and the Concept of God in Protestantism is owned by Brian Tubbs. Permission to republish Descartes and the Concept of God in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.
Comments
Dec 1, 2006 6:07 AM
Pink :
.
Thanks for doing this survey of ideas on the existence of a
necessary force.
.
I wonder about what such a force might be or
what it might resemble. What was the environment in which 'it' existed? You
read and hear about different dimensions of existence as an aspect of
'string theory' and some althernative ideas presented by spiritists, etc.
There certainly are some magnificently beautiful sights out there in space.
.
Thing about postmodernism is that it requires we take
everything apart to see what makes it tick. The same is true of our
religious beliefs and heritage. What is there about the Bible that makes
anyone think it is a viable source for understanding about our origins?
That's a question we are forced to face in postmodern times. And, it
provides a field of confrontation on which defenders of 'the faith' turn
against the curious as though there is something wrong with anyone who
wants to seek out answers.
.
Des Cartes was, sort of, an early
postmodernist in that he was asking deeper questions than could have been
posed earlier on--a milestone marker on the way from the past into the
future?
.
Dec 1, 2006 6:23 AM
Roger Cook :
I will be back later with some more input into this. The existence of God
is one of my favorite topics to discuss with with my padawan learners.
Humanity, by our nature, we are seeking the spiritual. Whether Christian or
not. We all seek and believe in something. Even the atheist, is choosing to
'believe' in nothing, or themselves. That in and of itself is belief. Even
casual believism with its 'oh, so and so are going to Heaven, because they
are a good person', is a belief. Even though it is not Scriptual. For, as
Christ has told us that without Him, none may see Heaven. The calling for
something higher is one of the characteristics that separate us from the
animal Kingdom. As Christ in His incarnation was Fully God and Fully Man,
we are a portrait of that make-up on earth. We are not angels. We are not
animals. We are not totally spiritual. We are not totally animal. We are
glorious made in the image of the Almight Triune God! Gen 1:26. We are
fully spirtual, and fully mortal. In our Creation, and the ensuing Fall, we
are incomplete, as we are a three part creation. Body, soul, and spirit.
Heb 4:12. We are seeking completeness and wholeness, as we seek for
something higher to fill the 'God-shaped' void in our soul. A need that can
only completely and permanantly filled by the True God. But, I digress.
First, I need to make a statement about the unicorn.
In
the Authorized (King James) Version of the Bible we read of God questioning
Job (Chapter 39:9,10):
'Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or
abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow?
or will he harrow the valleys after thee?'
The unicorn is also
mentioned in Deuteronomy 33:17, Numbers 23:22 and 24:8; Psalm 22:21, 29:6
and 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7. Nowhere in these passages is there any
suggestion that anything other than a real animal is being described.
But the unicorn is well known to be a product of legend, or is it? It is
a creature whose remains have never been found and about whom fabulous
tales have been told. Some have used this to attack the Bible-this proves
that the writers were simply retelling widely believed myths, they say.
Unicorn (meaning 'one horn') stories have been told in many parts of the
world, including Syria, China, India, ancient Greece and medieval Europe.
Although always having one horn, its body (usually shown in European
stories as a horse, albeit with cloven hooves) has also been depicted in
many other ways, including rese
Dec 1, 2006 7:41 AM
Pink :
.
<i>But, I digress.</i>
.
You--most
certainly--do.
.
Dec 1, 2006 5:44 PM
C. G. Prado :
I'm afraid I have some problems with this article on Rene (one
"e") Descartes. First of all, in the Meditations the form of the
cogito is not as an argument; it is an intuition: "cogito; sum"
-- "I think; I am." There is no "ergo"; that's in the
Discourse on Method, an earlier work. Descartes came to understand that the
"ergo" requires a suppressed premise, something like "All
things that think exist," and he wanted nothing that was not
immediately evident.
Second, he includes the Ontological
argument for the sake of the faculty of theology. I suspect he saw it's
flaw as well as others: all the argument establishes is that the idea of
God exists.
His causal argument, which is is own, though
reminiscent of Aquinas, is what he offers seriously, but it doesn't work
either, for the reason that's brushed off in the article: we can't in fact
achieve an idea of God sufficiently perfect to establish the need for a
divine cause.
Dec 2, 2006 8:26 AM
Pink :
.
<i>"... all the argument establishes is that the idea of
God exists."</i>
.
Right. Thanks for your input here,
professor.
.
Dec 2, 2006 3:20 PM
Brian Tubbs :
You'll note that I acknowledge, at the article's end, that this is among
the weaker arguments for the existence of God. I think its strengh lies in
its use with the other arguments. Combine this with the arguments of
causality and design, and you start to have a solid, cumulative case for
God.
Dec 2, 2006 4:34 PM
C. G. Prado :
Sorry; that just won't wash. The Ontological argument is an a priori
argument (the only one); the others are a posteriori arguments. You can't
add them up. The Ontological argument simply does not work, it's not valid,
so that it can't add anything to other arguments, even if it were of the
same nature--which it's not. Aquinas understood this; he offered five
different arguments, but all were a posteriori ones, like Descartes' causal
argument. Arguments for the existence of God have been discussed for
centuries to no avail. If you're a believer, put your faith in faith;
otherwise you're kidding yourself.
Dec 2, 2006 4:55 PM
Pink :
.
:)
.
Dec 2, 2006 5:05 PM
Pink :
<i>"Like most western philosophers before him and many
afterward, Descartes accepts that every thought, action, phenomena requires
a cause. Therefore, the presence of the idea of God - an infinite,
unlimited, 'supremely perfect' Being - in his mind (and the minds of other
finite human beings) necessitates an adequate cause to that presence.
"Since we, as human beings, are not infinite or perfect, we
cannot be the cause of this concept of God. Therefore, the cause must be
external to humanity. Accordingly, we come to the logical conclusion that
such a 'supremely perfect' Being exists - outside of
humanity."</i>
.
If I understand what you're saying
her, then the cartoon characters; Superman, Batman, Popeye, Bugs Bunny, and
all the others truly exist in reality.
.
If I don't understand
what you're saying, please explain it a little more clearly.
.
Dec 3, 2006 11:43 AM
Brian Tubbs :
Like I said, the ontological argument is weak. But Descartes would argue
(make that "did argue") that the ontological argument makes sense
once you've accepted the causality argument. But, okay, you and Descartes
disagree. No problem.
What I really want to take issue with is
your statement that a believer has recourse only to faith. We are
ultimately called to faith - meaning there is a step of TRUST we need to
take. BUT....my faith isn't based on an abstract wish or some vague,
existential "reality."
For example, do you have
"Faith" that Julius Caesar existed?
Dec 3, 2006 1:10 PM
C. G. Prado :
You should read my article on opinions. This isn't a matter of me
"disagreeing" with Descartes; it's a matter of understanding the
issue and of you not fully appreciating what Descartes said or was doing. I
can recommend several books on Descartes, including my own. For one thing,
there's no such thing as a "weak" a priori argument; it's either
valid or not, period. And what's faith got to do with whether Caesar
existed? We have confirming evidence, not arguments. Do I accept the
evidence? That's the relevant question and the answer is yes.
Dec 3, 2006 1:48 PM
Roger Cook :
My, oh my, if you only knew my past with comics, occult, and the imaginary
(heh, heh)
Actually, they do all exist, and many more. In fact,
that is one reason I have been delayed in answering you, the voices in my
head would not let me.
;-)
But, seriously,
we need to remember not only Descartes, but his influences also. Plato,
Aristotle, Anselm, Aquinas, Ockham, Suarez, Mersenne, Pyrrho. As Geisler
surmised, amid a period of increasing skepticism and doubt, Descartes felt
called to bring certainty into philosophy. Since in Descartes' day
mathematics and particularly geometry held out most promise in this
direction, Descartes applied the mathematical method to human reasoning.
The result was what may be called a geometric epistemology. In order to
arrive at demonstrable conclusions one must have unquestioned premises or
axioms and from these he must deduce logically irrefutable conclusions. But
where is one to find these Archimedean axioms in the flux of doubt?
Descartes' answer to this is both fascinating and illustrative on a classic
rationalistic move. Doubt is a negative form of thought, and the more we
doubt, the more certain we are of one thing, namely, that we doubt.
Complete doubt would bring complete certainty that one was thinking. I
doubt; therefore I am thinking. But if one is thinking, he must be a
thinking thing. Thus he moves from the dubito to cogito to sum, from 'I
doubt', to 'I think' to 'I am'. The indubitable starting point or axiom is
that one is both a doubting and a thinking being. (From Descartes'
'Meditations on the First Philosophy, I.) Which you have exhibited by the
doubting of the existence of the unicorn.
The mind then is a
thinking thing and this cannot be doubted. But what of the body? According
to Descartes the body in an extended thing and this can be doubted. (Is
this reminiscent of the prior premise of fallen man's nature, as it is
taken into acct and the exegesis of Hebrews 4:12?) The senses deceive us
and we could merely dream about our body and the physical world. (Hence the
Easter Bunny, Superman, Popeye and such) Indeed a malevolent demon may be
deceiving one about the world. Just how Descartes overcomes this sensory
doubt is an instructive lesson in a classic rationalistic move. Since the
only thing of which he is certain is the existence of his own mind,
Descartes moves next to prove the existence of God. Then, on the grounds
that God would not deceive us, Descartes attempts to demonstrate the exis
Dec 3, 2006 1:48 PM
Pink :
.
:)
.
Dec 3, 2006 4:12 PM
Kim Jeremy Sheil :
<i> The existence of God is one of my favorite topics to discuss with
with my padawan learners.</i>
Are you a Jedi?
Dec 3, 2006 4:45 PM
Pink :
.
Okay, you got my attention.
.
And, I am interested.
.
I have doubts about you.
.
You could be a cracked
pot.
.
By the way,
.
<i>"Actually, they do
all exist, and many more. In fact, that is one reason I have been delayed
in answering you, the voices in my head would not let
me."</i>
.
Yeah. They exist in my head too; but, I
don't listen to them. Instead, they have to listen to me.
.
:)
.
Dec 3, 2006 7:30 PM
Brian Tubbs :
Not sure we have "confirming" evidence for Caesar. We have
evidence that everyone generally accepts, but not "confirming"
evidence - although maybe I'm misunderstanding the term.
I
believe we have historical evidence for Jesus, including his resurrection -
which I will get to in my next few articles. That's the point I'm making.
Faith isn't just some decision to put your trust in the dark.
There is such a thing as reasoned faith. I do not believe Christians are
called to a BLIND faith - a leap in the dark. Mine certainly is not.
Dec 3, 2006 7:38 PM
Brian Tubbs :
Regarding Descartes...
I concede your point on Descartes'
dropping "ergo." I didn't get into that with the article, because
it wasn't the main focus. Nevertheless, I recognize I probably should've
worded things differently. So, I concede this point to you.
You
also mentioned that Descartes put forward the Ontological argument for the
sake of the "faculty of theology." That's what I am trying to say
- albeit probably not in the technically correct terminology that you as a
philosopher and scholar will respect. I tried to make clear that Descartes
didn't offer the ontological argument as a stand-alone.
Respectfully, I think that you are debating me from the context of the
rules and terminology of proper philosophy. I appreciate that, and can
learn much from you. However, I'm approaching this more from a layperson's
perspective - a quest for knowledge. Kind of an amateur detective. Are
there clues to the existence of God found in our thoughts? Descartes would
probably answer in the affirmative on that, citing his ontological
argument. But does this argument logically and conclusively establish God?
No.
Dec 3, 2006 7:48 PM
Brian Tubbs :
No Scripture, you say? I quoted from the Gospel According to Rene
Descartes. It's right next to the Book of II Opinions (the favorite book of
Baptists).
Seriously....I'm following kind of an outline in
this series of arguments for God. I've done a few on the causality argument
and the design argument. This one was ontological. Next, I go to the
historical arguments for God - and then the biblical arguments for God. So,
more Scripture coming.
Dec 3, 2006 8:04 PM
Roger Cook :
My apologies, Pastor Tubbs. I am enjoying your messages greatly and look
forward to following your study. May the Lord of the Force be with you.
Dec 3, 2006 8:15 PM
Roger Cook :
A Jedi? Please read below on what I mean by Jedi Christian. Let me know if
you are a Jedi? I am the youth leader at my church. Ihave put together a
Star Wars study as I took over the reigns of the youth, and as the group
began to grow, I wanted to put something together that they could connect
with, and laid the foundations of basic theology with. I sadly feel, as the
Jedi were extremely few in episodes 4, 5, and 6, there are few dedicated,
on-fire (Jedi) Christians. Please read on and let me know what you think.
Before we get into the whole Eastern influence of the mystery religions on
the Star Wars genre, I need to point out that I used the Bible (henceforth
called the Holochron , as the end-all to any and all disputeds). They have
been very receptive, and this thinking that they can relate to has brought
them to a closer relationship to the Lord, and realization of their purpose
here, and how important it is to actively fulfill the Great Comission.
-my study notes-
Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away...
By entering through the gateway, each of you have have given your
life over to something greater. You have each been chosen for your adept
abilities in something greater than yourselves. Those, like myself, who
follow the Way, are known as the Jedi. Each of you to this point in your
lives are under the prevailing mythology that what matters is here and now.
You will have to unlearn what you have learned. You will become subject to
the simple yet profound Wisdom of the Jedi. You will each learn to follow
the Way of the Lost Sayings of the Jedi Holochron. The Chinese have a
saying, "When the pupil is ready, the teacher will come".
The synergy of the master and learner reveals Christian wisdom seen through
the Jedi masters. If you are hungry to discover your true destiny and your
place in the cosmic story, then be assured that there are those of us who
remember the radical faith and are prepared to pass it on to you, as Yoda
passed the Jedi Way on to Luke Skywalker. For centuries these spiritual
masters have conveyed deep spiritual truth from one generation to the next,
entrusting it like a baton, breaking the hitherto uninterrupted
perpetuation of teaching whose worth is greater than gold and whose
possession offers the narrow path to spiritual joy and power.
In my
lifetime the gravitational pull toward the dark side has been strong. Many
Christians aspiring to Jedi-like wisdom have been compromised; others have
gone into hiding. Though my emb
Dec 4, 2006 8:03 AM
Pink :
.
Clever.
.
Dec 4, 2006 8:30 AM
Pink :
.
It seems--to me--that this is a devolving argument the end to which
must be complete silence; but, I might be wrong. I've been wrong before.
.
Anyway, I have a question which bewilders me. It's not just a
simple, yes or no, question; but, one that requires a comprehensive
resolution.
.
I wonder why it is a problem of such magnitude that
we need to draw on obscure and arcane arguments to prove that which has no
reason to be hidden whatsoever. I know the common answers that it is self
evident; but, what is self evident is NOT that this or that perception of a
Creator is true. What IS self evident is that our existence in this vast
and infathomable collection of galaxies is such a mystery.
.
When
we consider the overwhelming extent of that mystery we have to come to the
realization that we are all in it together. But, instead, what we have is
these various groups of people scattered across the globe and throughout
time, the members of which, claim to have some special knowledge about that
mystery. Not only do the members of these groups claim to have such
supernatural knowledge; but, they further claim their knowledge has to do
with how everyone is condemned to spend all eternity in torment for not
accepting the tennets of the rules they have litigated regarding that
special knowledge they CLAIM to possess.
.
And, these members, be
they Muslims, Jews, or Christians, go to phantasmagorical lengths to
"prove" their knowledge is absolutely correct. They cannot all be
correct. Here's my question:
.
Why would an omniscient,
omnipotent, compassionate, loving, and ever present being allow
circumstances to exist in which the poor minded and materially impoverished
people of the world are kept from readily available and clearly accurate
information about their human condition?
.
This is the question
that bewilders me. Am I to be faulted for my bewilderment? Does that make
me guilty of some unforgiveable crime for which I shall be eternally
punished?
.
Someone needs to open their mind.
.
:)
Dec 4, 2006 9:38 AM
Pink :
.
This line: <i>"... what we have is these various groups
of people..."</i>
.
Should have read:
.
<i>"... what we have <b>are</b> these various
groups of people..."</i>
.
Dec 4, 2006 11:35 AM
Brian Tubbs :
I know what you're getting at. Comes down to why doesn't God just part the
heavens and audibly speak to us - or find some similar way to clearly and
unequivocally reveal Himself (or, for the feminists here, Herself / Itself)
to us? I can't answer that, except to say that God has His own purposes for
how He chose to create us and How He chooses to reveal Himself.
I would say that if my Christianity were based purely on "obscure
and arcane arguments," I would not be satisfied. In fact, it is much
more.
I think the best verse on this subject is Hebrews 11:6,
which reads...
<i>But without faith it is impossible to
please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is
a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. </i>
We have
to 1) believe God is real, and 2) "diligently" seek God. If we do
those two things, God will reward us by revealing Himself to us. However,
if we approach God (or try to approach God) with a "cover our
bases" perspective or one that is not fully trusting in His reality,
then He will be silent. And that leaves us with only "obscure and
arcane arguments."
I think that's the message of the New
Testament.
Dec 4, 2006 11:40 AM
Brian Tubbs :
I'm enjoying your posts, and thought your point on the lack of Scripture is
relevant. One of pet peeves is that the modern church has gotten too far
away from Scripture. I'm glad to see we agree on that. I just wanted to
explain, so you understood about the last article.
I also have
to say that I love Star Wars. There's a book out called Wisdom from the
Jedi or something like that. It's a personal development book, with a
Christian perspective I believe, that centers on Jedi lessons in Star Wars.
I haven't read it, but it looks interesting.
Dec 4, 2006 12:25 PM
Pink :
.
I didn't expect a comprehensive answer. I doubt that there is
one.
.
Beyond that, I think that the professor's point about
faith is exactly correct.
.
Why do you need proof? Who are you
trying to convince?
.
Dec 4, 2006 2:05 PM
Kim Jeremy Sheil :
How awesome. At my youth group I'm the only Star Wars geek. I'd love to go
to a youth group like yours.:)
Dec 4, 2006 2:09 PM
Kim Jeremy Sheil :
<i>I also have to say that I love Star Wars.</i>
I
can't believe people out there hate it. It's such a good movie (well, the
old trilogy anyway).
<i>There's a book out called Wisdom
from the Jedi or something like that. It's a personal development book,
with a Christian perspective I believe, that centers on Jedi lessons in
Star Wars. I haven't read it, but it looks interesting.</i>
I think I've seen it. You can find many Christian books on the Christian
elements of Star Wars. Sadly, you can also find Christian books on how Star
Wars is Satanic.
Dec 4, 2006 3:02 PM
Pink :
.
Hmmm...
.
So, are you guys accusing the writers of
plagarism?
.
How does O.B.1.K.N.O.B. relate to Old Testament
prophets?
.
:)
Dec 4, 2006 3:39 PM
Pink :
.
<i>"... I <b>LOVE</b>
starwars..."</i> ?
.
Here's a link with some reviews
on the book you mentioned, Brian:
http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Wisdom-Jedi-Masters-Staub/dp/0787978949.
.
30 Comments
|
