Descartes and the Concept of God
The Ontological Argument for God
© Brian Tubbs
Dec 1, 2006
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 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?
