Deception Is Incompatible With God

Descartes wonders what else that he can know by using this same logic, but first must establish the idea of God and that God is not deceiving him. He reasons that God exists because he as a mortal could not create the idea of such a powerful being, and only a being as powerful as God could have caused an idea of a God that is perfect. Descartes goes on to reason that because God is perfect, then God would not deceive him about anything. It’s not that Descartes is being deceived, but rather his lack of knowledge or understanding about the matters at hand is causing the problem he is facing.

To expand on his first argument, Descartes' deceiving God argument states that our deceptions are caused by an all powerful God. Humans are capable of being deceived because we are imperfect, unlike God, who is essential flawless. If we can agree on the definition of God, an all powerful and omnipotent being who created us, then we can argue that he has the power to deceive even our most reliable senses. Descartes expresses his compounding doubts as "How do I know that he did not bring it about that there is no earth at all, no heavens, no extended thing, no shape, no size, no place, and yet bringing it about that all these things appear to me to exist precisely as they do now?" (Descartes 491). This excerpt

Descartes is considering that all of his experiences could be false and that everything is just the invention of a powerful being. This resulted in this argument:

By the start of Meditation Four Descartes has established the reliability of his clear and distinct criterion of knowledge, and he has concluded that he exists as an essentially thinking thing and that the idea of an infinite, perfect being entails God's existence. Descartes has also eliminated concern about being systematically deceived, since acting in such a way would be indicative of some deficiency rather than the exercise of some power, and God is perfect. This generates further questions, as humans do regularly judge falsely, even without the meddling of a malicious, deceptive being (99). Given God's nature, attributing error to him is unacceptable, but, conversely, how could humans be blamed for the faulty faculty of judgement that

My intent in this essay is to illustrate that the arguments regarding the existence of God and the fear of deception in Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy, are quite weak and do not justify his conclusions. To support these claims, I will begin by outlining two specific meditations and explain the proposed arguments. Later, I will critically analyze his arguments, revealing unjust conclusions. Doubts surrounding the text include the suggested characteristics of God, the condition of perfection, and the nature of deceit. A wrap up will include a discussion on whether or not Descartes (also referred to as Renatus) succeeded in his project.

Descartes indicates in the beginning of Meditation IV, “perfection” can know nothing of trickery, deceit because deception is a mark of maliciousness and imperfection. If God is a perfect being and perfection cannot know anything of lies or deceit then God cannot be deceptive. He claims that I have both a finite intellect from God, which is

This explanation of error was deliberate and well thought out by Descartes to avoid disproving his previous argument that confirms God’s perfection. He states early in Meditation IV: “when I attend to the nature of God, it seems impossible that he would have placed in me a faculty that is not perfect in its kind or that is lacking some perfection it ought to have.” (AT 55, p. 82) He admits that error goes against this nature of perfection and that only a deceiving God would give us the faculty to err. We do err as human beings, therefore, Descartes must present argument for error that does not challenge God’s perfection. He starts off by separating us from God: “I have been created by the supreme being, there is nothing in me by means of which I might be deceived or led into error; but

As with almost all of Descartes inquiries the roots of his second argument for the existence of God begin with his desire to build a foundation of knowledge that he can clearly and distinctly perceive. At the beginning of the third meditation Descartes once again recollects the things that he knows with certainty. The problem arises when he attempts to clearly and distinctly understand truths of arithmetic and geometry. Descartes has enough evidence to believe these things, but one major doubt is still present; the possibility of God being a deceiver. Descartes worry is that all the knowledge that he possesses through intuition could potentially be false if God merely chooses to deceive him. So in order to have a clear and distinct perception of arithmetic truths (and other such intuitive truths) Descartes delves into the question of God’s existence (and whether this God could be a deceiver or not).

However, the Meditator realizes that he is often convinced when he is dreaming that he is sensing real objects. He feels certain that he is awake and sitting by the fire, but reflects that often he has dreamed this very sort of thing and been thoroughly convinced by it. On further reflection, he realizes that even simple things can be doubted. Omnipotent God could make even our conception of mathematics false. One might argue that God is supremely good and would not lead Descartes to believe falsely all these things. He supposes that not God, but some "evil demon" has committed itself to deceiving him so that everything he thinks he knows is false. By doubting everything, he can at least be sure not to be misled into falsehood by this demon.

Descartes talked about the true and the false, and how we make mistakes in Meditation Four. Descartes believed that error as such is not something real that depends upon God, but rather is merely a defect. And thus there is no need to account for my errors by positing a faculty given to me by God for this purpose(546). He thought that the reason why we make mistakes is that the faculty of judging the truth, which we got from God, is not infinite(546). When Descartes focused more closely on more closely on himself and inquired into the nature of his errors, he noted that errors depend on the simultaneous concurrence of two causes:

In Meditations on First Philosophy Descartes attempts to explain the cause of errors in human beings. Descartes says that error occurs "since the will extends further than the intellect" (Descartes p.39). That's because our intellect is something that is finite; it is limited to the perception of only certain things. Whereas our will, ability to choose is not limited; it is has an infinite capacity. Therefore we sometimes attempt to will things which we do not have a complete understanding of. Descartes' argument, as I will briefly describe, is quite sound, if you agree to all his conditions (being that the intellect is limited and the will infinite). I am not, as of yet, sure if I necessarily agree to the later of his two

The power of knowing and the power of choosing combined lead one to create faults, nothing more and nothing fewer. A person, God’s creation, is made to decide and follow certain paths, and errors will be made due to the finite abilities of a person. It is a mistake to not take advantage of this freedom of the will, for it is the infinite God’s plan. Descartes’ philosophy revolves around certainty and entrustment of God, so it comes at no surprise the backbone of free will is based on belief of God. Descartes pronounces, “…it is an imperfection in me that I do not use my freedom well” (61-62, Meditations). If free will, or freedom as he states, is misused, that indicates only an imperfection in him. Full responsibility for mishaps in judgments and decisions are only caused by an individual’s finite ability given from an infinite being. Further Descartes says, “…willing is merely a matter of being, able to do or not do the same thing” (57-58, Meditations). Descartes entrusts being alive accompanies obtaining a will. Life accompanies the choice to make certain choices or rather obstain from making choices. This full throttled independence backed in God’s name shines positively in those who believe. The entrustment of the will, that everyone contains a hope of choice and deliverance of ideals if fought for accordingly. Underlining the full fleshed will is a sense

The Meditations on First Philosophy by Rene Descartes is a thorough analysis about doubt. Descartes describes his method of doubt to determine whether he can truly know something. One of his major arguments is the proof of the existence of God. In this paper, I will attempt to unravel the flaws in Descartes proof that God exists.

Descartes defines senses as a part of the process of thinking. He also explains that we can use our senses to help us understand the true nature of things. Descartes struggled with doubt and his senses when he used his ontological proof that God existed. For example, he explains that he is aware that he is not perfect and he makes mistakes. He understands that he must know what perfect is in order to give someone the title. He knew that something perfect lead him to have these ideas and that it must exist. His definition of perfect is unique without the knowledge of anyone else and he defined it as God. For example, Descartes believes that God is perfect and deception is a sign of imperfection. Therefore, Descartes came to the conclusion that God cannot deceive. This example shows that Descartes did struggle to accept his own belief without doubting himself. His ontological argument proved, to Descartes, that through God everything

These preconceived notions keep us from “the knowledge of the truth” (Descartes 193). In order to access the truth, we must doubt everything. Doubting everything will lead to the distinction between mind and body. Once you recognize that distinction, you will recognize that “neither extension nor shape nor local motion, nor anything of this kind which is attributable to a body, belongs to our nature, but that thought alone belongs to us” (195). This thought that we have produces ideas, and these ideas are given to us by God, they are innate. Since God gave us this “faculty for knowledge […], it can never encompass any object which is not true” (203). For we are able to see the truth clearly and distinctly this way. Descartes argues that God would be a deceiver if what he gave us was able to be distorted and that we can mistake what is false as true. This is not the case, because God is not a deceiver. Some would argue that people do believe things to be true when in fact they are false. This, however, is not the doing of God, it is of our own free will, and it is what Descartes calls “errors.” Errors do not rely on our intellect, but rather on our own will. Ultimately, doubting will lead to deductive reasoning, or a series of logical statements eventually