Descartes Argument

This paper aims to argue why Descartes would not think that an atheist can have the same certainty about existence of material object as he, himself has. First, it will outline the definition of Descartes’ existence theory of material object. It will then outline the atheist’s theory about existence of material object. Second, it will outline why an atheist cannot have the same inevitability about existence of material objects as Descartes believe. Finally, it will conclude that Descartes believed that our knowledge does not come from the senses, instead it comes from God. Conversely, atheists reject God’s existence as they believe all that exists are material objects identified by sense.

In defense of Descartes, the “Meditations on First Philosophy” attempts to explain what else, besides a thinking thing, that I am. However, this section, in the Second Meditation, is only attempting to explain “What else am I?”1 ex post facto the conclusion that I am “a thinking thing.”2 Consequently, this returns us to the perspectives of certainty problem that was part of the “linguistic convenience” argument. In essence, Descartes has not proved anything with precise certainty.

Our knowledge of the external world is always subject to debate, no matter the philosophical preference of those who argue it. John Locke, the founder of empiricism, has an excellent argument for how we as humans acquire knowledge. His argument states that we can only acquire knowledge from external experiences. (Locke 238). Essentially saying, that we must experience something prior in order to have knowledge about it. Rene Descartes, would disagree with Locke in the way we acquire knowledge. Descartes believes that knowledge of the external world can be acquired from intuition and deduction into showing that God exists and therefore, the external world exists. (Descartes 203) In this paper, I will disprove Descartes’ theory of knowledge

for pure reason so that to claim what exists surpassing both ideas and the thinker who has them. Thiselton states that although some criticize Descartes for arguing that God is an obvious, different and beyond doubt as God himself has put within the brain, “God is infinite, external, immutable, all powerful, by which I myself and everything else have been created. There is nothing that I should know more easily than God, except for human prejudice.” Therefore, Frederich Copleston is correct in stating that Descartes` intention is not to find out a diversity isolated of truths rather to build up a scheme of true principles that is free of presupposing due to self-evidence and indubitable so that natural link between all the parts of the system, and the whole construction would place on a firm basis. This is compatible with Christianity which needs firm foundation for its belief.

Descartes says, “…I have up till now accepted as most true I have acquired either from the senses or through the senses.” He believes that everything derived from his own senses must be true; however, the senses can be deceived by small or faraway objects. Contradicting this statement, Descartes reasons that he could

Descartes answers to his arguments saying that the best way to prove something is real is to perceive it through our senses in order to identify it. He says that he can perceive God when he pays close attention but he never gives us an example of how does he perceive God through his senses. He just says that he manifests himself more than anything else. He says that now that he proved that there is a God he can ensure the truth of other things. He says that owing to this he can perceive other things evidently and now he cannot just say that those aren’t true. Descartes blames his memory of his unstable opinions since he cannot remember all the previous arguments he had against certain things. Descartes is fine with this since he believes that

Descartes’ attempt to prove the existence of God begins with the Trademark argument. He reasons that by having an idea of an infinite being with a certain degree of “objective reality”, “there must be at least as much reality in the efficient and total cause in the effect of that cause” (40). Descartes’ idea of God has more objective reality of any of his ideas. Therefore, God must be the cause of his idea as a result of his existence. In what follows I will explain these terms and why the premises seemed true to him.

Descartes says that he has decided to doubt everything he previously held to be true and instead rely only on his reasoning ability starting from scratch and building his knowledge beginning with the things that which he's completely certain he rejects the knowledge from his senses deciding that such knowledge is unreliable and open to deception so it's not trustworthy. By employing the method of doubt, Descartes has now eliminated most, if not all sensory beliefs as candidates for his certain foundations. Descartes argues two topics, the inability to see the difference between being awake to being asleep and that God has not deceived him about the matters he believes he knows most perfectly, both arguments are equally sound.

Descartes, faced with this problem of circularity, has limited options to save his argument. One thing he could do, or rather, did do, is deny the circularity (Descartes AT VII 140). He argues, that not once did he try to prove the reliability of clear and distinct perception by appeal to Gods existence (Descartes AT VII 140 - 141). Instead, such ‘reliability’, is to be assumed (Descartes AT VII 140). The purpose of God existing, and being non-deceptive, was to correct any doubts he might have about memory, in which we remember a clear and distinct perception. Descartes is suggesting that when we remember something perceived clearly and distinctly, we may not, in fact, clearly and distinctly have perceived it; but if God exists and is not

Descartes declares that he will only accept ideas that he can absolutely affirm, but accepts the existence of God without adequately proving it. This inadequacy undermines his declared project of defining the world in terms of established ideas. He does not sufficiently prove the idea of God, yet bases so much on it. When he later discusses physical bodies, intellect, and mathematical concepts, the reader cannot forget that everything he writes is

     It is after his proof of the existence of God that Descartes comes to accept that clear and distinct ideas can be trusted. After this deliberation his process of coming to the

1. Descartes undergoes a process in order to seek truth. He uses the method of doubt in his first meditation; he “demolishes” everything he has ever come to know and believe in order to find beliefs that are “absolutely certain and indubitable.” These “first principles” would serve as the foundations from which he would go off from to establish knowledge he could be certain of. He realizes that much of what he knows is acquired through the senses, but at times the senses can be deceitful. But overall, he finds that they are pretty reliable.

Descartes relies on the natural light of reason for all his knowledge which cannot fail him since God is the support of said reason through His benevolence. God’s existence is proven since His idea and actuality are necessarily indistinguishable from each other on account of His unity, and His everlasting sustaining power of reality is evident due to his omnipotence. Having overcome the obstacle of doubt with God, Descartes can have safe and secure certainty about the existence of material things that an atheist

Descartes depicts the “natural light” as the guide responsible for the clarity and disctiness in which he examines every thought of the thinking thing. This guide provides him with the steps that lead him to the conclusion that he indeed is a thinking thing and that God exists. This light manifests itself within him, leaving him with clear and distinct thoughts which he cannot doubt in any way because these ideas or thoughts ring true to him and thus are true. He explains, “When I say ‘Nature taught me to think this’, all I mean is that a spontaneous impulse leads me to believe it, not that its truth has been revealed to me by some natural light…Whatever is revealed to me by some natural light---cannot in any way be open to doubt” (82). This “natural light” is something that is known with certainty, it is accepted without dispute. It is evident he holds the “natural light” to a high standard, as he believes that “there cannot be another faculty both as trustworthy as the natural light and also capable of showing me that such things are not true” (82).

In A Discourse on the Method, Descartes attempted to prove the existence of God in a priori manner. He did not trust his own senses when trying to prove the existence of God and therefore he relied on the ontological argument. By making the same assumption made by Anselm, which was that an ontological argument assumes that existence is a predicate of God, Descartes is able to conclude that ‘God exists’ is true by definition because the subject ‘God’, who already contains all perfections, already contains the predicate – exists, which is a perfection. Although this may be perceived as a strong claim to believers, many such as Gaunilo would have disagreed. Descartes postulates his argument in the fourth part of his Discourse in order to try and prove the existence of God. One must discuss why one feels Descartes attempted to do so and exactly how convincing his claim is. However, before one can understand his claim, it is important to grasp an idea of the background that Descartes was writing from when he wrote the Discourse and the meaning of proof.