DesCartes intentionally made bad arguments for God?

[utunumsint]

Hi,

Benjamin Wiker was on Catholic Answers on Monday September 7, 2015 and claimed that Descartes was not a good Catholic, but intentionally masked that he was not a believer because of cowardice. He also intentionally designed his proofs for the existence of God to fail. Even more, to lead those who follow them into atheism.

catholic.com/radio/shows/modernism-pre-recorded-32087

As mentioned by Patrick Coffin, my head also exploded when he said that. (see last 10 minutes of the podcast for the relevant content). Does anyone have any documents, web pages, or other such things that discuss this perspective? I have always thought that Descartes was a good Catholic but a bad philosopher compared to the likes of Aquinas and other Scholastics.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

Looks like he addresses this somewhat in his book “10 Books That Screwed Up the World: And 5 Others That Didn’t Help”.

“—How Descartes’s Discourse on Method “proved” God’s existence only by making Him a creation of our own ego”

Has anyone listened to the MP3 or read the book?

God bless,
Ut

 

[Rhubarb]

I don’t know about “bad philosopher.” I mean, a lot of the things he thought are now out of favor but he played a very important role in the development of modern philosophy. Plato and Aristotle were wrong about a lot of things, too, but I don’t know if that makes them “bad.”

That being said, I’ve heard arguments for and against Descartes’ standing as a Catholic. Some material I’ve read says that his use of God as a premise for many of his arguments shows a religious man who was faithful to the Church. I’ve read sources that say he saw what was happening to Galileo in Italy, so he played up God in his arguments to keep the Inquisition off his back. I’ve never heard of an argument for purposely making a bad argument for God to turn people to atheism, but, I suppose it’s possible?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Hi,

Benjamin Wiker was on Catholic Answers on Monday September 7, 2015 and claimed that Descartes was not a good Catholic, but intentionally masked that he was not a believer because of cowardice. He also intentionally designed his proofs for the existence of God to fail. Even more, to lead those who follow them into atheism.

catholic.com/radio/shows/modernism-pre-recorded-32087

As mentioned by Patrick Coffin, my head also exploded when he said that. (see last 10 minutes of the podcast for the relevant content). Does anyone have any documents, web pages, or other such things that discuss this perspective? I have always thought that Descartes was a good Catholic but a bad philosopher compared to the likes of Aquinas and other Scholastics.

God bless,
Ut

Blaise Pascal early on in Pensées repudiates Descartes’ fatal error, which inadvertently assisted the rise of modern atheism. Descartes had defended the existence of God, but had made of God an elusive entity that could be proven to be knowable in the abstract, rather than the God Pascal experienced, a “God of love and consolation.” For this reason Pascal viewed Descartes’ God as “useless and uncertain…. I cannot forgive Descartes. In all his philosophy he would have been quite willing to dispense with God. But he had to make Him give a fillip to set the world in motion; beyond this he has no further need of God.” Pascal could well understand why the radical thinkers of his day, who believed they could punch holes in the traditional proofs for God, could also find God useless if He was to be viewed as little more than a Prime Mover. Indeed, why would one even desire to believe in such a merely mechanical God?

 

[utunumsint]

I don’t know about “bad philosopher.” I mean, a lot of the things he thought are now out of favor but he played a very important role in the development of modern philosophy. Plato and Aristotle were wrong about a lot of things, too, but I don’t know if that makes them “bad.”

That being said, I’ve heard arguments for and against Descartes’ standing as a Catholic. Some material I’ve read says that his use of God as a premise for many of his arguments shows a religious man who was faithful to the Church. I’ve read sources that say he saw what was happening to Galileo in Italy, so he played up God in his arguments to keep the Inquisition off his back. I’ve never heard of an argument for purposely making a bad argument for God to turn people to atheism, but, I suppose it’s possible?

Thanks for the information Rhubarb. Can you remember where you encountered these discussions? I’m looking for primary sources from Descartes where his fear of the Inquisition becomes apparent and the link with his writings and proofs about God.

Not to make you do all the footwork. Maybe if you could point me to the web site, and I can do the searching.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

Blaise Pascal early on in Pensées repudiates Descartes’ fatal error, which inadvertently assisted the rise of modern atheism. Descartes had defended the existence of God, but had made of God an elusive entity that could be proven to be knowable in the abstract, rather than the God Pascal experienced, a “God of love and consolation.” For this reason Pascal viewed Descartes’ God as “useless and uncertain…. I cannot forgive Descartes. In all his philosophy he would have been quite willing to dispense with God. But he had to make Him give a fillip to set the world in motion; beyond this he has no further need of God.” Pascal could well understand why the radical thinkers of his day, who believed they could punch holes in the traditional proofs for God, could also find God useless if He was to be viewed as little more than a Prime Mover. Indeed, why would one even desire to believe in such a merely mechanical God?

I certainly agree. I found the passage in Pensées. Thanks for pointing that out.

What I am wondering about is if this was a deliberate strategy on Descartes’ part to make such bad arguments for God’s existence such that God can be so easily dispensed with as opposed to previous forms of Augustinian and Thomistic philosophy where God is the ultimate answer and the cornerstone of their philosophy.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Charlemagne_III]

What I am wondering about is if this was a deliberate strategy on Descartes’ part to make such bad arguments for God’s existence such that God can be so easily dispensed with as opposed to previous forms of Augustinian and Thomistic philosophy where God is the ultimate answer and the cornerstone of their philosophy.

God bless,
Ut

I doubt that we can know if it was a deliberate strategy. More likely that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, Descartes was not the spiritual man but rather the man of science who paid lip service to spirituality. I’d give him the benefit of the doubt, even if Pascal didn’t. But they actually met each other, so who am I to argue with Pascal’s take on Descartes?

 

[Rohzek]

I’m surprised by the hostility towards Descartes here. His work on language (to some extent, but really just some of his observations) and philosophy of mind remains fundamental to this day. As for the whole “proof of God” arguments, both Pascal and Descartes were wrong to make them. There is no proof of God since it is a matter of faith. Blaming Descartes for the rise of atheism just sounds like searching for a scapegoat.

As for Augustine, Augustine’s arguments were remarkably similar to Descartes in some crucial aspects. Augustine, for example, first advanced the cogito argument, although it was forgotten. Augustine understood God’s existence to be a matter of faith, but never denied personal experience of God either. The same can be said of Descartes.

As for Descartes’ spirituality, Descartes was greatly concerned with it. A good example of this is in his discussion of free will, which he attempted to square with the predestination mentioned in Romans. He eventually concluded it to be a mystery, but he was a very serious man on the issues that his faith imposed upon him. He took religion seriously and attempted to solve some pretty big mysteries of his time, with some success and some failures.

In opposition to the OP, I find Descartes to have been probably one of the best philosophers in human history, while I think a lot of the scholastic philosophy is pure nonsense. So perhaps this is just rooted in some very fundamental differences of our positions.

 

[utunumsint]

I’m surprised by the hostility towards Descartes here. His work on language (to some extent, but really just some of his observations) and philosophy of mind remains fundamental to this day. As for the whole “proof of God” arguments, both Pascal and Descartes were wrong to make them. There is no proof of God since it is a matter of faith. Blaming Descartes for the rise of atheism just sounds like searching for a scapegoat.

Hi Rohzek,

Thanks for the response. Is it the teaching of the Orthodox church that the existence of God is not knowable through reason? I did not know that Orthodoxy endorsed fideism.

By the way, what would be the best online source I could go to for more information on basic Orthodox teaching. Perhaps something along the lines of the CCC.

As for Augustine, Augustine’s arguments were remarkably similar to Descartes in some crucial aspects. Augustine, for example, first advanced the cogito argument, although it was forgotten. Augustine understood God’s existence to be a matter of faith, but never denied personal experience of God either. The same can be said of Descartes.

Ed Feser gives a good account of Augustine’s cogito here with an interesting analysis on how it is similar to Descartes’ cogito. But he also includes links to blog posts where he explains they are dissimilar. Specifically those having to do with conceivability.

As for Descartes’ spirituality, Descartes was greatly concerned with it. A good example of this is in his discussion of free will, which he attempted to square with the predestination mentioned in Romans. He eventually concluded it to be a mystery, but he was a very serious man on the issues that his faith imposed upon him. He took religion seriously and attempted to solve some pretty big mysteries of his time, with some success and some failures.

Right, which is what I always thought too. It seems to be that there is no real evidence for Descartes being a closet Atheist.

In opposition to the OP, I find Descartes to have been probably one of the best philosophers in human history, while I think a lot of the scholastic philosophy is pure nonsense. So perhaps this is just rooted in some very fundamental differences of our positions.

Very likely, yes. I’ve spent a lot of time over the last few years studying Thomism, and I find his argument very compelling. I suppose we could start a different thread on that topic if you want.

Thanks again for your post.
God bless,
Ut

 

[Rohzek]

Hi Rohzek,

Thanks for the response. Is it the teaching of the Orthodox church that the existence of God is not knowable through reason? I did not know that Orthodoxy endorsed fideism.

By the way, what would be the best online source I could go to for more information on basic Orthodox teaching. Perhaps something along the lines of the CCC.

I don’t see reason and faith as separate. I see faith as a sort of hypothesis, as Karl Popper would put it. At that point, the hypothesis ideally is able to be tested. However, since we cannot access God in a lab experiment, such remains impossible. A hypothesis that cannot be tested. It is therefore arbitrary to either hold or reject the hypothesis.

Knowing the existence of God requires both the willingness to acknowledge it and the ability to experience God. One could plausibly experience God, but never know it all the while denying the existence of God. However, we are unable to experience the essence of God, rather we only experience his uncreated energies because God is ineffable. In short, God cannot possibly be comprehended through reason alone. Orthodoxy has always placed an emphasis on both, but treats emphasizes experience more in the literature since having faith is already presupposed.

In terms of online resources, I am not too familiar with them. I am more familiar with book format. However, surprisingly, the Wikipedia article on Theoria has a lot of good content on the matter from an Orthodox perspective. I recommend reading the Eastern Orthodox Church section of the article as a good place to start: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoria#Eastern_Orthodox_Church There are a lot of smacks at Latin theology, some of which I think are unfair, but I hope you can read past them at least up to the point at the end of the section titled “True spiritual knowledge.”

Ed Feser gives a good account of Augustine’s cogito here with an interesting analysis on how it is similar to Descartes’ cogito. But he also includes links to blog posts where he explains they are dissimilar. Specifically those having to do with conceivability.

Thanks for the link, as it is rather interesting.

Very likely, yes. I’ve spent a lot of time over the last few years studying Thomism, and I find his argument very compelling. I suppose we could start a different thread on that topic if you want.

Thanks again for your post.
God bless,
Ut

I’d be interested, but I must first confess that my knowledge of scholasticism is likely not quite as strong as yours. I’ve spent most of my time reading more modern philosophy and the theological writings of the Latin Fathers before 1000 AD.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I’m surprised by the hostility towards Descartes here. His work on language (to some extent, but really just some of his observations) and philosophy of mind remains fundamental to this day. As for the whole “proof of God” arguments, both Pascal and Descartes were wrong to make them. There is no proof of God since it is a matter of faith. Blaming Descartes for the rise of atheism just sounds like searching for a scapegoat.

As for Augustine, Augustine’s arguments were remarkably similar to Descartes in some crucial aspects. Augustine, for example, first advanced the cogito argument, although it was forgotten. Augustine understood God’s existence to be a matter of faith, but never denied personal experience of God either. The same can be said of Descartes.

As for Descartes’ spirituality, Descartes was greatly concerned with it. A good example of this is in his discussion of free will, which he attempted to square with the predestination mentioned in Romans. He eventually concluded it to be a mystery, but he was a very serious man on the issues that his faith imposed upon him. He took religion seriously and attempted to solve some pretty big mysteries of his time, with some success and some failures.

In opposition to the OP, I find Descartes to have been probably one of the best philosophers in human history, while I think a lot of the scholastic philosophy is pure nonsense. So perhaps this is just rooted in some very fundamental differences of our positions.

Yes, it’s clear you have no use for scholasticism, which is why you adore Descartes.

But how do you explain that Pascal had no use for Descartes? Pascal was not a scholastic.

By the way, you mistakenly attack Pascal for his “proof of God” argument. He made no such argument. What he sought to prove is that it’s foolishness not to believe in God since you cannot prove that God does not exist and the fate of your immortal soul depends on whether you are angry enough (and foolish enough) to deny God.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Right, which is what I always thought too. It seems to be that there is no real evidence for Descartes being a closet Atheist.

I don’t recall Descartes being accused of being a closet atheist.

If Descartes can be accused of anything it was paving the way for the rise of modern atheism without knowing he was doing that. He made of God a mechanic to set the world in motion, but seemed to lack any true spirituality. Pascal sensed that and I think Pascal sensed rightly. Pascal’s Wager argument is the only argument even an atheist so wily as Bertrand Russell never tried to refute. That would be because it is an appeal to the heart rather than to the head.Atheists do not know how to refute the cry of the heart for God. All truth for them is always in the head, never in the heart.

 

[Rohzek]

Yes, it’s clear you have no use for scholasticism, which is why you adore Descartes.

But how do you explain that Pascal had no use for Descartes? Pascal was not a scholastic.

By the way, you mistakenly attack Pascal for his “proof of God” argument. He made no such argument. What he sought to prove is that it’s foolishness not to believe in God since you cannot prove that God does not exist and the fate of your immortal soul depends on whether you are angry enough (and foolish enough) to deny God.

I never claimed Pascal was a scholastic, which is why that matter is in a separate paragraph. As for my mischaracterization, yes I could have been more precise in it. However, it’s nonsense nonetheless.

The problems with Pascal’s Gambit are numerous. I’ll discuss what I think is the most egregious error. The biggest problem is that Pascal gives no reason for why infinite happiness/utility might even exist. In fact, I think Karl Popper showed inadvertently that it it can never be proven. It’s just an idea. And just because the idea exists, it does not mean that it truly exists. This was proven mathematically in the 19th or early 20th century through the demonstration of “infinite scope through finite means.” A good working example is human language. We have an infinite scope to express new or old ideas, but a finite means to do so. Since we cannot know whether or not infinite happiness is even plausible, it is therefore purely arbitrary to even accept if it is possible. Infinite, by its very definition, can never be fully grasped or known. You experience a portion and then tack on an assumption about its limitlessness. At which point, if one takes the position that it is impossible, then Pascal’s Gambit falls apart rather quickly. Everything becomes reducible to specific and finite values, and you emerge with your internal rationality intact. Pascal’s Gambit only maybe works if you really think infinite happiness exists, which is really just an arbitrary belief.

 

[utunumsint]

I don’t recall Descartes being accused of being a closet atheist.

If Descartes can be accused of anything it was paving the way for the rise of modern atheism without knowing he was doing that. He made of God a mechanic to set the world in motion, but seemed to lack any true spirituality. Pascal sensed that and I think Pascal sensed rightly. Pascal’s Wager argument is the only argument even an atheist so wily as Bertrand Russell never tried to refute. That would be because it is an appeal to the heart rather than to the head.Atheists do not know how to refute the cry of the heart for God. All truth for them is always in the head, never in the heart.

Right. I think what you say makes perfect sense. But the conversation on CA went far beyond this.

Here is the transcript starting at around 50 or 51:

**Patrick ** What do you say to those who say that Descartes was a serious believing Catholic.
Wiker Uhm… you’ve been suckered. That is what I say. You did not read him carefuly enough. And he wanted that to happen because he was trying to avoid persecution. He saw what had happened to Galileo and frankly he was a coward.
So what he wanted to do was come up with a way of talking about God such that if you accept it what you always end up with is the destruction of any notion of God and the exact opposite of what he purports to show that is you come up with a disproof of God’s existence. So Descartes’, you know, famous proofs for God’s existence have never held up and the reason they haven’t is because they are designed to fail.
Patrick Hummm, like a false flag.
Wiker Yeah. And they are hilarious if you are cognizant… if you understand what he is up to. Then you realize the full brilliance of it. I mean, what could be more brilliant than coming up with proofs of God’s existence such that if you follow it, it would disprove God’s existence and turn you into an atheist.
Patrick Yeah, that’s… my mind is just blown up by that… I got brain all over the wall here because my mind is blown by this…
Wiker [laughs] Listen - I’m sorry.
Patrick That’s OK.

These are pretty amazing claims he makes without showing evidence. He could at least have mentioned sources or books he has written on the subject. I’d like to email him, because I can’t find anything like this anywhere.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

I found his email on NCR and sent him a quick email about this. Hopefully he will respond.

God bless,
Ut

 

[thinkandmull]

I’m surprised by the hostility towards Descartes here. His work on language (to some extent, but really just some of his observations) and philosophy of mind remains fundamental to this day. As for the whole “proof of God” arguments, both Pascal and Descartes were wrong to make them. There is no proof of God since it is a matter of faith. Blaming Descartes for the rise of atheism just sounds like searching for a scapegoat.

As for Augustine, Augustine’s arguments were remarkably similar to Descartes in some crucial aspects. Augustine, for example, first advanced the cogito argument, although it was forgotten. Augustine understood God’s existence to be a matter of faith, but never denied personal experience of God either. The same can be said of Descartes.

As for Descartes’ spirituality, Descartes was greatly concerned with it. A good example of this is in his discussion of free will, which he attempted to square with the predestination mentioned in Romans. He eventually concluded it to be a mystery, but he was a very serious man on the issues that his faith imposed upon him. He took religion seriously and attempted to solve some pretty big mysteries of his time, with some success and some failures.

In opposition to the OP, I find Descartes to have been probably one of the best philosophers in human history, while I think a lot of the scholastic philosophy is pure nonsense. So perhaps this is just rooted in some very fundamental differences of our positions.

Can you let us know where Descartes spoke on predestination?

 

[thinkandmull]

Descartes didn’t publish his Treatise on the World because of the Galileo thing.

As for his proofs for God, he had three

1. That there must be a God who kept him (Descartes) in existence. Basically Aquinas’s contingent argument.
2. That the idea of God in his (Descartes’s) mind had to be given to him by God. Thoughts must have a source equal to or greater what the thought represents. If Aquinas had made this argument, Benjamin Wiker would be supporting it
3. Anselm’s ontological argument, except that it focuses on God being His own existence. Its okay for Anselm to use this argument but not Descartes?

I remember reading an article by Fesser in which he quotes Augustine in saying the exact same thing as Descartes in understanding the mind as simple. Fesser at the end says that they are not saying the exact same thing, but if you read them back to back they actually are.

My Catholic math teacher in college thought Descartes was a bad person. However, if you understand Descartes in relation to his early family life, one can understand him in a good light. It depends on how you read him. He wrote on the “passions of the mind”. Why didn’t he speak of the heart? However, he went to a scholastic school (le-Fleury?), and Aquinas speaks primarily of the will, which is a power of the power of reason. He too speaks of love then as in the mind instead of the heart. Its ok if Aquinas does it, but not Descartes I guess

 

[Rhubarb]

Thanks for the information Rhubarb. Can you remember where you encountered these discussions? I’m looking for primary sources from Descartes where his fear of the Inquisition becomes apparent and the link with his writings and proofs about God.

Not to make you do all the footwork. Maybe if you could point me to the web site, and I can do the searching.

God bless,
Ut

I don’t remember exactly which Mediation. I know that Descartes relies on the all-goodness of God in his epistemology. (in the same section as the cogito ergo sum) He concludes that sense-data can be trusted because an all-good God wouldn’t allow some evil genius to deceive us constantly. God was also used in his theory of space and physics, as I recall.

 

[thinkandmull]

I don’t remember exactly which Mediation. I know that Descartes relies on the all-goodness of God in his epistemology. (in the same section as the cogito ergo sum) He concludes that sense-data can be trusted because an all-good God wouldn’t allow some evil genius to deceive us constantly. God was also used in his theory of space and physics, as I recall.

Descartes “theory of space and physics” wouldn’t be from the Meditations, so you must have read it in another writing of his

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Pascal’s Gambit only maybe works if you really think infinite happiness exists, which is really just an arbitrary belief.

This is certainly true. But here’s the problem on the other side: if you really think infinite happiness does not exist you are still stuck with an arbitrary belief.

If there is a God and he offers infinite happiness, which belief is it better to be stuck with?