DesCartes intentionally made bad arguments for God?

[thinkandmull]

Anyone out there going to reach the chapter of the book? I’ve got a lot on my plate, and its a little expensive

 

[Charlemagne_III]

This article on Descartes and the Pineal Gland shows how far Descartes with his dualism was willing to go to confuse the separation of the soul from the body, whereas Augustine and Aquinas had insisted the soul and body are one.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/pineal-gland/#2.1

Materialism 101 became the direction in which modern science would go as a result.

 

[utunumsint]

This article on Descartes and the Pineal Gland shows how far Descartes with his dualism was willing to go to confuse the separation of the soul from the body, whereas Augustine and Aquinas had insisted the soul and body are one.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/pineal-gland/#2.1

Materialism 101 became the direction in which modern science would go as a result.

Thanks for the text Charlemagne.

I think this quote from the text in your link is revealing:

In his later years, Descartes was well aware that he had not successfully finished the project that he had begun in the Treatise of man and had not been able to formulate one comprehensive mind-body theory. He sometimes expressed irritation when others reminded him of this. In reply to the questions “how can the soul move the body if it is in no way material, and how can it receive the forms of corporeal objects?” he said that “the most ignorant people could, in a quarter of an hour, raise more questions of this kind than the wisest men could deal with in a lifetime; and this is why I have not bothered to answer any of them. These questions presuppose amongst other things an explanation of the union between the soul and the body, which I have not yet dealt with at all” (12 January 1646, AT IX:213, CSM II:275). On other occasions, he came close to admitting defeat. “The soul is conceived only by the pure intellect; body (i.e. extension, shapes and motions) can likewise be known by the intellect alone, but much better by the intellect aided by the imagination; and finally what belongs to the union of the soul and the body is known only obscurely by the intellect alone or even by the intellect aided by the imagination, but it is known very clearly by the senses. …] It does not seem to me that the human mind is capable of forming a very distinct conception of both the distinction between the soul and the body and their union; for to do this it is necessary to conceive them as a single thing and at the same time to conceive them as two things; and this is absurd” (28 June 1643, AT III:693, CSMK 227). He admitted that the unsuccessfulness of his enterprise might have been his own fault because he had never spent “more than a few hours a day in the thoughts which occupy the imagination and a few hours a year on those which occupy the intellect alone” (AT III:692, CSMK 227). But he had done so for a good reason because he thought it “very harmful to occupy one’s intellect frequently upon meditating upon [the principles of metaphysics which give us or knowledge of God and our soul], since this would impede it from devoting itself to the functions of the imagination and the senses” (AT III:695, CSMK 228). He advised others to do likewise: “one should not devote so much effort to the Meditations and to metaphysical questions, or give them elaborate treatment in commentaries and the like. …] They draw the mind too far away from physical and observable things, and make it unfit to study them. Yet it is just these physical studies that it is most desirable for people to pursue, since they would yield abundant benefits for life” (Conversation with Burman, 1648, AT V:165, CSMK 346–347).

God bless,
Ut

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Thanks for the text Charlemagne.

I think this quote from the text in your link is revealing:

God bless,
Ut

Yes, that is a revealing passage from the link and it foreshadows Descartes’ intended trajectory of future intellectual pursuits in the Western World, mostly to the detriment of metaphysics which he thought could never yield the kinds of benefits that science would yield. This is what Maritain saw as the detrimental effect of Descartes’ thought on the future of metaphysics … that the modern intellectual world has to all intents and purposes abandoned God. We are seeing today the consequences throughout society as the disease of neglect filters down through all layers of society and men become more concerned about their toy gadgets than about the future of their immortal souls.

 

[thinkandmull]

Descartes never said that the Bible, for example, was worthless. But he was of the opinion, as with other humanists like Erasmus, that too much time could be spent looking at stain gloss and arguing over translations from Hebrew instead of trying to make the world better. Nearly everything can be taken to an extreme…

The very paragraph that is quoted here has Descartes saying of the union of the soul and body: “but it is known very clearly by the senses”, so he knew that the two worked together, saying that too this mystery “it is necessary to conceive them as a single thing and at the same time to conceive them as two things”. Descartes phenomological way of writing was a break threw at the time, but it is only because of that that people say he rejected Aristotle’s and Aquinas’s take on the question. Since he never rejected their position in writing, I see them as reconcilable.

 

[thinkandmull]

I don’t understand the common objection of “how can a spiritual thing work on or with a physical thing”. What kind of explanation are they looking for from that question? You could ask the same thing to Aquinas, who’s answer is simply that the soul has a “power” over the body. The same question could be ask as to how a spiritual God could create matter. I get the feeling that these people are not looking in the right place for the “answer”

 

[utunumsint]

Anyone out there going to reach the chapter of the book? I’ve got a lot on my plate, and its a little expensive

I just got the book today and read chapter 1. It is primarily a reiteration of what Scott Hahn presented in the youtube video I posted earlier on.

He briefly mentions Descartes in this overview chapter as follows on page 14:

After Henry VII, Rene Descartes is the next figure we explore. Descartes’s work became fundamental for the biblical exegesis that followed in his wake. In significant ways, Descartes assisted the birth of modernity through the banishment of the supernatural. But Cartesian philosophy also entered biblical scholarship directly, primarily but not exclusively through the efforts of Spinoza and his followers. Moreover, the emphasis Descartes placed on method (defined, for him, by the rigor and form of mathematics) itself became a key factor in the development of biblical criticism and led to pretensions of methodological neutrality. Cartesian skepticism, his methodic doubt, was the critical link in the progression of thought that ended in the contemporary ideal: the ostensibly objective biblical interpreter, no longer an exegete but a quasi-scientific investigator whose method is significantly defined by skepticism of its subject matter.

This is sort of a sneak preview of what he will argue for in his chapter on Descartes, starting a few hundred pages into the book. Needless to say, I wont be updating you any time soon.

God bless,
Ut

 

[thinkandmull]

Descartes didn’t banish the supernatural. Someone can read Descartes as if being to doubtful. Or one can read him as being a careful intellectual.

 

[utunumsint]

Greetings,

I’m about a hundred pages into the book and have covered Marsilius of Padua, William of Ockham, and am just about finished with John Wycliffe.

The basic thesis so far is to contextualize their writings in the political battles of their day, and how secular authorities took advantage of their works to justify their own political and economic ambitions against the authority of the papacy. For Marsilius and William, it is Ludwig (Louis) IV of Bavaria in his conflict with Pope John XXII over the German imperial throne. For John, it is Edward III in his efforts to avoid sending tax money to the French Avignon Papacy during the 100 year war. The main gripe of the rulers was the political power wielded by the papacy on one side of a dispute or on another side (or on neither side!). The kings also used the Franciscan dispute over how to interpret Francis’ call to poverty as a pretext for dis-endowing the monasteries and papacy, with the actual goal of filling their own coffers.

So far, the power grabs of these rulers and by their patronage of these philosophers and theologians, set the intellectual stage for the reformation and the enlightenment. The popes were not without blame (sometimes great blame) in many of these disputes. It makes me glad that the papacy is no longer directly ruling the nations.

These reflections make me proud of the achievements of the likes of Pope John Paul II during the fall of communism. He achieved great things through his example, and his persuasive words. It also makes me hopeful to see one such as Pope Francis working hard to clean up the curia and to purge the corruption found in various spots, such as the Vatican bank, and leading a consciously humble example, eschewing many of the traditional trappings of papal power and wealth.

I also find it interesting that the pope who canonized Saint Thomas Aquinas was the chief antagonist for William of Ockham, Marsilius of Padua, and Ludwig.

I still have the chapter on Machiavelli, Luther and the Reformation, and England and Henry VII before getting to Descartes. I’ll update you soon.

God bless,
Ut

 

[jonathan_hili]

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

Agreed, UT. Some of the assertions made by Dr Wiker about Descartes were dubious in the extreme. While some of the consequences of Cartesian thought and influence may not have been favourable towards Catholicism, I don’t think it’s fair to impugn Descartes’s own faith. Furthermore, Descartes’s arguments for God’s existence and against atheism are not that bad - there are much worse out there, e.g. Paley.

 

[jonathan_hili]

It may be too much to lay the whole rise of atheism at Descartes feet, but then it is no coincidence, perhaps, that the whole rise of modern atheism gets a huge boost in Descartes’ 17th century. By the time of Hume it has taken off. And by the time of Voltaire and Diderot it is all the rage in Europe. I’m inclined to agree with Maritain that Descartes is the philosophical fountainhead of modern atheism, not that he meant to be.

It’s sad to say, but the whole movement towards atheism had probably more to do with bad-behaving Catholics (and Church leaders among them) and extremism in religious violence (in relations between Protestants and Catholics) than from anything Descartes wrote. In fact, both Voltaire and Diderot (the former more of a deist than atheist) based their positions on moral arguments rather than Cartesian ones.

 

[jonathan_hili]

It seemed like paranoid conspiracy theories to me too until I saw the article from Richard Watson, a supposed top Descartes researcher in America who is an atheist.

At the very least, it makes me more inclined to hear out Wiker and Hahn’s arguments.

God bless,
Ut

Ummm you don’t think that, as an atheist, he’d have an interest in claiming Descartes on the side of atheism since he is such a notable thinker?

I mean, the evidence Watson uses is rather ludicrous, e.g. Descartes suggested someone not study Hebrew and theology, or didn’t demonstrate great emotional spirituality.

If we are going to use these criteria, we might as well suggest half the thinkers of Medieval Europe were atheists!

 

[utunumsint]

Hi Jonathan,

Thanks for posting. I’ve made some progress in the book, but haven’t yet reached the chapter on Descartes. Wiker told me to look at the footnotes and I found this one that seemed promising. You can read it in PDF format online: hiram-caton.com/documents/descartes-sincerity.pdf See pages 5 to 7 for the meat of the arguments which includes Descartes advice to his disciple Regius to not be open about his true doctrines, but to cloth them in traditional orthodox teachings so as not to get in trouble. Its actually pretty damning evidence.

At least it leaves on in doubt about how much of his philosophy he actually believed in and how much was a cover to shield him from persecution.

God bless,
Ut

 

[thinkandmull]

Descartes believe that the sun was the center of the universe. To “to cloth them in traditional orthodox teachings so as not to get in trouble” wasn’t a bad idea. Traditional teaching said that the heavenly bodies were incorruptible. Why Aquinas and others accepted this dogmatically without a ounce of evidence is surprising. Descartes wanted to get away from this and be scientific

 

[utunumsint]

Descartes believe that the sun was the center of the universe. To “to cloth them in traditional orthodox teachings so as not to get in trouble” wasn’t a bad idea. Traditional teaching said that the heavenly bodies were incorruptible. Why Aquinas and others accepted this dogmatically without a ounce of evidence is surprising. Descartes wanted to get away from this and be scientific

Come on thinkandmull! - you know better than this :

firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2012/09/robert-bellarmine-vs-thomas-aquinas

Part of what makes both cases so dismaying is the way both popes and Inquisitors had not read their Thomas Aquinas with proper thoroughness. I am thinking especially of this passage from Thomas’s commentary on Aristotle’s tractate On the Heavens , where Thomas urges caution in accepting Aristotle’s and Ptolemy’s geocentrism (all italics added): “The suppositions that these men [Ptolemaic astronomers] have invented need not necessarily be true: for perhaps, while they save the appearances under these suppositions, they might not be true . For maybe the phenomena of the stars can be explained by some other schema not yet discovered by men” (Book II, lecture 17).

The churchmen of Galileo’s day could perhaps be excused from knowing this text, based on its relative obscurity and on the fact that Thomas’s commentary is considerably longer than Aristotle’s original tract. But Thomas also says something roughly similar in a much more accessible text, his Summa theologiae : “Reason can be employed in another way, not as furnishing a sufficient proof of a principle, but as confirming an already established principle, . . . because thereby the sensible appearances of the heavenly movements can be explained; not, however, as if this proof were sufficient , for some other theory might [also] explain them” ( S.T. I q. 32, a. 1, ad 2).

God bless,
Ut

 

[jonathan_hili]

Hi Jonathan,

Thanks for posting. I’ve made some progress in the book, but haven’t yet reached the chapter on Descartes. Wiker told me to look at the footnotes and I found this one that seemed promising. You can read it in PDF format online: hiram-caton.com/documents/descartes-sincerity.pdf See pages 5 to 7 for the meat of the arguments which includes Descartes advice to his disciple Regius to not be open about his true doctrines, but to cloth them in traditional orthodox teachings so as not to get in trouble. Its actually pretty damning evidence.

At least it leaves on in doubt about how much of his philosophy he actually believed in and how much was a cover to shield him from persecution.

God bless,
Ut

Thanks for the document, UT. An interesting read but I think the author and Wiker are connecting chains that just don’t exist. In his advice to Regius, Descartes is clearly discussing philosophy and not theology, and he makes no theological points at all. In fact, he doesn’t seem to be suggesting being subtle or deceptive with language to avoid critique (indeed, Descartes gave his works to others to critique and then had them published alongside criticism of them) but that old ideas (“terminology”) can be used to form new conclusions (“reasons”) - this way, if someone accepts the old premises they should be less critical towards new conclusions drawn from them.

However, even if Descartes is counselling deceit, this just shows that he is less than honest. It says nothing about his beliefs as a Christian or faith in God.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Descartes believe that the sun was the center of the universe. To “to cloth them in traditional orthodox teachings so as not to get in trouble” wasn’t a bad idea. Traditional teaching said that the heavenly bodies were incorruptible. Why Aquinas and others accepted this dogmatically without a ounce of evidence is surprising. Descartes wanted to get away from this and be scientific

Aquinas didn’t accept beliefs he believed were false simply because the Church taught them. I mean, look at what he wrote on the Immaculate Conception; moreover, his comprehensive use of Aristotle, which was orthodox philosophy at the time.

There were good reasons for believing the earth was the centre of the solar system, even in Galileo’s time, and heliocentrism wasn’t a proven fact then either.

 

[utunumsint]

Thanks for the document, UT. An interesting read but I think the author and Wiker are connecting chains that just don’t exist. In his advice to Regius, Descartes is clearly discussing philosophy and not theology, and he makes no theological points at all. In fact, he doesn’t seem to be suggesting being subtle or deceptive with language to avoid critique (indeed, Descartes gave his works to others to critique and then had them published alongside criticism of them) but that old ideas (“terminology”) can be used to form new conclusions (“reasons”) - this way, if someone accepts the old premises they should be less critical towards new conclusions drawn from them.

However, even if Descartes is counselling deceit, this just shows that he is less than honest. It says nothing about his beliefs as a Christian or faith in God.

Agree. Perhaps when I finish the chapter, the cumulative case will be stronger. As is, I believe Wiker was only expressing his personal hunch in the CA interview. He and Hahn are not so definitive in the book. At least where I found the footnote.

God bless,
Ut

 

[thinkandmull]

I didn’t say anything about Aquinas and geocentrism. I said that Descartes was afraid of saying his opinion on this because the Holy Office, with approval of the Pope, sent Galileo’s condemnation to all the inquisitions in Europe. As for Aquinas, he explicitly says that the heavenly bodies where incorruptible, without any proof whatsoever. He also said that they moved in aeviternity, despite the fact that they are measured easily by our time

 

[thinkandmull]

As for Descartes, propounding the improbable idea that every animal had a certain Pythagorean mathematical biology, he said “if all the constituents of a seed of a given animal species were completely known, from that alone and by wholly mathematical reasoning, the shape and the structure of each of its members could be deduced; and conversely, from knowing certain peculiarities of that structure, we could deduce what is its see.”

However, through God laws of physics COULD have been different, for (Descartes writes), “to demand geometrical demonstrations in matters of physics is to ask me to perform the impossible, and if you restrict the word ‘demonstration’ to the proofs of the geometers you will be compelled to say that Archimedes demonstrated nothing in mechanics, nor Vitellion in optics, nor Ptolemy in astronomy.”