Rene Descartes: Catholic attitudes toward him

[StMartinTours]

I read some Descartes in college, and have recently resolved to re-read him. I recall that some Catholics tend to look unfavorably upon him and that he was even accused of atheism in his time (though his Meditations on First Philosophy seek to prove the existence of God). Can someone enlighten me on common attitudes towards Descartes’ philosophy among Catholics?

 

[FCEGM]

I read some Descartes in college, and have recently resolved to re-read him. I recall that some Catholics tend to look unfavorably upon him and that he was even accused of atheism in his time (though his Meditations on First Philosophy seek to prove the existence of God). Can someone enlighten me on common attitudes towards Descartes’ philosophy among Catholics?

I’ve not read Descartes but I have in my library Maritain’s Three Reformers one of which is Descartes (with Luther and Rousseau). Maritain says of him:

. . .the sin of Descartes is a sin of angelism. He turned Knowledge and Thought into a hopeless perplexity, an abyss of unrest, because he conceived human Thought after the type of angelic Thought. To sum it up in three words: What he was in man’s thought was Independence of Things; that is what he put into it, what he revealed to it about itself. Surely, you say, the crime is wholly mental, perpetuated in the third degree of abstraction; does it concern anyone but lunatics in long pedants’ robes, those who have themselves bound in calf, as Councillor Joachim des Cartes said of his son? It has influenced some centuries of human history and havoc, of which the end is not in sight. . .

Maritan explains further Descartes angelism:

“How is it possible that I should be mistaken, I who am spirit? How can a substance whose whole nature is to think, think wrongly? It is so serious an anomaly that the author of things seems compromised by the scandal. I am mistaken only because I will have it so, my free will alone is to blame. And therefore human error is explained for Descartes in the same way as theologians explain angelic error; I mean, more precisely, than the Cartesian error, so little consisitent with his position, would only become coherent and logical if one brought to it, with suitable emendation, the case of the errors of the fallen spirits.”

Maritain goes on to explain how Descartes philosophy denies the very nature of man, making one’s ideas come directly from God without the body mediating in any way the soul’s knowledge of things.

 

[Insight]

I read some Descartes in college, and have recently resolved to re-read him. I recall that some Catholics tend to look unfavorably upon him and that he was even accused of atheism in his time (though his Meditations on First Philosophy seek to prove the existence of God). Can someone enlighten me on common attitudes towards Descartes’ philosophy among Catholics?

He was a devout Roman Catholic, but was accused partly because he pioneered the “Scientific Revolution”.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes

Back in those days real science was kind of frowned on. For example:

“Catholic Church adopted the celestial sphere orbs theory developed by Aristotle. In these celestial models, the stars and planets are carried around by being embedded in rotating crystal spheres moving around the Earth. Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake by the Church for heresy (February 17, 1600) and his writings forbidden because he believed in the Copernican Heliocentrism theory by Nicolaus Copernicus, which held that the Earth was spherical and orbited the Sun.”

arguingwithatheists.com/

God Bless

 

[tonyrey]

Descartes has been interpreted as the apostle of the “ghost in the machine” theory but his famous Cogito ergo sum refers to an irrefutable fact - described by modern philosophers as the “egocentric predicament”. Our sole certainty is our stream of consciousness from which we** infer** the existence of other persons and things. It highlights the absurdity of materialism which reduces thought to permutations of matter without a thinker!

 

[greylorn]

I read some Descartes in college, and have recently resolved to re-read him. I recall that some Catholics tend to look unfavorably upon him and that he was even accused of atheism in his time (though his Meditations on First Philosophy seek to prove the existence of God). Can someone enlighten me on common attitudes towards Descartes’ philosophy among Catholics?

In addition to being an excellent philosopher, Descartes invented the Cartesian coordinate system and analytic geometry, the space-time map upon which Newton and subsequent physicists drew our mathematical images of the universe and its components.

He was clearly not the ordinary philosopher, like Aristotle and his followers.

His soul-concept held that the soul is an entity separate from the human brain-body system but connected to the brain via physical brain tissue (he mistakenly thought this to be the pineal gland), something which would separate from the body after death but would retain the ability to think, (and presumably sentience, although I don’t recall his position on that— it was long ago).

However, the Church had adopted Aquinas’ view, which regarded (so far as I can decipher) the soul-brain-body as a completely integrated system which presumably would persist as a unit post-death, in some enhanced quasi-spiritual form of which I’ve yet to find a description that would be in any way coherent with physical reality.

Aquinas’ notion is more supportive of cherished beliefs such as the physical form of an afterlife, resurrection of the dead, etc. than Descartes’, which IMO is why the Church refuses to accept Descartes’ generally insightful ideas.

Although I was raised with 12 years of Catholic schooling, my understanding of the soul, as I thought I’d been taught, was much closer to Descartes than Aquinas. Upon actually reading Descartes I found that his ideas formed a solid foundation for a metaphysical scheme which could resolve the conflict between religion and science.

Just like his system of analytical geometry needed only a few mathematical tweaks to morph into modern integral and differential calculus, a few logical tweaks morphed his soul-concept into a sensible, empirically verifiable metaphysical system.

I hope that you appreciate Descartes as much as I did. You will find problems with his ideas, of course. Feel free to discuss them as you go. But do not think for a microsecond that they can be reconciled with Catholic dogma.

 

[Jordanqwef]

Descartes ruined much.

The Cogito, the “I think therefore I am,” is insane, and it spawned legion of self-centered anti-sophers after him.

Consider 3 things. We have:

1. The object known.
2. The knower.
3. The act of knowing.

Descartes omitted the first two, and based the existence of things on number 3. What is wrong with that? Firstly, Descartes existed before he made his Cogito. The knower exists before he makes the “critical” proposition (Meaning before one says “I think therefore I am,” they were.) So, being a knower (#2) presupposes the act of knowing (#3), yet Descartes doubted that, and had to “prove” that he existed, and only believed he and other things existed until after he made his cogito, unless the whole thing was just a vain charade, which very well could have been. Also. the world (#1, and God, also #1) existed before the existence of the knower, which is contrary to Descartes “methodic doubt,” which was essentially doubting every single thing he possibly could, until he could arrive at what he considered safe ground, and for some reason, he could not doubt that he was thinking at the present time, which is why he said “I think therefore I am,” and that is how he based his philosophy. That was his bedrock, his own thinking self.

All this bull has spawned the poison of self-centered dark thinking, like solipsism, pragmatism, the “how do we know we are not brains in a vat” ****, and all the rest.

The bedrock of a Catholic’s Philosophy is the Good Lord, God.

The Catholic maintains that the existence of things, the proposition “that things exist,” needs no proof, and is self-evident. Every moment of life testifies that things exist, and we do not need to doubt that fact for any reason, indeed, we can not doubt that fact without passing over into insanity.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Descartes ruined much.

The Cogito, the “I think therefore I am,” is insane, and it spawned legion of self-centered anti-sophers after him.

Consider 3 things. We have:

1. The object known.
2. The knower.
3. The act of knowing.

Descartes omitted the first two, and based the existence of things on number 3. What is wrong with that? Firstly, Descartes existed before he made his Cogito. The knower exists before he makes the “critical” proposition (Meaning before one says “I think therefore I am,” they were.) So, being a knower (#2) presupposes the act of knowing (#3), yet Descartes doubted that, and had to “prove” that he existed, and only believed he and other things existed until after he made his cogito, unless the whole thing was just a vain charade, which very well could have been. Also. the world (#1, and God, also #1) existed before the existence of the knower, which is contrary to Descartes “methodic doubt,” which was essentially doubting every single thing he possibly could, until he could arrive at what he considered safe ground, and for some reason, he could not doubt that he was thinking at the present time, which is why he said “I think therefore I am,” and that is how he based his philosophy. That was his bedrock, his own thinking self.

All this bull has spawned the poison of self-centered dark thinking, like solipsism, pragmatism, the “how do we know we are not brains in a vat” ****, and all the rest.

The bedrock of a Catholic’s Philosophy is the Good Lord, God.

The Catholic maintains that the existence of things, the proposition “that things exist,” needs no proof, and is self-evident. Every moment of life testifies that things exist, and we do not need to doubt that fact for any reason, indeed, we can not doubt that fact without passing over into insanity.

Pascal particularly strongly disagreed with Descartes and, in fact, believed his writings were an alternative and response to Descartes’s.

 

[levinas12]

Descartes is fascinating. Maybe he was right after all about the “ghost in the machine”, at least on some level. Certainly, his distinction between the cogito and the body has “haunted” philosophy ever since (please forgive the pun).

I think it’s hard to dismiss him. Especially if one wants to argue for “our” immortality. Although it’s not clear whether the cogito = the person. Yes, the cogito is a first person statement “I think” but who is the “I” that is speaking? Is it the historical Rene Descartes with a specific postal address? Or a more general Geist (Hegel) Or a misleading philosophical abstraction (Heidegger)?

Despite all the later controversies, we need to thank Descartes for pointing out that the mental cannot be reduced, without remainder, to the physical. And for insisting that the mental can affect the physical in some inexplicable way.

 

[tonyrey]

Despite all the later controversies, we need to thank Descartes for pointing out that the mental cannot be reduced, without remainder, to the physical. And for insisting that the mental can affect the physical in some inexplicable way.

For anyone who believes in God and the soul those facts are indisputable. All our thinking begins at “home”, not out in the world. And our “homes” are accessible only to God and ourselves. That is why the isolation of atheists is a source of desolation rather than consolation. No one will ever know them as they really are nor will they ever know others as they really are. They are trapped in a prison of their own making. It would be hell on earth if they didn’t love anyone because only love can traverse the barrier of empirical knowledge. It is a foretaste of what it is like when we are isolated from God after we die.

 

[greylorn]

For anyone who believes in God and the soul those facts are indisputable. All our thinking begins at “home”, not out in the world. And our “homes” are accessible only to God and ourselves. That is why the isolation of atheists is a source of desolation rather than consolation. No one will ever know them as they really are nor will they ever know others as they really are. They are trapped in a prison of their own making. It would be hell on earth if they didn’t love anyone because only love can traverse the barrier of empirical knowledge. It is a foretaste of what it is like when we are isolated from God after we die.

Tony,
With respect for prior communications, I cannot let that paragraph full of nonsense go unchallenged. You’ve not the right nor the insight to speak for atheists, or against them.

I’ve been beaten, and defended myself from beatings more times than I can count, by Christians and Catholics, and the only kid who ever took my backside was a public school atheist.

My first mentor was a priest, and my second was an atheist astronomer/engineer. I never met a better man. He was loving of his family, absolutely faithful to his unfaithful wife, forgiving of those who did him wrong, always looking for the good in people and bringing out hidden good as a result. He told no lies, and never was the hypocrite.

Most of the men I worked with throughout my careers were scientists, engineers, and consequently atheists. I was never mistreated by any of them. They treated my religious (Catholic back then) proselytizing with forebearance. Contrary to the angry rants I get from good Catholics here on CAF, they treated my beliefs honorably, offering rational, lively, and friendly discussion.

I’ve lived my life with an elbow that doesn’t work, thanks to a good Catholic contractor who cut corners on a construction job. I walk with crutches and have a titanium hip as the result of trusting the promise of a Baptist minister. When I confronted him a while back he said, “There’s no prohibition against lying in the Ten Commandments.” Then he grinned, like our church-going “President.”

And I’m sure getting tired of whiny hypocritical posters all full up with the teachings of Jesus Christ and practicing not a one of them. Don’t you condemn atheists because they are atheists, because by my experience, I have been lied to, cheated, beaten, and robbed by many a good Christian, many absolved of responsibility for their actions by a few “Our Fathers” and “Hail Marys,” but I’ve never been screwed or hurt by an atheist.

There are rotten atheists, and I know some of them. But one thing I never got from an atheist is the kind of hypocritical snobbery, the better-than-thou-because-I’m-a-Christian attitude common to religious people of every stripe (Buddhists are even worse than Christians— walking embodiments of institutionalized hypocrisy).

Take a reload on your post, Tony, and ask yourself if it is something that Christ would say, even in a fit of badly disguised self-righteousness.

I do not believe in heaven or hell as suitable explanations for an afterlife, but I promise you that I couldn’t stand being among the hypocrites expecting to go to heaven for more than a minute.

 

[Qoeleth]

Descartes has been interpreted as the apostle of the “ghost in the machine” theory but his famous Cogito ergo sum refers to an irrefutable fact - described by modern philosophers as the “egocentric predicament”. Our sole certainty is our stream of consciousness from which we** infer** the existence of other persons and things. It highlights the absurdity of materialism which reduces thought to permutations of matter without a thinker!

The “cogito ergo sum” is open to dispute. (I) know there is thinking happening, a sucession of mental states, but what grounds are there for regarding them as a diachronic unity (an ‘I’). The proposition is in fact circular- cogito meaning “I thinking”

Cogito (I think) is not accurate. It is more accurate to say “Cogitans est” (there is thinking), but an “ergo sum”, does not logically follow from this.

In fact, the deconstruction of the “I” is at the heart of Christian morality- “Love others as yourself”. It breaks down the idea of self.

This is my critique of the famous Cogito.

 

[awatkins69]

Descartes, on the whole, I cannot see as being contrary to Catholic teaching. There are some points, though, that I think any professed Catholic Cartesian would have to address. First, his mechanistic and minimalist metaphysics leave no room for explaining such doctrines as the Trinity, Incarnation, Holy Eucharist, Resurrection, and others. In fact, in his denial of scholastic dictums and notions, he probably inadvertently contradicted Church Councils and official teaching. Now, Descartes by no means intended this, but his philosophy gives no way to formulate the doctrines in an intelligible way.

This brings up a bigger point, that Descartes’ philosophy was so revolutionary that it both contradicted the Church’s past, and led to a darker future. As I said, the Church’s philosophy up to the time of Descartes made great use of thinkers like Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, and other deep metaphysicians. Without a strong metaphysics there is little room for the method of philosophy by which the Church has formulated, taught, and debated vigorous theological issues. Not only that, some of his thought is likely incompossible with Church teaching.

As regards his philosophical influence, I really think Descartes played a pivotal role in giving rise to such errors as materialism, scientism, positivism, skepticism, and even atheism. The blame certainly shouldn’t fall on his shoulders entirely–the nominalists of the 14th-16th century played a crucial role in this–but he is still rightly considered “the father of modern philosophy”. This follows from his epistemology of sense-data, his own skepticism and semi-solipsism, and his strict distinction between the material world, which constitutes the majority of things, and the mental world, his last hideout from naturalism.

Nevertheless, if a Cartesian could address these issues in some coherent way, I could see Cartesianism as being a valid philosophy. Descartes was a theist who formulated and defended many proofs of God’s existence. He affirms that there is a heaven, and that arranging matter in a certain way is not sufficient or necessary for the existence of our souls. Indeed, many if not most contemporary Christian analytic philosophers try to fit their beliefs into an assumed Cartesian structure. So it could work. I don’t think he was dishonest at all about his Catholicism. He just didn’t know his thought may have been incompatible with it.

 

[StMartinTours]

Tony,
With respect for prior communications, I cannot let that paragraph full of nonsense go unchallenged. You’ve not the right nor the insight to speak for atheists, or against them.

I’ve been beaten, and defended myself from beatings more times than I can count, by Christians and Catholics, and the only kid who ever took my backside was a public school atheist.

My first mentor was a priest, and my second was an atheist astronomer/engineer. I never met a better man. He was loving of his family, absolutely faithful to his unfaithful wife, forgiving of those who did him wrong, always looking for the good in people and bringing out hidden good as a result. He told no lies, and never was the hypocrite.

Most of the men I worked with throughout my careers were scientists, engineers, and consequently atheists. I was never mistreated by any of them. They treated my religious (Catholic back then) proselytizing with forebearance. Contrary to the angry rants I get from good Catholics here on CAF, they treated my beliefs honorably, offering rational, lively, and friendly discussion.

I’ve lived my life with an elbow that doesn’t work, thanks to a good Catholic contractor who cut corners on a construction job. I walk with crutches and have a titanium hip as the result of trusting the promise of a Baptist minister. When I confronted him a while back he said, “There’s no prohibition against lying in the Ten Commandments.” Then he grinned, like our church-going “President.”

And I’m sure getting tired of whiny hypocritical posters all full up with the teachings of Jesus Christ and practicing not a one of them. Don’t you condemn atheists because they are atheists, because by my experience, I have been lied to, cheated, beaten, and robbed by many a good Christian, many absolved of responsibility for their actions by a few “Our Fathers” and “Hail Marys,” but I’ve never been screwed or hurt by an atheist.

There are rotten atheists, and I know some of them. But one thing I never got from an atheist is the kind of hypocritical snobbery, the better-than-thou-because-I’m-a-Christian attitude common to religious people of every stripe (Buddhists are even worse than Christians— walking embodiments of institutionalized hypocrisy).

Take a reload on your post, Tony, and ask yourself if it is something that Christ would say, even in a fit of badly disguised self-righteousness.

I do not believe in heaven or hell as suitable explanations for an afterlife, but I promise you that I couldn’t stand being among the hypocrites expecting to go to heaven for more than a minute.

1. It doesn’t seem to me that Tony ever claimed that atheists were incapable of love; he said if** they didn’t love anyone, it would be hell on earth because of the self-isolation that in his view follows from an atheistic mindset. He was making a philosophical point. The tone of your own post, it seems to me, is more judgmental and resentful than anything Tony said.
2. You are contrasting your rational, fair-minded discussions with atheists with the “angry rants” you receive on this website, but keep in mind that the former were discussions in person, while the latter are on the internet, the anonymity of which tends to encourage rudeness that we would not practice in real life.
3. Christians are not “absolved of responsibility” for their sins by saying Hail Marys and Our Fathers.
4. With all respect to your life and experiences, none of this has anything to do with Descartes and I’d like this discussion to stay on topic.

 

[tonyrey]

1. It doesn’t seem to me that Tony ever claimed that atheists were incapable of love; he said if they didn’t love anyone, it would be hell on earth because of the self-isolation that in his view follows from an atheistic mindset. He was making a philosophical point. The tone of your own post, it seems to me, is more judgmental and resentful than anything Tony said.
2. You are contrasting your rational, fair-minded discussions with atheists with the “angry rants” you receive on this website, but keep in mind that the former were discussions in person, while the latter are on the internet, the anonymity of which tends to encourage rudeness that we would not practice in real life.
3. Christians are not “absolved of responsibility” for their sins by saying Hail Marys and Our Fathers.
4. With all respect to your life and experiences, none of this has anything to do with Descartes and I’d like this discussion to stay on topic.

Well put, Martin! You saved me the trouble of replying.

 

[tonyrey]

Descartes has been interpreted as the apostle of the “ghost in the machine” theory but his famous Cogito ergo sum

It is the most adequate and economical interpretation. Do you really entertain the possibility of thoughts floating around in a vacuum?! What is producing the expression of thoughts we are reading?

In fact, the deconstruction of the “I” is at the heart of Christian morality- “Love others as yourself”. It breaks down the idea of self.

If there is no “I” what is it that loves and what is loved in place of the other non-existent "I"s?

This is my critique of the famous Cogito.

I guessed that much.

 

[Betterave]

He was a devout Roman Catholic, but was accused partly because he pioneered the “Scientific Revolution”.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes

Back in those days real science was kind of frowned on. For example:

“Catholic Church adopted the celestial sphere orbs theory developed by Aristotle. In these celestial models, the stars and planets are carried around by being embedded in rotating crystal spheres moving around the Earth. Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake by the Church for heresy (February 17, 1600) and his writings forbidden because he believed in the Copernican Heliocentrism theory by Nicolaus Copernicus, which held that the Earth was spherical and orbited the Sun.”

arguingwithatheists.com/

God Bless

This isn’t really relevant to the thread, but the claim about Bruno here is false, and the latter site you link to is riddled with falsehoods.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

This isn’t really relevant to the thread, but the claim about Bruno here is false, and the latter site you link to is riddled with falsehoods.

Bruno was not executed by civil authorities because of the Heliocentric Theory he championed-------he was executed for teaching necromantic, hermetic theories that were contrary to the teachings of the CC and were condemned by the Bible.

 

[greylorn]

Bruno was not executed by civil authorities because of the Heliocentric Theory he championed-------he was executed for teaching necromantic, hermetic theories that were contrary to the teachings of the CC and were condemned by the Bible.

Well, that certainly justifies his painful, brutal termination by being burnt at the stake.

 

[StMartinTours]

Well, that certainly justifies his painful, brutal termination by being burnt at the stake.

No it doesn’t, but it disproves the old canard, repeated by Insight, about the church “frowning upon” science.

 

[greylorn]

No it doesn’t, but it disproves the old canard, repeated by Insight, about the church “frowning upon” science.

Are you implying that the churchmen at the pyre were smiling while Bruno burned?