Emmett Clarendon
Wesley Brown
Seminar II
February 25, 2016
A Critical Analysis of Descartes’ “Trademark Argument” for the Existence of God
Rene Descartes was an immensely influential philosopher of the 17th century, earning himself the title of Father of Modern Philosophy. This epithet was well-deserved, as much of subsequent Western Philosophy is based off of his writings. However, that all his musings are of infallible and unassailable truth is not necessarily the case. Furthermore, even if one can agree with his conclusions, the arguments by which he reaches those conclusions may not all be sound. In particular, Descartes’ argument in Meditation III: Concerning God, That He Exists can be shown to be unreliable, therefore rendering his proof of God unsuccessful.
Descartes’ goal was to call into doubt everything that is taken for granted, and believe only what he himself could prove to be unequivocally true. After dispelling all previously existing axioms, he began to create a new library of axioms that he felt could be proved beyond any doubt. After proving his own existence, he turns to proving the existence of god in his third meditation. The trademark argument can be summarized using syllogistic logic as follows:
1. There exists in me the idea of God
2. All things that exist, including ideas, must have a cause
3. Therefore, there is must be cause of my idea of God.
3. There is a cause of my idea of God.
4. The cause of something must contain the properties of what it causes to exist.
5. Therefore, the cause of my idea of God must contain at least as much reality as my idea of God.
5. The cause of my idea of God must contain at least as much reality as my idea of God.
6. The idea of God contains perfection.
7. Therefore, the cause of my idea of God must contain perfection.
7. The cause of my idea of God must contain perfection.
8. No being which is not God contains perfection.
9. Therefore, God is the cause of my idea.
9. The cause of my idea of God is God.
10. If something is the cause of something else, that something exists.
11. Therefore, God exists.
Unexamined, Descartes reasoning appears to be sound. His argument is based on a number of axioms, or premises, that he arrives at through pure reason. However, some of the crucial premises he establishes in the third meditation are deniable, and if even one of the premises can be proven to be false, then the entire argument is invalidated. The axioms presented in the third meditation are as follows (numbered for ease of referencing later):
(1) “And from this it follows, not only that something cannot proceed from nothing,” (Descartes, 15).
(2) “…likewise that what is more perfect— that is to say, which has more reality within itself—cannot proceed from the less perfect.” (15).
(3) “…there must be at least as much reality in the cause [of something] as in the effect;” (18).
(4) “It is indeed an idea that is utterly clear and distinct; […] the idea that I have of God is the most true, the most clear and distinct.”
(5)”I understand by the name ‘God’ a certain substance that is infinite, independent, supremely intelligent and supremely powerful, and that created me along with everything else that exists. […] Although the idea of substance is in me by virtue of the fact that I am a substance, that fact is not sufficient to explain my having the idea of an infinite substance, since I am finite.”
(6) “If the objective reality of any of my ideas is found to be so great that I am certain that the same reality was not in me, either formally or eminently, and that therefore I myself cannot be the cause of the idea, then it necessarily follows that I am not alone in the world, but that something else, which is the cause of this idea, also exists.”
(7) “Nothing more perfect than God, or even as perfect as God, can be thought of imagined.”
(8) “From these considerations it is quite obvious that [God] cannot be a deceiver, for it is manifest by the light of nature that all fraud and deception depend on some defect.”
The first problem in Descartes’ argument lies in premise (2), that something that is more perfect (or real) cannot come out of something that is less perfect (or real). To help us understand this claim, let us briefly explain Descartes’ notion of degrees of reality, which in and of itself is objectionable. Descartes puts forth that all ideas all have the same degree of formal reality, as they are all states of mind, but differ in degrees of objective reality. An idea of a ‘mode’ or property possesses the least objective reality, an idea of a finite substance possesses an intermediate level of reality, and the idea of an infinite substance possesses the most reality. Premise (2) outlines the Causal Adequacy Principal (CAP): that the degree of formal reality of the cause must be at least as great as the objective reality of the effect. Hence an idea whose content, or objective reality, is infinite (e.i. Descartes’ idea of God) cannot be caused by a finite being with less than infinite formal reality (e.i. Descartes).
All seems well and good, but the Causal Adequacy Premise had been extensively questioned and refuted, and it is also worth noting that Descartes provides little to no evidence to support his assertion. Descartes’ contemporaries had many qualms with CAP, which were published in a set of Objections and Replies. Mersenne puts forth in 2nd Objections that animals and plants (of greater reality), come from and are sustained by inanimate causes (of lesser reality). In this case we appear to have evidence of something more perfect being caused by something less perfect. One can personally find many more examples that make CAP appear rather dubitable. Merely exploring the idea of evolution can negate this premise. Evolution, the process of gradual development over time, encapsulates and clearly demonstrates the idea of something more perfect coming out of something lesser. Of course, Descartes significantly predated the theory of evolution, but perhaps there are yet other areas he might have observed CAP being disproved. Maybe observing a very successful child of two less successful parents would have brought him to a similar conclusion as many of his contemporaries.
The Dutch theologian Johannes Caterus also takes issue with Descartes’ application of CAP to the realm of ideas in the 1st Objections. “…objective reality is a pure label, not anything actual. A cause imparts some real and actual influence; but what does not actually exist cannot take on anything, and so does not receive or require any actual causal influence.” (32). Caterus does not see the objective reality of ideas as reality at all. He therefore posits that ideas of the infinite need no infinite or greater cause, nor any cause at all.
While Descartes remains one of the most important philosophers to date, all of his writings are still worth critically examining and analyzing. Through this critical process, some of his works can be shown to be unsubstantial. While the logic presented in his Third Meditation is sound, many of the premises that Descartes puts forth and bases his argument upon can be refuted, rendering his conclusion unreliable. However, it is important to note that even if some of his work are not entirely successful in their proofs, Descartes remains an unquestionably consequential thinker, and one of the catalysts of a philosophical revolution. It also, perhaps, speaks to his enduring legacy and impact, that his writings can continue to be discussed and interpreted to this day. Works Cited
Descartes, René, and John Cottingham. Meditations on First Philosophy: With Selections from the Objections and Replies. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1986. Print.