This paper intends to reconstruct, explain, and critically evaluate Descartes’ Third Meditation concerning The Special Causal Principle and the Existence of God. First, I will explain why Descartes initially questions the existence of God and how that inquiry leads to two principal arguments: (1) an ontological argument and (2) the distinction between sorts of reality. As well, I will identify significant concepts and relevant terms. Second, I will present Descartes arguments in favour of God’s existence, examining each premise as it leads to the proof’s conclusion. I will then explain the criticisms proposed by Pierre Gassendi, Thomas Hobbes, and myself. Finally, I will demonstrate that Descartes succeeds in proving the existence of God.
First, it is important to consider the context leading to Descartes certainty as to why God exists. At this point in the Meditations, Descartes is assertive in his argument that he exists as a thinking thing. However, he realizes that for a truth to be self-evident, we must be able to have a clear and distinct perception of it. By clear and distinct perception, I mean perceptions that are only clear while you are aware of them and doubtable when you are not. An example is the proposition ‘I exist’. ‘Whatever thinks must also exist’, is established in the first meditation but continuous to influence his thought process throughout. In the third meditation, he considers whether this understanding also applies to God. Descartes comes to the conclusion that in order to prove the existence of God, he must first have a clear and distinct perception of him. According to Descartes, knowledge must first come from clear and distinct perceptions (Med.3, p.43). Acknowledging that God must be the cause of our clear and distinct perceptions, Descartes therefore determines that the only way to be certain of these perceptions is to first prove that God exists. Essentially, his thought scheme follows that if God is perfect in every way, thus not capable of deceiving, then God is the cause of our clear and distinct perceptions and therefore must exist.
To prove his ontological argument, Descartes proposes the following two premises. The first premise basically entails that our idea of God is of a perfect being. According to Descartes, the perfect-being, a supreme God, is: “eternal, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, the Creator of all things that exist outside of Him” (Med. 3, p.51). Moreover, the second premise states that it is more perfect to exist than to not exist. According to the text, since God can derive His power of existing from Himself, He, without doubt, also has the power of actually embodying any and all conceivable perfections (Med. 3, p.63). In simpler terms, God is all-powerful and therefore cannot result from anything other than Himself, thus is the most perfect. Given these two premises, Descartes concludes this argument by stating that God must exist. To strengthen his position, he begins his next argument clarifying the difference between two distinct forms of reality.
Descartes makes the distinction between two sorts of reality: formal and objective. Formal reality essentially means anything that is not just an idea. It is generally considered as reality that is certain and tangible. Within this idea of formal reality, Descartes identifies that humans are finite, while God is infinite. Descartes writes: “By the name God I understand a certain infinite [eternal, immutable] independent, supremely intelligent, and supremely powerful substance by which I myself was created, along with everything else that exists…” (Med. 3 p.60). Essentially, this means that God, by nature, is the only entity who can transcend all boundaries of existence. Objective reality, on the other hand, is a bit more complicated. Objective reality is something that we can think of but does not necessarily exist formally or physically. Descartes provides the example that something can only become hot if it has been heated previously by something that is equally as hot as it, or more. (Med. 3, p.57). In essence, this explains the special causal principle. However, objective reality delves deeper in the sense of thought. In this form of reality, thoughts are only perceived as result of personal interpretation. For example, when describing a fruit, we can use all five senses, however there isn’t an all-encompassing description that is accepted by all. Since it is not possible to provide a complete definition for God, He must be the source of His own existence and greater than the formal and objective reality contained in human beings.
By Special Causal Principle, I mean that causes must have at least as much reality as their effects. According to Descartes, “[the idea] must surely have been obtained from some cause in which there is at least as much formal reality as the objective reality contained in the idea itself” (Descartes, p.57: 41). Subsequently, Descartes expands his premise considering the reality of God. Apart from his idea of God, Descartes knows that humans contain as much formal reality as there is objective reality. However, since God transcends all shapes and sizes (etc.), God contains more objective reality than any other being. Through the Special Causal Principle, God contains a unique existence that is so supremely perfect that He must have created everything in the universe that exists, including himself.
Though Descartes’ arguments have withstood the test of time, they have not been immune to the critiques by many fellow philosophers. I will first explain the position of Pierre Gassendi and afterwards rebuttal using aspects of Descartes philosophy and my personal opinion. Gassendi begins his critique acknowledging that Descartes argument focuses around the claim: “I am a thinking thing”. However, Gassendi notes that it would be reasonable to suspect that this rule is deceptive and maybe even hollow. Gassendi refers to the sceptic’s arguments by providing the following content: “propositions about what appears to x at time t are themselves vividly and clearly perceived by x and t, and so-in accordance with your ‘general rule’- can be accepted as true by x at t” (Fifth Objection, 2007, p.102). To demonstrate this theory, Gassendi gives the example of a melon. He can vividly and clearly perceive a certain taste of a melon, so it is true that is how the taste of a melon appears to him. Yet, he cannot be completely sure with a claim that such a flavour really exists in the melon. Gassendi mentions how as a child, with excellent health and vision, he perceived an entirely different taste in the melon. If he were to ask others what they taste, it would be different for each person. Therefore, the truth is self-contradictory. Something being vividly and clearly perceived doesn’t mean that it is true in itself, but just that it is being vividly and clearly perceived (Fifth Objection, 2007, p.103). Placing this theory in the context of God’s existence, the argument would be that what appears true to one person, may not be true to another. In conclusion of his critique, Gassendi states that it would be more advantageous to establish a process to determine whether or not what we think we perceive clearly is in actuality, a deception (Fifth Objection, 2007, p.103). Descartes could reply that the argument from the sceptics does not actually prove anything. Through this reply, the author further acknowledges the conclusion Gassendi makes which asks for a better method to determine whether or not we are deceived when we think we perceive something clearly. However, the author emphasizes that Descartes has already provided this method. Through trial and error of his arguments, Descartes has already eliminated all doubtful opinions and additionally distinguishes the clear from the obscure or confused (Fifth Objection, 2007, p.103). Ultimately, Gassendi does not make a sufficient enough critique to prove that Descartes arguments are invalid or unsound.
The second criticism of Descartes claim is conceived by Thomas Hobbes in the 1641 book by Rene Descartes, Meditations, Objections, and Replies. This book provided Descartes with the opportunity to reply to the popular critiques of his piece, Meditations. It is within the ‘Third Objection’ of the book where the critiques by Thomas Hobbes are addressed. Hobbes objection is strictly focused around the meaning of ‘idea’. Hobbes claims that the thoughts, the ideas within the imagination, like God or an angel, derive from different sources. The knowledge we use to imagine an angel, for example, is based on a collection of ideas. However, there is no clear or corresponding image for God. Hobbes alludes to the fact that Christians do not have an actual picture of God, therefore each idea of God resides solely in the mind. Hobbes concludes that an actual idea of God does not exist, especially not one that is within us. In reply, Descartes follows with the premise that our idea of God comes from within our soul. He essentially states that Hobbes’ critique is weak and that he fails to give any better an account for the ‘idea’ of God than his own. He also points out that he has already explained many times that an ‘idea’ is just whatever “is immediately perceived by the mind” (Third Objections, 1641). Ultimately, Descartes recognizes that his and Hobbes’ understanding of ‘idea’ is very different, and Hobbes’ understanding in particular, is catered to support his argument only. Descartes deems Hobbes as someone who is unwilling to view his argument in the same perspective. Although Hobbes makes a few valid points, his reply to Descartes does not exactly prove anything that we do not already know or is at least, implied. Descartes’ reply accuses Hobbes of not properly understanding his argument and directs him to reconsider his position. Nonetheless, Descartes’ claim for the existence of God is yet to be effectively refuted.
Through analysis of the preceding arguments, I have observed a flaw in Descartes’ proof of the existence of God. My critique follows the same format as Descartes although logically demonstrates his argument to be invalid. If I were to presume that God does not exist, I can use the same format as Descartes except negating his premises and conclusion. My argument is as follows: First, God does not exist. Second, if God does not exist, then a perfect being cannot exist. Third, a perfect being must exist. Fourth, the perfect being that must have the quality of existence does not exist. Fifth, there is no necessity logical to assume the existence of God. In conclusion, God does not exist. Ultimately, this argument is more feasible than Descartes since it does not self-contradict the claim that God triumphs all. Moreover, Descartes may respond to my critique by identifying that all I have ultimately accomplished is stating the proposition “If A then A” and identify the flaw in my second premise, “if God does not exist, then a perfect being cannot exist”. Descartes would refute the possibility of God’s inexistence by asserting that a perfect thing must exist because we can have a clear and distinct perception of it. Perhaps Descartes would remark that my argument fails to acknowledge the formal and objective forms of reality. Without considering either of these two reality’s, it is impossible to be completely certain that God does not exist. Thus, Descartes’ argument sufficiently proves the existence of God.
Upon arriving at the conclusion of the Cartesian proof, Descartes is successful in proving the existence of God. Descartes arrives at the question of God’s existence through thoughtful contemplation of first, the knowledge that God is a supremely perfect being and second, the reality of finite or infinite existence. Furthermore, Descartes integration of the special causal principle into his central arguments greatly contributes to his certainty when he later determines a conclusion. In addition, Descartes claim is proven sufficient after comparing and contrasting Descartes philosophy with the objections by Gassendi, Hobbes, and myself. Nonetheless, Descartes’ proof for the existence of God continues to be a common contemplation among all and will continue to be until it is adequately disproven.