By Jack Bowman © 1998

In Descartes "Discourse on Method" he wrote "Cogito, ergo sum" and says that there is "nothing at all which gives me assurance of the truth beyond this". He continues by saying that he may take "as a general rule" that all things clearly perceived are true. He adds, "however, there is some difficulty in rightly determining the objects which we distinctly conceive". There are two key words here "general" and "difficulty". He, with these two words says that after "I think therefore I am" the remainder is general and difficult. He did not say that difficult was impossible but by using the word "difficult" he did open up the assumption that we should, and will question his conclusions.

Although Descartes did not state, (at least in the 3^rd and 5^th Meditation) that there was another limiting factor and that was the use of words to prove a point. In this case it was a very important point, "The existence of God"

Descartes appeared to sense the word limitation when he in Med. 5 used more mathematical references. "I counted as the most certain those truths which I conceived clearly as regards figures, numbers, and other matters which pertain to arithmetic and geometry, and, in general, to pure and abstract mathematics." He appeared to be doing the mathematical references so he could prove the existence of God by abstract means in comparison to concrete things. However, had he been able to prove God in the 3^rd Med. he would not have had to write the 5^th Med.

Another limiting, and probably the most important, factor was that Descartes was a 17^th century Philosopher, about 200 years before Darwin.

The argument can be made (not necessarily a good one) that the logic of Philosophy is timeless and should, and will stand the test of time. One of the strongest arguments for the timelessness of Philosophy is Plato’s Cave. Even though Plato was after proving something else he actually described the film and TV world of the 20^th century.

Being so far before Darwin is a major limitation in proving God. It appears that Descartes sensed the evolution thing when he talked about the passing of time and time preceding him in the 3rd Med. "It is as a matter of fact perfectly clear and evident to all those who consider with attention the nature of time, that, in order to be conserved in each moment in which it endures, a substance has need of the same power and action as would be necessary to produce and create it anew, supposing it did not yet exist, so that the light of nature shows us clearly that the distinction between creation and conservation is solely a distinction of the reason."

Descartes, instead of saying, as he could have, time, or the passing of time itself is God, he only used it as a small portion of his argument. Descartes while recognizing the time thing and apparently not recognizing the possibility of evolution gave his ontological argument existence is a perfection, and as God is described as the most perfect being. It follows that God must exist. He apparently failed to realize, at least in his 5^th Med. that imperfection itself could be God. Imperfection, as defined by evolution, is what brings about change.

It seems like both Plato and Descartes made a profound discovery by subtracting reality down to "I think therefore I am" but then went on to create a reality, much like an artist creates a painting, that may or may not be true. (Plato did not say "I think therefore I am" but he did give this attribute to the race in the cave.)

By taking the concept of self that would naturally come with "I think therefore I am" Descartes could have easily said, "I think therefore I am God". However, he did not. He seemed predetermined to prove a God beyond himself. He began by proving in the 3^rd Med. That objects beyond his thoughts existed. "But if I now hear some sound, if I see the sun, or feel heat, I have hitherto judged that these sensations proceeded from certain things that are outside me." In this 3^rd Med. Descartes is using the doctrine of Empiricism by stating that all knowledge comes through sense-experience. "And my principal task in this place is to consider, in respect to those ideas which appear to me to proceed from certain objects that are outside me, what are the reasons which cause me to think them similar to these objects. It seems indeed in the first place that I am taught this lesson by nature; and, secondly, I experience in myself that these ideas do not depend on my will nor therefore on myself – for they often present themselves to my mind in spite of my will."

Descartes concludes about half way through the 3^rd Med. That God is a "substance". "By the name God I understand a substance that is infinite (eternal, immutable), independent, all-knowing, all-powerful, and by which I myself and everything else, if anything else does exist, have been created."

In Med. 3 Descartes uses a cause and effect argument. Such as ((Descartes could not think of anything outside himself unless something was outside himself. Therefore, God (the cause) existed to (effect) make him think of God.))

Descartes in the 5^th Med. Says God must exist because he must exist. He says the Mountain cannot exist without the valley even though we may see the mountain without the valley the valley still must exist as well the Mountain. Therefore since Descartes exist and for him to exist perfection is necessary then God must exist for this Perfection. Even though this is a cause and effect argument in the 5^th Med. Descartes emphasizes that it is a process of necessity whether or not Descartes ever had the thought of God.

In summary Descartes is saying in his 3^rd Med. that God is and in his 5^th Med. that the Essence of God is. Does he prove that God is and that The Essence of God is? With 17^th century knowledge his proofs would have been profound. With twentieth century knowledge his proofs are suspect.

*end*