Why did René Descartes take God on faith?

[Pappa]

"I think, therefore I am" is about as reductionist as you can get in philosophy. How could the person responsible for that then proceed to conclusions like: because God is benevolent, he wouldn't trick me by sending me incorrect sensory signals, therefore the external world is real too?

[Rum]

God was a given. Unthinkable not for him to be part of the tapestry I guess with the mentality of the time.

[apophenia]

I believe, but don't quote me, that if you delve into the Pensees, you'll find that some of Descartes arguments required the existence of God to ground them. In particular, there is a form of the ontological argument for the existence of God which arises out of the same structure as the Cogito. And, again, don't quote me, but Descartes original argument was more, "I doubt, therefore I am," as the ability to doubt was the first step in the syllogism. I'm sure there are other reasons, but I think, perhaps, Descartes was of the mind that the ability to reason is in some sense supernatural, as a result of being a divine gift to a being made in the image of God. And that his thinking is thoroughly duallistic simply underscores that point.


There is a problem in the philosophy of realism in which you need a point to serve as a fulcrum against which to leverage all your consequent conclusions leading to the conclusion in some form of realism. In a less atheistic age, I suppose it was perfectly natural to use God as that fulcrum — a move which purely rational realisms don't have open to them. Indeeed, Immanuel Kant in his Critique Of Practical Reason wrote, "Thus i had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith.” These three satellites, knowledge, faith, and realism, tend to jockey one another for pre-eminence, and it's not altogether clear — at least to me — that you can achieve two without the third. God is a convenient shortcut in that equation.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"You can be very intelligent and still not be very smart."

[DaveDodo007]

It's the whole philosophy is bullshit tag and maybe you will listen to me next time. Grrr

[FBM]

Possibilities I can think of:

a) He really believed all that crap.

b) He didn't want to get drawn and quartered.

c) His pineal gland was malfunctioning.

Anyway, the dualistic mindset he inherited. Body and spirit. And if there's a corporeal supreme being (humans), there should be a spiritual supreme being, eh? Dunno. I just pulled that out of me arse. We're still recovering from Descartes, IMO. Most of us still use dualistic concepts to communicate and describe the world around us, our place in it, who we are, etc. I'm trying to kick the habit.

[Clinton Huxley]

Because he was a typical damned bone-idle Frenchman?

[Svartalf]

"I think, therefore I am" is about as reductionist as you can get in philosophy. How could the person responsible for that then proceed to conclusions like: because God is benevolent, he wouldn't trick me by sending me incorrect sensory signals, therefore the external world is real too?

You are aware that Descartes actually put Gawd into his equations, or rather the published version of same, because not doing so would likely have resulted in his suffering mmost inconvenient trouble, to the point that it would have been entirely possible for his situation to become to hot to bear, right?

[Svartalf]

I believe, but don't quote me, that if you delve into the Pensees, you'll find that some of Descartes arguments required the existence of God to ground them. In particular, there is a form of the ontological argument for the existence of God which arises out of the same structure as the Cogito. And, again, don't quote me, but Descartes original argument was more, "I doubt, therefore I am," as the ability to doubt was the first step in the syllogism. I'm sure there are other reasons, but I think, perhaps, Descartes was of the mind that the ability to reason is in some sense supernatural, as a result of being a divine gift to a being made in the image of God. And that his thinking is thoroughly duallistic simply underscores that point.


There is a problem in the philosophy of realism in which you need a point to serve as a fulcrum against which to leverage all your consequent conclusions leading to the conclusion in some form of realism. In a less atheistic age, I suppose it was perfectly natural to use God as that fulcrum — a move which purely rational realisms don't have open to them. Indeeed, Immanuel Kant in his Critique Of Practical Reason wrote, "Thus i had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith.” These three satellites, knowledge, faith, and realism, tend to jockey one another for pre-eminence, and it's not altogether clear — at least to me — that you can achieve two without the third. God is a convenient shortcut in that equation.

Errr... why are you dragging Pascal into this? The two, despite superficial similarities could not be more opposed.
Descartes is as much scientist as philosopher, and as close to a pure rationalist/mechanist as you can find, he would have been most at ease with Newtonian physics if Sir Isaac been more than a child when he died.
In his works, the divine is literally dded as an afterthought, and you could take it out and still have a perfectly cogent and coherent system, albeit a tad inhuman.
Pascal is... a great mathematician and rhetorician, but he rationalizes around the fact that he can't come to grip with the fear of ending with death, and needs the divine as a prop, so any evidence for god he'll give is not attackable at all, it would have made him break down to little pieces to live without god.

[Svartalf]

Possibilities I can think of:

a) He really believed all that crap.

b) He didn't want to get drawn and quartered.

c) His pineal gland was malfunctioning.

Anyway, the dualistic mindset he inherited. Body and spirit. And if there's a corporeal supreme being (humans), there should be a spiritual supreme being, eh? Dunno. I just pulled that out of me arse. We're still recovering from Descartes, IMO. Most of us still use dualistic concepts to communicate and describe the world around us, our place in it, who we are, etc. I'm trying to kick the habit.

Point to you man , though a) and c) are not mutually exclusive

[Svartalf]

Because he was a typical damned bone-idle Frenchman?

Off into the Leviathan you go.

[Hermit]

"I think, therefore I am" is about as reductionist as you can get in philosophy. How could the person responsible for that then proceed to conclusions like: because God is benevolent, he wouldn't trick me by sending me incorrect sensory signals, therefore the external world is real too?

After throwing into doubt everything that can be thrown into doubt Descartes was left with one solitary certitude: The very fact that he doubts/thinks proves his existence. Unfortunately nothing else follows from this insight. Nothing at all. I think, therefore I am. ...a bicycle? ...a not-bicycle? Descartes never followed through with the consequences of his universal doubt. As soon as he came up with it he ignored it for all practical intents and purposes and proceeded to do what most everyone else was doing most of the time: rationalising the status quo. His contributions to the Age of Enlightenment lay elsewhere.

[FBM]

Possibilities I can think of:

a) He really believed all that crap.

b) He didn't want to get drawn and quartered.

c) His pineal gland was malfunctioning.

Anyway, the dualistic mindset he inherited. Body and spirit. And if there's a corporeal supreme being (humans), there should be a spiritual supreme being, eh? Dunno. I just pulled that out of me arse. We're still recovering from Descartes, IMO. Most of us still use dualistic concepts to communicate and describe the world around us, our place in it, who we are, etc. I'm trying to kick the habit.

Point to you man , though a) and c) are not mutually exclusive

Touché.

[Clinton Huxley]

Because he was a typical damned bone-idle Frenchman?

Off into the Leviathan you go.

I AM the Leviathan.....

[Feck]

Because he was a drunken fart .