God has all perfections, existence is a perfection, therefore God

[gentle_dissident]

If you are a follower of animal spirits, doesn't that make you an "animist"?  Not the same as totemism however.  Animals mostly don't think, they just eat and $$&#^.

I'm guessing I missed a joke there.

[GSOgymrat]

I remember reading Descartes proof of God in a philosophy course in college.  One story, as I was told, was that philosophers of that period were quite manic about the new interest in rediscovered logic, and were obsessed with this tool to put an end to the God doubters once and for all.  They were all getting on the bandwagon and taking turns flapping their gums, and coming up with this type of why "God has to be real" nonsense.

That is what I too remember from college, that a perfect God existed was the starting point, not the conclusion. Many smart people work themselves into a pretzel trying to verify their intuitions and assumptions. Quantum physics is the modern area of science that people are referencing to justify their faith. I recently watched a YouTube video by a theist who said (and I am oversimplifying) that because subatomic particles change depending on observation, God must exist because something had to be observing everything all the time. I didn't watch the following videos which presumably connected the dots between quantum physics and Jesus is Lord.

[SGOS]

A lot of rationalist philosophy is anything but rational where spiritual matters are concerned, which is a shame because

The geometry I took in high school turned out to be a delightful surprise (and at that age, "delightful" was the last adjective I would choose to describe any kind of school work), but I loved geometry.  Not once in the year, did we do a single calculation that I recall.  The entire course was consisted of working through mathematical proofs based on theorems, premises, and logical arguments.  While the proofs all dealt with math concepts, it dawned on me that this type of intellectual processing could be useful in understanding my life and the nature of my environment as well.  It was my introduction to logical problem solving.

Now imagine Descartes applying the reasoning in his ontological argument to math concepts.  For some reason, I think it would have given him a headache trying to prove that a right angle could sometimes be 65 degrees.  I'm not familiar with Descartes' contributions to math, but his contributions to religion did not involve quite the same amount of self discipline, I'm sure.  And I find that amazing.  How could such a "deep thinker" be so foolish?  Not that it's unusual.  These types are all around.

[josephpalazzo]

...

I'm not familiar with Descartes' contributions to math ...

If you ever plotted a function on a graph, you were doing analytic geometry - Descartes' grand contribution to math, the wedding of algebraic formulas and geometry. The graph itself is called "Cartesian".

[Baruch]

My math schooling in HS was mixed.  I suffered my first panic attack while taking geometry.  I didn't like it then because of the association, but I liked it later.  The year before that, we did algebra (2nd year) as all theorems, and I did enjoy the logic.  First year algebra was all calculation.  Geometry is a more visual art than algebra ... and some people learn more visually.  When I took formal logic in college I did well ... but became aware of the limitations vs maths.  And my college education was of a practical technical sort (engineering) so we were made aware of the use and misuse of maths in practical affairs.

[SGOS]

That is what I too remember from college, that a perfect God existed was the starting point, not the conclusion. Many smart people work themselves into a pretzel trying to verify their intuitions and assumptions.

Exactly.  It was a perfect example of circular reasoning, almost what I would call "bald faced".  Except that it was supplemented with a whole bunch of pseudo intellectual gibberish between the premise and the conclusion. I remember writing this on an essay test when asked to refute Descartes proof, but points were deducted because I failed to reproduce the lengthy rebuttal presented by his main opponent; a rebuttal, which I didn't think was near as solid as my own.  LOL

Here is a bit of reasoning I can't follow (it's too exhausting), but it claims that Descartes was not guilty of the fallacy of the Cartesian Circle in the ontological argument, because that's not what Descartes was arguing.  I'm calling bullshit on this, because it seems to me that's exactly what Descartes was arguing.
http://philosophyotb.com/w/descartes-circle-debunked

[spoiler]Almost since Descartes published his book Meditations he has been accused of committing a fallacy of circular reasoning with his argument that God is the guarantor of the truth of our belief in an external world. Descartes’ argument has ever since been derided as the “Cartesian Circle.” The argument against the so-called “Cartesian Circle” is actually a fallacious strawman argument that misrepresents what Descartes actually argues.

The accusation against Descartes is that he asserts that the existence of God verifies that ideas that are clear and distinct must be true. So those who argue the “Cartesian Circle” position are claiming that Descartes is arguing the following:
1. I have a clear and distinct idea of God as a perfect being.
2. God, a perfect being, is not a deceiver and would not allow me to be mistaken about my clear and distinct ideas.
3. Therefore, I can be certain of the truth of my clear and distinct ideas.
As the Encyclopedia Britannica states it (I think a reasonable summation of the standard interpretation of the Cartesian Circle):


But Descartes cannot know that this proof does not contain an error unless he assumes that his clear and distinct perception of the steps of his reasoning guarantees that the proof is correct. Thus the criterion of clear and distinct perception depends on the assumption that God exists, which in turn depends on the criterion of clear and distinct perception.

This is a valid assessment of the argument stated above. The question though is whether that is an accurate portrayal of Descartes’ actual argument.[/spoiler]


I dunno.  Maybe refuting bullshit, can only be done with more bullshit.   :34:

[josephpalazzo]

Exactly.  It was a perfect example of circular reasoning, almost what I would call "bald faced".  Except that it was supplemented with a whole bunch of pseudo intellectual gibberish between the premise and the conclusion. I remember writing this on an essay test when asked to refute Descartes proof, but points were deducted because I failed to reproduce the lengthy rebuttal presented by his main opponent; a rebuttal, which I didn't think was near as solid as my own.  LOL

Hear is a bit of reasoning I can't follow (it's too exhausting), but it claims that Descartes was not guilty of the fallacy of the Cartesian Circle in the ontological argument, because that's not what Descartes was arguing.  I'm calling bullshit on this, because it seems to me that's exactly what Descartes was arguing.
http://philosophyotb.com/w/descartes-circle-debunked

[spoiler]Almost since Descartes published his book Meditations he has been accused of committing a fallacy of circular reasoning with his argument that God is the guarantor of the truth of our belief in an external world. Descartes’ argument has ever since been derided as the “Cartesian Circle.” The argument against the so-called “Cartesian Circle” is actually a fallacious strawman argument that misrepresents what Descartes actually argues.

The accusation against Descartes is that he asserts that the existence of God verifies that ideas that are clear and distinct must be true. So those who argue the “Cartesian Circle” position are claiming that Descartes is arguing the following:
1. I have a clear and distinct idea of God as a perfect being.
2. God, a perfect being, is not a deceiver and would not allow me to be mistaken about my clear and distinct ideas.
3. Therefore, I can be certain of the truth of my clear and distinct ideas.
As the Encyclopedia Britannica states it (I think a reasonable summation of the standard interpretation of the Cartesian Circle):


But Descartes cannot know that this proof does not contain an error unless he assumes that his clear and distinct perception of the steps of his reasoning guarantees that the proof is correct. Thus the criterion of clear and distinct perception depends on the assumption that God exists, which in turn depends on the criterion of clear and distinct perception.

This is a valid assessment of the argument stated above. The question though is whether that is an accurate portrayal of Descartes’ actual argument.[/spoiler]


I dunno.  Maybe refuting bullshit, can only be done with more bullshit.   :34:

The major problem in Descartes' reasoning is that perfection is assumed to exist. There is no empirical evidence of anything being "perfect". So his whole reasoning boils down to: God, which no one can prove his existence, is perfect, which no one can prove it exists. Imaginary thing = imaginary thing, it's logical, but not empirically valid.

[Baruch]

Criticism I have read, on Meditations (Descartes) ... is that he pulls the "clear and distinct" because of "benevolence of G-d" out of the ether ... aka it is an axiom with some self justification, not a deduction.  But that means accepting a significant part of Aquinas' theology.  Descartes was French after all, and was taught by Jesuits.  He was a free-thinking Catholic IMHO.  Jesuits were good with dialectic (legal reasoning) which isn't the same as rigorous syllogism.  Meditations is a mental autobiography.

On the other hand, if "clear and distinct" is the opposite of "unclear and muddy" ... and "unclear and muddy" is a bad strategy, then "clear and distinct" we can excuse (in a binary way) is a good strategy.  In Meditations ... Descartes is trying to escape the casuistry and complexity of Aquinas ... and relying on direct experience (in the naive sense).  Descartes was concerned not only with premiss and conclusion, but also method ... hence another writing of his "On the Method" ... which has "cogito, ergo sum" (je pense, donc je suis; I think, therefore I am)

[Mr.Obvious]

I had a really excentric but fun philosophy teacher in college. Poor bastard died last year. Didn't understand half of what he said, and the other half made me laught the way he said it. But he did make a good job of pitting philosophers and their conclusions against one another. "This guy said this, therefor God would exist. But that guy said that, therefor God can't exist." He did that very well. Without diminishing the 'value' of philosophy, he clearly poked fun at those who would deceive themselves into thinking they'd found unquestionable truth through it. Or at least that's what I remember of the guy.

[Baruch]

I had a really excentric but fun philosophy teacher in college. Poor bastard died last year. Didn't understand half of what he said, and the other half made me laught the way he said it. But he did make a good job of pitting philosophers and their conclusions against one another. "This guy said this, therefor God would exist. But that guy said that, therefor God can't exist." He did that very well. Without diminishing the 'value' of philosophy, he clearly poked fun at those who would deceive themselves into thinking they'd found unquestionable truth through it. Or at least that's what I remember of the guy.

My college logic teacher ... was a veteran of the Manhattan project.  He couldn't do any more physics after that.  Our philosophy teacher chose The Republic ... I think a rather poor choice, because not a survey, and not one of the short dialogs.  A girl who concluded that Plato was a totalitarian got an F and I fell asleep in class and got a D.  A lot of the grade was teacher discretion ... how philosophical is that?  I continued to study after college of course, still am after 6 decades ... so I picked up on the two edged nature of philosophy later.

[SGOS]

The major problem in Descartes' reasoning is that perfection is assumed to exist. There is no empirical evidence of anything being "perfect". So his whole reasoning boils down to: God, which no one can prove his existence, is perfect, which no one can prove it exists. Imaginary thing = imaginary thing, it's logical, but not empirically valid.

I get the part about the assumption of perfection, but I always treated that flaw as just extra bullshit in the bullshit.  By the time, I finished reading the argument, my head was swimming in bullshit piled on more bullshit, and I saw no reason to articulate any one specific flaw, which in hindsight, I should have done.

[Baruch]

Generally the British empiricists are a better place to start than the Continental rationalists.

[Mr.Obvious]

My college logic teacher ... was a veteran of the Manhattan project.  He couldn't do any more physics after that.  Our philosophy teacher chose The Republic ... I think a rather poor choice, because not a survey, and not one of the short dialogs.  A girl who concluded that Plato was a totalitarian got an F and I fell asleep in class and got a D.  A lot of the grade was teacher discretion ... how philosophical is that?  I continued to study after college of course, still am after 6 decades ... so I picked up on the two edged nature of philosophy later.

I had my teacher for two years. I got a 16/20 on my last oral exam, I think. But it wasn't worth much in reality. Everyone passed in their first go. Showing up got you a 10/20. He seemed to enjoy my answer, but was just not interested in coming back for second tries in the summer. He told one of my classmates who opted to skip his first try and come back in the summer that if he did that he'd fail him no matter what and that if he showed up at the first one he'd pass.

The dude was quitting/getting fired. Philosophy as a class was being replaced with Ethics, which in my line of work is truthfully more usefull. He was outraged and rather than teaching one more year after that, he quit, I think, retiring slightly more early.

He used to say to us (but in Dutch). "Ethics? As if you are not moral beings? As if you need to be thought at this point what is wrong and what is right?"
I remember feeling the urge to reply with "We don't need to learn what is right and wrong anymore through ethics, but we do have to learn to think through philosophy?"
Part of me regrets saying that. I think he would've actually liked it if I'd said it in a joking manner. But it was simply sad to see him leave.

[SGOS]

I had a really excentric but fun philosophy teacher in college. Poor bastard died last year. Didn't understand half of what he said, and the other half made me laught the way he said it. But he did make a good job of pitting philosophers and their conclusions against one another. "This guy said this, therefor God would exist. But that guy said that, therefor God can't exist." He did that very well. Without diminishing the 'value' of philosophy, he clearly poked fun at those who would deceive themselves into thinking they'd found unquestionable truth through it. Or at least that's what I remember of the guy.

I had a guy like that teaching philosophy.  One of my top 10 favorite professors.  However, I sometimes wonder if I really learned anything.  Well, OK, I did.  I learned about some of those mysterious word smiths of long ago who are known mostly for peddling their inconsequence, while their real contributions are treated as secondary accomplishments.

I got an A on a research paper from him, oddly it was "On Science Proving the Existence of God," wherein I attempted cementing science and religion together with a good deal of rather half hearted bullshit of my own.  Now you might say, "Oh Hell, what's so good about getting an A?  Any halfwit with a dull pencil and a lid from a pizza box will get an A at least once in something or other." 

But that A (actually it was an A-) represented a personal accomplishment.  Dr. Johnson gave almost everyone a C for anything they did.  A grade of B was the highest grade he was known to bestow.  When someone challenged him about why 97 percent of the class gets a C, while the top 3 percent get Bs, he happily replied that he believed "God loved the common man."  No one, as far as I know, bitched to the administration about his grading, either.  Everyone was enamored just to be in his class.

I kept that research paper for 30 years.  About ten years ago, I reread it and thought to myself, "This might be the silliest damn thing I've ever turned in as a college paper."  And then, I threw out all of the research papers that had accumulated in my file cabinet over the years.

[josephpalazzo]

I get the part about the assumption of perfection, but I always treated that flaw as just extra bullshit in the bullshit.  By the time, I finished reading the argument, my head was swimming in bullshit piled on more bullshit, and I saw no reason to articulate any one specific flaw, which in hindsight, I should have done.

Well, you have to give credit where credit is due: Descartes was very logical. It goes to show that you can postulate bullshit, and be very logical within that frame. Unfortunately, too many philosophers have fallen into that trap - why the expression, "a philosopher in his ivory tower".