A Discord in the Method: Descartes’ Proof for God

In A Discourse on the Method, French philosopher and mathematician René Descartes advocates the use of mathematical proofs to establish certain truths, especially as they relate to existence. One of these proofs concerns the existence of God. At first glance, Descartes’ logical method might seem viable, but after a careful and detailed examination of the text, it becomes clear that Descartes’ approach to proving the existence of God is invalid for these three reasons: Descartes believes that the finding of truth requires a complete eradication of all previously learned knowledge, he maintains an arrogant and self-centered attitude in his pursuit of the knowledge of God, and he argues that God can be defined on his human terms.

Descartes imprudently proclaims that in order to discover truth, one must throw away all that one has ever learned or believed in up to that point. He states that in his search for truth, he decided that rather than relying upon foundations and principles that he learned when he was young, he “could do no better” than to rid himself of these lessons completely in order to build on a new foundation that was “[his] alone” (Descartes 14-15). He pronounces the moral writings of ancient thinkers “magnificent palaces” that are built upon foundations of “sand and mud” and even expresses a scorn for those who attempt to base their actions on the examples set by “knights of old” (Descartes 9). This dangerous proposal leads to many questions. Is it a good idea for a person to forsake all he has been taught by the writings and examples of authorities that have gone before, eradicating ingrained beliefs and dogmas in order to start over? Is it a good idea for one to discard the precepts of his youth in order to pursue a truth that is “his alone?” Another writer—who also happens to be a French mathematician—Blaise Pascal—would say no. In his Pensèes, Pascal writes that a person would err dangerously if he decided to follow a truth individually (Pascal 169), warning against the peril that exists in the pursuit of subjective truth that can be affected by passing feelings, perceptions, or circumstances, as opposed to truth that is founded on an objective standard. Alongside Descartes’ error in suggesting that one rid oneself of prior knowledge and beliefs in order to pursue subjective truth, he also fails to consider the impossibility of such a requirement. It is not truly possible for a human being to completely throw away every single thing he has ever believed or learned. From the moment a child is born, he is learning and processing and being conditioned by his environment and by his caretakers on whom he depends for sustenance. These factors serve to shape who that child is; they are a part of him and will never really leave him, no matter how hard he tries to eradicate them. No child comes into the world able to care for himself. Babies come into the world naked, but they are born into a community; a mother, a father, siblings, aunts, uncles, grandparents and other caregivers impress upon them the knowledge to survive, thrive, and continue to learn. Thus, if one were to do as Descartes proposes, returning to the mental and even spiritual state of infancy by stripping oneself of all previous knowledge, one would be naked, and what infant can clothe itself? 

     Once Descartes has presumably thrown away all his previous knowledge and begins to theorize on the existence of God, it becomes evident that his reasoning focuses primarily on himself and not on God. Due to this egocentric approach, Descartes’ entire proof of God is set up for failure. Earlier in his Discourse, Descartes states that the fact that he lives in a time of such burgeoning knowledge enables him to “judge all others by [himself]” (Descartes 7). This mode of judgment is clearly demonstrated in Part Four of the Discourse, because before Descartes even expressly addresses the existence of God, he begins by creating a proof for his own existence: “I think, therefore I exist” (Descartes 28). He then pursues a line of reasoning regarding God that is entirely based on the fact of his own existence. He writes that after he decided that he does indeed exist, he realized that the fact that he has ever doubted his existence must mean that he is “not altogether perfect” (Descartes 29-30). He concludes that since something less perfect must proceed from something more perfect, there must exist a being more perfect than he, and this being must be God (Descartes 29-30). Descartes asserts that negative concepts such as doubt, inconstancy, and sadness could not be found in God for the particular reason that Descartes himself would be “glad to be free of them” (Descartes 30-31). He continues that all he would need to do in order to know the nature of God would be to judge each attribute that he found in himself and determine whether it constituted a perfection or an imperfection (Descartes 30). If he were to deem the attribute an imperfection, he could confirm that it is not of God (Descartes 30). While it is true that God is perfect and that human beings are not, Descartes’ conclusions are incomplete because his considerations lack the humility and reverence necessary in approaching the existence and nature of such a divine being as God. Canonized saint and theologian Augustine of Hippo demonstrates a far more humble approach to the topic of God and His perfection in his autobiographical work Confessions. Augustine writes that God is supreme, a being in whom “present day has no ending, and yet in [Him] it has its end” (Confessions 1.8). Rather than attempt to unravel this apparent conundrum using his own judgment, Augustine celebrates the mysterious ways of God as a source of delight, stating humbly that it is not for him to attempt to explain these mysteries (Confessions 1.8). In Augustine’s quest to understand the nature of God, he begins by stating what a reach it is for him, a “mere man,” to endeavor to conceive a picture of the “supreme, sole and true God” (Confessions 7.111). In stark contrast to Descartes’ belief that he should judge others by himself, Augustine speaks as one subject to a greater being or authority—“You, Lord, are my judge,”—and adds that everything that he knows of himself is known to him because God grants him that knowledge (Confessions 10.182). What sort of attitude is required in the search for proof of God? The Bible proclaims in Proverbs 1:7 that the “fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (NIV). Observation of Descartes’ reasoning process reveals an attitude not of reverence or awe for the Being Who is the pinnacle of perfection, but rather an attitude of arrogance that places himself on a similar level as God, basing his conclusions upon his own judgements and upon whichever personal attributes he possesses or does not possess. 

Descartes’ arrogance leads him to the false conclusion that he himself can define who and what God is. The trouble begins with Descartes’ perspective on some of the non-human elements of God’s creation. He writes that when he considers the existence of the heavens and the earth and light and heat, it is not difficult for him to grasp from whence they came because he “[sees] nothing in them” that makes them appear superior to himself (Descartes 30). He states that once he deemed them to be no greater than himself, he was able to believe that if they indeed existed, they depended in some way on his own nature (Descartes 30). Once one begins to define the qualities of created things, it is not that far a stretch to conclude that it is permissible also to define the creator of such things. Descartes’ attitude as he continues his proof is arrogant and presumptuous. He authoritatively states that it is “certain” that the idea of God has never been in the senses (Descartes 32) and later writes flippantly that he decided not to utilize any precept other than that which he had “just used” to prove God’s existence (Descartes 35). Should Descartes or any other human being presume to place himself above the essence of the cosmos and the elements, positing that their existence depends in “some way” on his own nature? Should he attempt to define the nature of God, stating so boldly and certainly that God has not nor will ever reveal Himself to a person through the senses, or presume that a method can be “used” to prove God’s existence—or that a method is even required? God Himself, speaking through the Bible, tells us that His “thoughts are not [our] thoughts” and His “ways are not [our] ways,” declaring that the difference between these is as vast as the distance between the heavens and the earth (Isaiah 55:8 NIV). God is so far above us and any height our minds could possibly reach. Is it for us to consider and to weigh Him, to place limitations upon what we think He can or cannot do? God can come to a person in whatever way, shape, or form that He desires. Who is anyone to say that God cannot reveal Himself to a person using their senses? When a child is born, he recognizes the scent of his mother. The mother loves that child and cares for his every need.  The child experiences his mother’s care, and through his senses of sight, touch, hearing, taste and smell, he senses love, and Scripture tells us that “God is love” (1 John 4:8 NIV). Scripture also shows us in the Psalms that observation of the heavens and the elements of creation should instill in us an attitude of wonder and meekness, not superciliousness. The psalmist writes that when he considers the magnitude of God’s creation and observes the intricate “works of His fingers,” such as the moon and the stars, he is amazed that God also cares for human beings, and asks Him, “what is mankind that you are mindful of them?” (Psalm 8:3-4 NIV). St. Augustine confesses the shame he experiences for attempting to confine God to any specific image, form, or space, admitting that these attempts of imagination are a result of his own defects and fallen nature (Confessions 7.111). If one maintains the correct attitude of meekness and reverence in one’s consideration of God’s works without presuming oneself to be either above them or in a position to attribute characteristics or limitations to their Maker, one will be able to refrain from committing the errors Descartes does, anchoring oneself more securely in the reality of God and His existence.

     In other words, God’s existence is wholly dependent on God and not on anyone’s view of Him. Descartes’ proof of God fails in many ways. Truth cannot be found by eradicating all previous knowledge. Man cannot rely solely on his own judgment to know God, and therefore, God cannot be defined on human terms. In fact, humans gain their knowledge of God through God Himself, through His Word, through His love for them, through His wondrous deeds, and through His Son, Jesus Christ, Who is the living embodiment of Who God is. When Jesus’ disciple Philip asks Jesus to “show [the disciples] the Father,” Jesus replies, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:8-9 NIV). God wants us to look to Him for everything. Peter was able to walk on the water as long as he kept his eyes on Jesus, and he began to sink only when he began focusing on himself and the waves surrounding him (Matthew 14:29-30). If we were to focus only on ourselves and our intellects—as Descartes does—we would make ourselves our gods and leave no room for the true God. Descartes had access to Scripture and to the writings and teachings of many theologians who came before him, but in his arrogance, he chose to dismiss all of their teachings and set out to come up with his own theories about God’s existence. Descartes says “I think, therefore I exist” (Descartes 28), but the truth is that God thinks, and therefore we exist. God is the source of all life, breath, and being. He is the source; not our understanding or grasp of Him. We should never presume to put ourselves, the created, either above or on the same level as God, the Creator. If we hold to this truth and understand that God is our sole source of life and existence, we will humble ourselves and avoid the arrogant mistake René made when he put Descartes before the Source.