Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: The scientific meta-narrative [View all]muriel_volestrangler
(101,316 posts)45. And yet Descartes ended up saying you needed knowledge of God to have absolute knowledge
Recall that in the First Meditation Descartes supposed that an evil demon was deceiving him. So as long as this supposition remains in place, there is no hope of gaining any absolutely certain knowledge. But he was able to demonstrate Gods existence from intuitively grasped premises, thereby providing, a glimmer of hope of extricating himself from the evil demon scenario. The next step is to demonstrate that God cannot be a deceiver. At the beginning of the Fourth Meditation, Descartes claims that the will to deceive is undoubtedly evidence of malice or weakness so as to be an imperfection. But, since God has all perfections and no imperfections, it follows that God cannot be a deceiver. For to conceive of God with the will to deceive would be to conceive him to be both having no imperfections and having one imperfection, which is impossible; it would be like trying to conceive of a mountain without a valley. This conclusion, in addition to Gods existence, provides the absolutely certain foundation Descartes was seeking from the outset of the Meditations. It is absolutely certain because both conclusions (namely that God exists and that God cannot be a deceiver) have themselves been demonstrated from immediately grasped and absolutely certain intuitive truths.
This means that God cannot be the cause of human error, since he did not create humans with a faculty for generating them, nor could God create some being, like an evil demon, who is bent on deception. Rather, humans are the cause of their own errors when they do not use their faculty of judgment correctly. Second, Gods non-deceiving nature also serves to guarantee the truth of all clear and distinct ideas. So God would be a deceiver, if there were a clear and distinct idea that was false, since the mind cannot help but believe them to be true. Hence, clear and distinct ideas must be true on pain of contradiction. This also implies that knowledge of Gods existence is required for having any absolutely certain knowledge. Accordingly, atheists, who are ignorant of Gods existence, cannot have absolutely certain knowledge of any kind, including scientific knowledge.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/descarte/#SH6a
This means that God cannot be the cause of human error, since he did not create humans with a faculty for generating them, nor could God create some being, like an evil demon, who is bent on deception. Rather, humans are the cause of their own errors when they do not use their faculty of judgment correctly. Second, Gods non-deceiving nature also serves to guarantee the truth of all clear and distinct ideas. So God would be a deceiver, if there were a clear and distinct idea that was false, since the mind cannot help but believe them to be true. Hence, clear and distinct ideas must be true on pain of contradiction. This also implies that knowledge of Gods existence is required for having any absolutely certain knowledge. Accordingly, atheists, who are ignorant of Gods existence, cannot have absolutely certain knowledge of any kind, including scientific knowledge.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/descarte/#SH6a
I recognize that it would be impossible for me to exist with the kind of nature I have that is, having within me the idea of God were it not the case that God really existed. By God I mean the very being the idea of whom is within me, that is, the possessor of all the perfections which I cannot grasp, but can somehow reach in my thought, who is subject to no defects whatsoever. It is clear enough from this that he cannot be a deceiver, since it is manifest by the natural light that all fraud and deception depend on some defect. (Med. 3, AT 7:51f)
...
I have perceived that God exists, and at the same time I have understood that everything else depends on him, and that he is no deceiver; and I have drawn the conclusion that everything which I clearly and distinctly perceive is of necessity true. what objections can now be raised? That the way I am made makes me prone to frequent error? But I now know that I am incapable of error in those cases where my understanding is transparently clear. And now it is possible for me to achieve full and certain knowledge of countless matters, both concerning God himself and other things whose nature is intellectual, and also concerning the whole of that corporeal nature which is the subject-matter of pure mathematics. (Med. 5, AT 7 0-71)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-epistemology/#6.1
...
I have perceived that God exists, and at the same time I have understood that everything else depends on him, and that he is no deceiver; and I have drawn the conclusion that everything which I clearly and distinctly perceive is of necessity true. what objections can now be raised? That the way I am made makes me prone to frequent error? But I now know that I am incapable of error in those cases where my understanding is transparently clear. And now it is possible for me to achieve full and certain knowledge of countless matters, both concerning God himself and other things whose nature is intellectual, and also concerning the whole of that corporeal nature which is the subject-matter of pure mathematics. (Med. 5, AT 7 0-71)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-epistemology/#6.1
Descartes believed he had 'rationally proved' the existence of God, not from any observation at all, but because he had the idea of a perfect God, and non-existence would be an imperfection, and so God must exist.
I really don't think you can trace 'scientism' back to Descartes.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
104 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
My understanding of Descartes' thought is a little different from the way you present it.
Jim__
Mar 2012
#2
I find your response helfpful, and it clarifies my representation of Descartes
Thats my opinion
Mar 2012
#3
I think it's kind of interesting how appx. 14,999,600 years of something that might be referred to
patrice
Mar 2012
#5
is held as 0 ever since the formulization of rational empiricism, appx. 400 years ago.
AlbertCat
Mar 2012
#81
Okay, so make that appx. 14,997,200 years of something that was regarded as valuable
patrice
Mar 2012
#82
Good edit. And that one word is the difference between a discussion and a personal attack.
rug
Mar 2012
#48
I notice all the true believers in scientism have shown up to trumpet THEIR dogma. nt
Speck Tater
Mar 2012
#11
What the fuck is scientism? No seriously, this shit is literal nonsense. n/t
Humanist_Activist
Mar 2012
#25
So basically its a perjorative used mostly by those ignorant in how science works...
Humanist_Activist
Mar 2012
#101
One of the most interesting American "anthropological" movies is "Dancing with wolves"
AlbertCat
Mar 2012
#84
Sokal's paper can be compared with the Bogdanov papers published in refereed Physics Journals.
Jim__
Mar 2012
#27
You mean publication of a ridiculous paper doesn't serve to undermine an entire field?
Jim__
Mar 2012
#35
A zinger? I realize that evidence will not have any effect on your belief system.
Jim__
Mar 2012
#91
So in post-modernism, if I say my paper is good, its good by default?
Humanist_Activist
Mar 2012
#95
If that were true, then tell us by what standards its claims are tested by. n/t
Humanist_Activist
Mar 2012
#100
"no system or perspective, which claims to explain everything, is legitimate"
AlbertCat
Mar 2012
#83
"I think"; therefore thinking, the phenomenological field, is valid: from Descartes to Phenomenology
Brettongarcia
Mar 2012
#21
Do us all a favor, and no longer talk about science, I do mean at all...
Humanist_Activist
Mar 2012
#26
And yet Descartes ended up saying you needed knowledge of God to have absolute knowledge
muriel_volestrangler
Mar 2012
#45
To be honest, I find post-modern theory much more off-putting than I find religion.
LeftishBrit
Mar 2012
#54
Can you cite a postmodern source that claims science claims to explain everything?
Jim__
Mar 2012
#72
I am not an expert on post-modernism; but the post-modernists whom I know personally have been
LeftishBrit
Mar 2012
#77