PHIL 202 Paper 1: Cartesian Dialogue January 25, 2011
Jack: Hey, Russell. What’s your position on the existence of God?
Russell: I don’t see any reason to believe in one. If God exists, why isn’t there any evidence of His existence?
Jack: The evidence isn’t physical, though. It’s inside you.
Russell: You’ve been reading Descartes, haven’t you?
Jack: Yes, and I think that he has a perfectly brilliant proof for the existence of God.
Russell: What’s that?
Jack: There are certain ideas that you just know are true, because they are so clear and distinct in your mind that you can’t doubt them. For example, you know you exist and can’t doubt that—right?
Russell: Yes, but what does that have to do with God?
Jack: Well, if there is a God, he would be perfect, right?
Russell: Yes, of course.
Jack: And can you imagine something that is perfect, and infinitely so?
Russell: Yes, I can imagine it.
Jack: That idea has to have come from somewhere, hasn’t it?
Russell: Yes—ex nihilo nihil fit
Jack: So the thing that caused this idea has to be as real as the idea itself. And you are not perfect; no one is. So you can’t be the source of this concept of infinite perfection. But the idea has to have come from somewhere—a source outside yourself. And the only thing that is infinitely perfect is God, and so God has to be the source of that idea.
Russell: Hmm… I think your reasoning is flawed.
Jack: How so?
Russell: Well, first of all, I think your terms are vague. I mean, “perfection” is just a hypothetical construct that isn’t defined very well. How would you define that?
Jack: I’d say that perfection is something that is complete and without any defects.
Russell: I can imagine those concepts quite well without needing God to explain them—I’ve seen things that are complete and free of defects before. And even if I hadn’t, I’d be able to extrapolate that concept from what I have experienced.
Jack: But I’m talking about an infinitely perfect substance.
Russell: Yeah, I don’t think that’s too hard to imagine. Just because I can imagine that something exists, doesn’t mean that it necessarily has to exist as I imagine it. I can composite ideas together or extrapolate from reality to imagine things that aren’t real.
Jack: But you can’t extrapolate a concept of a substance that is infinitely perfect from what you’ve experienced. You’ve never experienced infinite perfection.
Russell: But I can extrapolate those concepts. I’ve seen a line that’s finite, so it’s not hard to imagine one that just goes on forever. I’ve even experienced things that seem infinite—haven’t you ever been traveling across a large plain, and you can’t see the end of the road and it seems to go on forever? Even though the road isn’t actually infinite, it seems that way, and that’s what I think of when I imagine the concept of infinity.
Jack: Well, that doesn’t mean that God isn’t real.
Russell: You’re right—the mere fact that I’ve disproved one argument for God’s existence doesn’t in itself prove that God doesn’t exist. But you’ve got to admit that Descartes’ ontological proof for God doesn’t work.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"But I can extrapolate those concepts. I’ve seen a line that’s finite, so it’s not hard to imagine one that just goes on forever. I’ve even experienced things that seem infinite—haven’t you ever been traveling across a large plain, and you can’t see the end of the road and it seems to go on forever? Even though the road isn’t actually infinite, it seems that way, and that’s what I think of when I imagine the concept of infinity."
ReplyDelete1. You've never actually seen a line. Lines do not exist in the empirical world.
2. The very recognition of something as 'finite' is just the same as recognizing something as 'not infinite'. Any recognition of finitude therefore presupposes the idea of infinity and thereby explains nothing.
3. It is only possible for something finite to *seem* infinite if one already has the idea of infinity. Unless one already have the idea of infinity then no such seeming can ever occur. So this account of infinity begs the question.
Descartes was a lot smarter than his critics.