The road to heaven is just as open to the learned - Descartes.

Can the problem of the

existence of God be solved satisfactorily by the vigor of philosophical argument?
The quest for knowledge remains a perplexing problem. Mankind continues to seek to understand
himself and the world around him, and, indeed, how it is he/she can even be certain of the things he
thinks he knows. While serious debate of these issues has continued for centuries, mankind seems
to be never completely satisfied with the answers. At times, the answer to Douglas Adams question;
what is the meaning to life the universe and everything?, as 42 can seem as good as any. ( Adams,
1985 p.94) Fundamental to the question of the nature of things, however, is the question of
knowledge itself. How do we know what we know? Or how can an epistemology be developed that
provides a framework for perception and understanding?
Rene Descartes endeavours to address these questions in his search for knowledge, in the first
instance for himself, but as Margaret Wilson suggests, in the hope of also challenging the
epistemology of the ... great Aristotelian - Scholastic synthesis that had dominated European
thought for centuries. ( Wilson, 1993 p. xiii.) His essential task was to reconceive a process of
discovering knowledge. For Descartes, this meant ridding himself of all prejudice, or prejudgments,
and to doubt. To doubt everything. Descartes reconstruction of a knowing process was based upon
a mathematical approach and gave a physiological answer to his problem. It also led to a revamp of
the ancient concept of the mind-body dualism. Descartes must be seen as a great philosopher for
his contribution to the historical development of the thinking process and to learning. But his
greatness is not to be found in his discourse on the body-mind dualism, his physiological
epistemology or even his cartesian doubt. His greatness is found in his contribution to the thinking
process itself in the form of analysis and synthesis, as Spinoza suggests, ( Spinoza, p. 3) and his
methodological or deductive process of discovering knowledge.
Descartes search for knowledge starts with a claim of doubt. He doubts his senses, his body,
everything he has experienced. In claiming doubt as his first step to knowledge, Descartes did not
want to become a sceptic and doubt for the sake of doubting. His main intension in starting with
doubt was to allow scientific inquiry to begin. In order for Descartes to map out, or set a paradigm for
scientific endeavour, clearly a method was needed, although the method in itself was not be a
complete answer to scepticism but a process by which the reasonable and thinking person could find
knowledge. Implicit in Descartes aim to map out the physical world is the notion that the
epistemology of the Scholastics, had thwarted scientific endeavour. Accordingly, he set out to furnish
a method that would provide foundation for a process of knowledge that could not be questioned by
the sceptics. Having found a refutable method, Descartes believes this earns him the right to get on
with things.
In the first Meditation, doubt is introduced slowly to prepare the thinker and reader for what must
come later; complete doubt. At first, Descartes wants the thinker and reader to see that it possible to
be in error. Only later in his work does he introduce the reader to the idea that they are always in
error. Still, it must be remembered that doubt for Descartes is not a negative thing. His process is not
a journey toward nihilism.
Spinoza says that in order to proceed with his investigation Descartes determined to:
1. To lay aside all prejudice.
2. To find the fundamental truth on which all knowledge rests.
3. To discover the cause of error.
4. To understand everything clearly and distinctly. ( Spinoza, p.11)

In order to understand things clearly and distinctly his principle rule was to examine everything
separately and in its simple form in order to discover how other things are composed. (Spinoza,
P.12) This objective was the basis for Descartes journey into doubt. He therefore convinced himself
that there was nothing in this world that could be automatically accepted as truth, not even his own
senses.
Descartes thinks that doubt will move the inquirer toward the elimination of error and, accordingly,
certainty will be given to knowledge. Complete doubt, as taken up in the
Second Meditation, places the reader with the question of do I exist? His response is I think,
therefore I am. Or, I exist. Even in doubting, and in considering that in all things he might be
deceived, he still thinks and this can not be taken from him. However, human and personal existence
is still not a settled matter. He can only be sure of his existence when he thinks. Doubting, then, ...
is the foundation on which all knowledge rests. (Spinoza. p. 13)
Descartes reasoning process was deductive and this cogito gives the reader the first principle or
certain knowledge: Namely that she exists with a mind though she may still be in error in her
judgements. Descartes shows that no sense experience, independent concept, or arbitrary
judgement can furnish knowledge other than that which is clearly and indubitably perceived by the
mind ( Fourth Meditation). Descartes in the first two Meditations is at pains to both define a method
and to define what counts as knowledge.
In the Sixth Meditation, Descartes goes on to distinguish between the mind and the body. The
point of the dualistic distinction is to build up a knowledge of material things and their existence; they
exist in so far as our ideas of them are clear and distinct. The existence of material things depends
on their being clearly and distinctly perceived. Descartes qualifies his argument by suggesting that
no one would seriously doubt their existence. His point is that knowledge of material things is
seriously lacking when it is founded on sense experience.
Yet, in asking questions of the physical, Descartes is forced, although seemingly willingly, to ask
questions of the metaphysical. His arguments about the existence of material things, he suggests, is
not as solid as his reasonings for the existence of God. Indeed, the existence of God becomes one
of the basis pillars of his thesis. Descartes claims to be a thinking thing and that knowledge is
discovered through distinct and clear perceptions. In first presenting a case for the existence of God,
Descartes goes on to claim in Meditation Five that God can not deceive the thinker. The thinker,
then, is offered a guarantee for the cogito (Meditation Three) which sets the boundaries of
knowledge. From Meditation Five, he presents the thesis that knowledge must depend upon God.
His argument implies that it is now possible to begin to map out the physical universe with
mathematical method.
It seems that the most important issue for the thinker is to accept the causal relationship between
Gods existence and cognitions ability to know clearly and distinctly. To decide against Descartes
thesis is to make a choice against rationalism and for scholasticism. In general, Descartes
rationalism could be reduced to four maxims, as read from his Meditations:
1. Never accept anything as true unless it is clearly and inescapably so.
2. Reduce a problem to the simple or particular
3. Organise particulars into general knowledge
Check for completeness.
It is that doubt is followed by cognition, guaranteed by God, and followed by a mathematical, or
material, map of the world.
Still, his approach to be claim objective reality (Third Meditation) leads him to address the age old
questions of the nature of man (mankind) and the nature of God. While his endeavour to find

material answers to physical problems ultimately led him to deal with the metaphysical, so his claim
to find ultimate truth in subjective realization leads him into an examination of consciousness and
self consciousness. Indeed, it is this awareness of his own consciousness that leads Descartes to
believe that he has found the basic principle of knowledge: He knows, or is aware of his own
consciousness. This, of course, leads him to question the validity of the knowledge which arises from
his unconscious or dreaming mind. Without saying so directly, the conclusion is that the mind can
produce both truth and error. For Descartes, the discussion becomes one of the power of
understanding and the power of imagination. ( Sixth Meditation)
Descartes metaphysical argument furnishes him with one source of understanding the soul, or mind,
as the other source is physics, or the medicine that treats the machine of our body. (Strauss p.
388) While the soul and body form different worlds they nevertheless interact, each effecting the
other. The acting of thinking and sensing becomes a process of interaction. Descartes
interactionism. And so the dualism is set, although the struggle between mind and body is never
clearly settled. The ... principle effect of all the passions in men is that they incite and dispose their
soul to will the things to which they prepare the body. (Strauss p. 389) The greatest of the passions
for Descartes is seen to be generosity. In all this, however, is Descartes physiological view of the
soul.
Still, Descartes epistemology does sit easy and there seems to be a number of problems. It seems
that the fundamental flaw to Descartes rationalism is that it arises out of an ontological knowledge,
or awareness of being. The only real truth he discovers in realising he is a thing that thinks is an
ontological truth. That is, he can not confirm someone elses existence because he thinks, or
because they think. His truth then is personal or subjective truth. But at least, it is truth for him.
This, then, leads to the second problem for his rationalism: it appears to be an existential reality.
Truth is knowable because he, in the experience of his consciousness, has discovered it. This
personal and subjective reality does not lead to the objective reality, or universal reality that he
claims. His claim for self realisation, or perhaps, self revelation, proves little to some other self
conscious being. To say I think, therefore, I am, is not testable or knowable by anybody else. It is
an existential reality. It is as though Descartes has established for himself the knowing ego.
( Strauss p. 388)
Still, it is a curious departure from the Greek understanding of knowing ( gnosis) where information
and observable reality is given intellectual assent, to a knowledge that includes an experiential and
existential qualification. It raises the question of whether truth and knowledge can be neutral. But
more of this later.
Descartes rationalism arises out of a deductive process that incorporates a number of premises:
1. I think therefore I am
2. God exists
3. My mind has clear and distinct ideas
4. God guarantees my clear and distinct ideas
5. I have clear and distinct ideas about a material world.
This rationalism seems problematic in that the logic is not obvious: He moves from a subjective
realisation, to a universal truth, to a statement of faith, and then to a objective realisation. While it
obviously worked for Descartes, this process of deductive reasoning based on the existence and
guarantees of God was not to last. This combination of elements in deductive reasoning was not to
be Descartes strength. (Strauss, p.387)
Yet, a criticism of Descartes theory of methodological knowledge must also consider his revamp of
the body-mind dualism that has come from the Ancients. Again, out of his own consciousness he

declares a perception of his own will and passions (Sixth Meditation) and a discovery of the power of
the mind and body. But he is not the first by any means to become aware of this struggle of the
physical and the intellectual. Niebuhr points out that both Plato and Aristotle share a common
rationalism and a common dualism setting the body, or flesh (sarx), over against the rational mind
(nous). In the thought of Aristotle, he says, nous is immortal and for Plato, the immutability of ideas
is regarded as proof of the immortality of the soul. (Niebuhr, p.7). In contrast, the body is identified
with evil. The outcome of this dualism is that nous becomes divine, or virtuous, and the body, or flesh
(sarx) becomes identified with nature and the forces of nature as evil. Here, then, are the
fundamentals to Gnosticism ( gnosis, knowledge).
Of course, these notions stand in contrast to Christian theology and philosophy. As Niebuhr points
out, ... the Bible knows nothing of a good mind and an evil body. (Niebuhr, p.7) This point is made
clear in the first chapter of Johns Gospel: In the beginning was the Word (logos)... and the Word
became flesh (sarx). A concept totally foreign and repugnant to the gnostic and greek classical
thinker.
All of this is to point out that Descartes personal indulgences into the body-mind dualism debate is
dangerous ground, especially as his quest is for knowledge and the processes of thinking are lifted
to virtuous proportions. Still, there is no hint that the body is evil. Only that it is powerful and material.
This debate continues as mankind seeks to master nature, and his/her destiny. Under a modern
humanistic and capitalist world, mankind appears to have arrived and mastered nature. (Niebuhr,
p.20) Indeed, in the modern capitalist world, it is science that has taken the honoured position.
(Searle, 1984, p. 11)
In review of Descartes personal quest to understand the body-mind dualism, one wonders whether
he really moves the debate much further than the classical Greeks. The power to will and the power
to understand remain depicted as an active struggle and, like the Greek tragedies, it is a war within
and a war with no solution.(Niebuhr, p.11)
While Descartes hoped to challenge and replace scholastic reasoning, the rapid decline of Cartesian
metaphysics, Watson believes, was due to epistemological and ontological incoherencies ( Watson,
p.21). He says that ... if every cause must be in some way like its effect, then the Cartesian
metaphysical system incorporates an unbridgeable gap between mind and matter. (Watson, p.22)
He continues, The Cartesians ... could not explain neither how two substances unlike in essence
could causally interact nor how one could know the other. (Watson, p.22)
Watson is also critical of Descartes epistemology, based as it is, on the grounds of doubt. This
system, he says, leads to literally knowing nothing, ... neither existence nor essence, not even of
himself. (Watson, p.viii) Descartes is unable to establish epistemological certainty because of the
logical incoherencies of his ontological dualism and ... because just as his physics failed to fit the
facts of experience and experiment, so also did his theology fail to conform with Christian hopes and
dogma. In the end reason fails Descartes. (Watson, p.ix)
To return to the discussion of Descartes quest for knowledge and basic truths, it was said that his
rational process seemed perplexing as he moved from the subjective to the universal to the
objective. His rationalism doesnt seem rational. Perhaps another simpler way of rational
construction would be:
1. I can know
2. There is something to know
3. I can use subjective understanding to bridge the gap.
To say we know, is to say something about observable reality. It seems therefore a contradiction to
start with the premise of doubt: To look for what is knowable in what we deny to be known.

Descartes may well have said; I know, and Im sure Im wrong. Or, I know, I think. Something of a
contradiction in knowledge.
Yet, a further problem, and an essential problem, is the acceptance in all this of the neutrality of
knowledge. Knowledge is never free of influence, of history, or experience, of imagination, or
context. To say that knowledge is neutral is fiction. Try as he did, Descartes knowledge did not come
from nowhere. He was not able to rid himself of all prejudice and his mind was not free from all
previous influence. Indeed, knowledge does not proceed on what can be proved before we know
anything, or we could know nothing. But knowledge proceeds on what can be presumed.
Presumptions come first. This is, then, a condition of faith, even for Descartes ( Guiness p.2) While
Descartes attempts to challenge the scholastics, his attempt is to only replace one set of dogma with
another. Or one orthodoxy with another. Surely the challenge is to consider orthopraxis as well: To
consider practical application and even the responsibility of knowledge.

I would argue that man created all contemporary versions of God, if that
makes sense. Now, I personally don't believe that God created man, but I do
think the idea that man created the current ideas about God can co-exist with
the idea that God originally created man. Here's why:
Everything we know about the concept of God, in any religion, comes in book
form. This is not to discount people who claim to have witnessed God, or
miracles, or who feel God at work in their lives on a daily basis. That's a much
more personal viewpoint. What I'm talking about is the construction of Godfigures through organized religion. And indeed, no matter the religion, our
information comes from a text or set of texts that helps define the nature of
God.
Yet who wrote those texts? The Bible is claimed to be the word of God, but He
did not set it down in his own hand. No, men wrote it. And edited it. And
translated it. And re-translated it. And focused on particular scripture for their
causes. For example, walk into a bookstore today, and you'll see several
different versions of the Bible. In each one, man has created his own version
of God, which may be slightly different than the one presented in the next
Bible on the shelf. In fact, there's a group out there right now that aims to
completely re-write the Bible, to refocus on Old Testament scripture. It's
actually rather disturbing, especially if you do believe in the Bible as the word
of God...then these people are simply manipulating it for their own purposes.
They're called the Conservative Bible Project, & they advocate such things as
"eliminating gender neutral language" and changing all references to
"comrade" to "volunteer". They also want to add to the Bible, wherever they
feel certain phrases are ill-defined or even left out. So they are absolutely
creating their own image of God. Link to their website here:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project
So, I would argue that as of right now, man is creating God. Even some who
claim to be working towards God's purposes are changing, editing, and
manipulating the texts of religion for their own gain, to promote the image of
God as they see fit. Thus, while God may have made men in his own image,
man is now re-creating God in his.