Tuesday, July 8, 2008

"I think, therefore I am," but what about God?

René Descartes

It took me all day to realize that the Marquis de Sade's argument against God, which he puts into the mouth of his character, Dolmancé, the chief debaucher of La Philisophie dans le boudoir, may very well be a response to René Descartes' argument for God set forth in his Meditations on First Philosophy. In this work, Descartes proceeds by means of his method of doubt. His method consists of doubting, or disbelieving, everything and starting from scratch with what has to be true of necessity.

The conclusion he arrived at, of course, is the famous cogito ergo sum (i.e., I think therefore I am). He proceeds from this deduction to a far less convincing conclusion, which does not necessarily follow from his premises, that God exists because this thinking creature requires something to whom he can attribute both his origin and his continuity. De Sade delivers a death blow to this Cartesian argument, namely that, if Descartes is correct, God "is just the dead end of human reason, an illusion made at that point when that reason can go no further". So, our arguments matter. Besides, it was Descartes who introduced the hard and fast subject/object distinction with which we still grapple.

Similarly, most people find Pascal's wager insufficient for belief. This wager is set forth in thought 233 of Pascal's Pensées (i.e., Thoughts).

As the note on the door of a former professor read: "Gambling is immoral. Say 'No' to Pascal's wager"


  1. Of course, the wager is not an intellectual argument for God. If it were it would only prove the God of the philosophers and not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

    No, the wager is a response to a culture enamored with risk in certain forms, distracting itself to death with gambling and other games and entertainment. So, to the casino denizens, Pascal says psst I've got a better risk for you. Life itself is a drama which doesn't need the roulette wheel.

    What amazes me is how quickly this concrete image snatched from life was turned into another abstraction in religious history.

    PS. how are classes going? How much time you have left?

  2. Thanks for the context. Given that I agree with you. However, the wager is often employed apologetically, as an intellectual argument, which is an abuse. That it does not reveal the God who is love because God is Father, Son, and Spirit, it leaves people cold.

    Classes are going well, thanks for asking. I have a boatload of work to do. I am working on a paper on the definition of infallibility, I have book review to complete, etc. I hope to graduate next fall.

  3. you're totally right about the abuse of the wager: Pascal would be horrified to find himself remade in the mold of Descares (I will never forgive Descartes). Maybe you'll blog a bit on infallibility at some point...

  4. I am poised to do just that. However, I think Catholics would be surprised to learn how the dogma came about and how ill-advised it was and deleterious it remains for the church.