Descartes’s Skeptical Argument Using God or an Evil Demon

by | Aug 21, 2023 | theology

This week’s prompt: Using standard form, outline Descartes’s skeptical argument using God or an evil demon in your initial post. In responses to others, consider either 1) how to make the improve your peer’s interpretation or 2) how one might object to Descartes’s skepticism.
Each week we will have discussions, in which we will practice our philosophical skills. In these discussions, we will be learning how read philosophy and reconstruct arguments.
Remember, when we inquire we use reason and logic while being respectful of others. Take other’s criticisms seriously and consider if you might revise your interpretation of Descartes or your own beliefs. We are trying to get closer to the truth here. By interpreting Descartes, we are bringing him into our discussion on the limitations of our own knowledge.
In your responses to other students, inquiring requires going beyond expressing agreement–there isn’t much critical thinking there at all really. Try to call each other into thinking more deeply about the topic. Having a discussion with only one type of response (express agreement) would be like playing a sport with only one move (say, quarterback runs the ball). That’s not going to make for an interesting game.
You need to know more ‘reasoning moves.’ Here is a list to help you. As you respond, name the reasoning move you are making. You can say “I am putting forth a hypothesis and providing a reason for it.” The first four are ones we will be spending a lot of time on in this course. Here is my list:
Offer a hypothesis (a possible answer to the question.).
Provide a reason/argument (you can even put it in standard form!).
Offer an objection/criticism (not used nearly enough, but the bread and butter response in philosophy!).
Offer a reply (let’s get some solid back-and-forth discussion going!).
Ask a clarifying question (be sure to follow up after they reply!).
Draw a distinction (and say why the distinction matters!).
Redirect to a passage in the text (and explain why this passage is important.).
Offer a definition (note that even definitions can be contestable).
Think philosophically requires thinking deeply.

Sample solution

Dante Alighieri played a critical role in the literature world through his poem Divine Comedy that was written in the 14th century. The poem contains Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso. The Inferno is a description of the nine circles of torment that are found on the earth. It depicts the realms of the people that have gone against the spiritual values and who, instead, have chosen bestial appetite, violence, or fraud and malice. The nine circles of hell are limbo, lust, gluttony, greed and wrath. Others are heresy, violence, fraud, and treachery. The purpose of this paper is to examine the Dante’s Inferno in the perspective of its portrayal of God’s image and the justification of hell. 

In this epic poem, God is portrayed as a super being guilty of multiple weaknesses including being egotistic, unjust, and hypocritical. Dante, in this poem, depicts God as being more human than divine by challenging God’s omnipotence. Additionally, the manner in which Dante describes Hell is in full contradiction to the morals of God as written in the Bible. When god arranges Hell to flatter Himself, He commits egotism, a sin that is common among human beings (Cheney, 2016). The weakness is depicted in Limbo and on the Gate of Hell where, for instance, God sends those who do not worship Him to Hell. This implies that failure to worship Him is a sin.


This question has been answered

God is also depicted as lacking justice in His actions thus removing the godly image. The injustice is portrayed by the manner in which the sodomites and opportunists are treated. The opportunists are subjected to banner chasing in their lives after death followed by being stung by insects and maggots. They are known to having done neither good nor bad during their lifetimes and, therefore, justice could have demanded that they be granted a neutral punishment having lived a neutral life. The sodomites are also punished unfairly by God when Brunetto Lattini is condemned to hell despite being a good leader (Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). While he commited sodomy, God chooses to ignore all the other good deeds that Brunetto did.

Finally, God is also portrayed as being hypocritical in His actions, a sin that further diminishes His godliness and makes Him more human. A case in point is when God condemns the sin of egotism and goes ahead to commit it repeatedly. Proverbs 29:23 states that “arrogance will bring your downfall, but if you are humble, you will be respected.” When Slattery condemns Dante’s human state as being weak, doubtful, and limited, he is proving God’s hypocrisy because He is also human (Verdicchio, 2015). The actions of God in Hell as portrayed by Dante are inconsistent with the Biblical literature. Both Dante and God are prone to making mistakes, something common among human beings thus making God more human.

To wrap it up, Dante portrays God is more human since He commits the same sins that humans commit: egotism, hypocrisy, and injustice. Hell is justified as being a destination for victims of the mistakes committed by God. The Hell is presented as being a totally different place as compared to what is written about it in the Bible. As a result, reading through the text gives an image of God who is prone to the very mistakes common to humans thus ripping Him off His lofty status of divine and, instead, making Him a mere human. Whether or not Dante did it intentionally is subject to debate but one thing is clear in the poem: the misconstrued notion of God is revealed to future generations.

 

References

Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). Dante’s inferno: Seven deadly sins in scientific publishing and how to avoid them. Addiction Science: A Guide for the Perplexed, 267.

Cheney, L. D. G. (2016). Illustrations for Dante’s Inferno: A Comparative Study of Sandro Botticelli, Giovanni Stradano, and Federico Zuccaro. Cultural and Religious Studies, 4(8), 487.

Verdicchio, M. (2015). Irony and Desire in Dante’s” Inferno” 27. Italica, 285-297.

Sample Answer

Sample Answer

Descartes’s Skeptical Argument Using God or an Evil Demon
Descartes’s skeptical argument is a fundamental aspect of his philosophy, aimed at questioning our knowledge and beliefs. He employs the method of doubt to systematically doubt all his beliefs and find a foundation of knowledge that is indubitable. One of the most prominent versions of Descartes’s skeptical argument involves the existence of God or an evil demon.

Hypothesis: The existence of God or an evil demon may deceive us and undermine the reliability of our senses and reasoning.

Argument:

If God or an evil demon exists, they possess ultimate power and knowledge.
God or an evil demon could manipulate our senses and deceive us about the external world, leading us to form false beliefs.
Our senses can be unreliable, as they can be manipulated by external forces beyond our control.
Our reasoning processes could also be distorted, as they rely on the information provided by our senses.
Therefore, we cannot trust our senses or reasoning to provide us with accurate knowledge about the external world.
Objection/Criticism:

One objection to Descartes’s skeptical argument is that it seems overly radical and undermines the reliability of all our beliefs, leading to skepticism.
Some argue that there are certain beliefs and knowledge that are so firmly grounded and self-evident that they cannot be doubted, such as “I think, therefore I am.”
Descartes himself acknowledges the existence of certain indubitable truths, which serve as a foundation for knowledge despite the possibility of deception.
Reply:

Descartes would respond to this objection by emphasizing the importance of systematic doubt in order to arrive at a foundation of knowledge that is beyond doubt.
He would argue that even beliefs that seem self-evident could potentially be deceived by an all-powerful being like God or an evil demon.
By doubting everything, Descartes aims to find knowledge that is certain and indubitable, which he believes can only be achieved through his skeptical argument.
Clarifying Question:

How does Descartes establish a connection between the existence of God or an evil demon and the possibility of deception in our senses and reasoning?
Distinction:

It is important to distinguish between skepticism as a methodological tool used by Descartes to question knowledge and skepticism as a philosophical position that denies the possibility of knowledge altogether.
Descartes’s goal is not to embrace skepticism but rather to find a foundation of knowledge that is beyond doubt by subjecting all beliefs to rigorous doubt.
Redirect to a Passage in the Text:

Descartes discusses his skeptical argument using God or an evil demon in his Meditations on First Philosophy, particularly in the First Meditation.
In this meditation, Descartes introduces the possibility of an evil demon deceiving him as a way to cast doubt on his beliefs and search for indubitable knowledge.
Definition:

Skepticism: A philosophical position that questions the possibility of knowledge and argues that certainty is unattainable due to the potential for deception or error.
Thinking philosophically requires engaging deeply with ideas and critically examining them. By exploring Descartes’s skeptical argument using God or an evil demon, we engage in the process of inquiry and challenge our own beliefs and assumptions. Through critical thinking and thoughtful discussions, we can gain a deeper understanding of Descartes’s philosophy and its implications for our own quest for knowledge.

 

 

This question has been answered.

Get Answer