I have been searching the net with no luck on Descartes to find arguments on him starting from a theistic conclusion and working his way back to to his premise. To clarify I think Descartes like most theist started with God and and worked his way back to a starting premise. He wants to prove God exist. Not as an agnostic arguing probability but as a theist who is already convinced. Since his most important work is based on a method of doubt it looks as if he is an agnostic doubting everything then surprise surprise his reasoning just happens to lead him to what he already believed. It is my understanding that any true agnostic using this method of doubt would go in circles like the dog chasing his tail.With each circle of reasoning he would end up with less and less faith until atheism all though not proven would seem the most probable truth. Descartes on the other hand seemed to go from his method of doubt straight to a theistic conclusion step by step with no missteps. I find this suspicious.
Sounds more like a method of faith. You start with your faith in God then pretend to doubt just so other skeptics will take your faith as actual reasoning. Many Christians today use this method in writing books that say they were once an atheist. Their writings fall down based on their misunderstanding of what atheism is. If you really were an atheist then you would know that atheism is a philosophy. Or more clearly a predisposition to non theistic philosophers/philosophies based not on prejudice but personal experience and an intelligent understanding of what philosophy is. Yet book after book is published and carried mostly by Christian bookstores claiming they once were atheist and how they lived a totally immoral life until some realization or dissatisfaction with that life led them to God. Who of course just happened to be the Christian God.
If you really chose atheism as just an excuse to be amoral and then became dissatisfied with an amoral life why not become a Jew? Jews believe in God. There is your meaning. If you claim all you need is God for meaning Judaism should be enough. Or why not Buddhism ? Buddhism teachings are all about compassion leading to enlightenment. With Buddhism amoralism is impossible. You can be an immoral person but not without conflict and if you want enlightenment you have no choice but to eliminate this conflict with mindfulness and compassion. So why do all these writers live such immoral lives and coincidentally find Jesus instead? To me it is obvious they are not being intellectually honest with themselves or with us by saying they were once atheist.
All atheist suffer the pains of agnosticism. Not pain necessarily from Pascals wager or or Christian Theism. Christians are not the only belief system with a concept of God.
A real atheist will study theism deism pantheism etc before making the commitment from agnostic to atheist. And a real agnostic would never be able to use their doubt to get to God. Only faith gets you to God. Doubt takes you to reality instead. I guess I am saying Descartes was a liar. Either he was a theist playing with words or he was an agnostic hiding behind theism to get published. Either way he misled people to believe he had proof of God and that this was more important then any honesty inquiry into the nature of metaphysics. Can any one offer some good internet links to substantiate or challenge my claims? Does any one here have a opinion on whether I have a point?
1 comments:
The philosophers of ancient Greece would disagree that atheism leads to amorality. Looking at the evils done throughout history by those who professed faith in a God or gods, it is not clear that belief in God leads to morality. It should not be suprising that philosophers and later scientists who were part of establishment came to conclusions that supported the existing social order in their societies.
Post a Comment