if you are religious, how far would you go

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

I'm ignoring most points here because they seem to be mainly about the existence (or non-) of the Christian God, and any mention of possible gods has already been stated. This is just to say that Descartes' argument on God is (by nearly all modern philosophers) though to be heavily flawed and circular, especially in reference to existence, where he presumes his own existence and uses his presumption as proof for it (again, circular).

---

Descartes believed in god and his arguments for them are quite flawed. His other arguments such as the cogeto though do still stand up, the problem modern philosophers often have his how he applys these principles and makes logical jumps, for example the cogeto only serves to prove there is thinking, not that a self or thing exists in order to think, something Hume attacks with is observation as to the lack of any existing impression of an abstract idea of self being obtainable through introspection. Alot of Descartes other jumps such as his criterion of truth though can be forgiven as he believing in god is able to use the idea of gods benevolence (and hence the idea god would not deceave him) in order to justify these claims. Also Descartes himself kinda leaves out his main arguments about gods for good reason, that being primarily that the church would have burnt him as a hertic if he tryed... life in the early enlightenment wernt all that great for philosophers despite the name.

Anyway that aside, the idea of the indubitably of though remains true.