Locke Book 1: Why is God not innate?

Locke’s definition of God is stated on page 46 in Book 1 chapter 4. He states, “God…to express a superior, powerful, wise, invisible Being…must necessarily spread it far and wide and continue it down to all generations.” Thus, the idea of God is passed down from generation to generation. A little bit later he writes on how the idea of God can come about in an individual’s head, “…If a colony of young children should be placed in an island…their apprehensions would be as far removed from any name or notion of a God, till some one amongst them had employed his thoughts, to inquire into the constitution and causes of things, which would easily lead him to the notion of God.” Locke a little later goes into how God is not imprinted in the human mind or is not “stamped on the mind”. If it were, then, the notion or idea of God would be the same across cultures or to every person and it is not. He claims that certain people do not have rational ideas of God. When they explain what God is it is immature and not of truth. Thus, God has not given us an idea of him, but rather he has given us “faculties” that we can use to find out about God through experience with the external world. On page 49 he says, “It seems to me plainly to prove, that the truest and best notions men had of God were not imprinted, but acquired by thought and meditation, and a right use of their faculties; since wise and considerate men of the world, by a right and careful employment of their thoughts and reason, attained true notions in this as well as other things.” And lastly concerning God he says, “If the idea of God be not innate, no other can be supposed innate.”

Locke Book 1 Existence of God

Locke definitely believes in God’s existence. In Book 1 on page 3 he says, “ Men have reason to be well satisfied with what God hath thought fit for them.” Then later, in Book 4 on page 44, he says, “That “God is to be worshipped” is, without doubt, as great a truth as any can enter into the mind of man, and deserves the first place amongst all principles.” Even though he believes in God’s existence, he does not believe the idea of God is innate. In Book 1 in chapter 4 on pages 44 to 50 he goes into the reasons why God is not innate and due to this why no other can be considered innate. First, he provides information claiming that whole societies had no notion of God. How could whole societies have no notion of God if God is an innate idea? It is impossible. Then he says even if everyone had a notion of God this still would not prove God to be an innate idea. He purposes that names such as sun, fire and heat are names known amongst men as is God, and it may feel like those ideas are innate when they are not.

Final thoughts on Decarte

I found that reading the discourse and the meditaion made my views on life a little more cloudy. When I started reading i thought maybe it would be something to help me understand why we do the things we do, which it is BUT it is also opion based information. I have taken in all this information and have thought about it but i am unsure of what is going to come next hopefully the locke bookwill help me understand better some of these issues.

Occam's Razor

I think I may be overthinking Descartes work. Maybe it is just what it is. There is no hidden meaning to it. Occam's Razor is a principle established by William of Occam. It states, "One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything." Thus, the simplest explanation is the best explanation. So maybe Descartes truly wrote two books (Discourse and Meditations) about God's existence and used what he knew best, mathematics and science, to back it up. Although, in my opinion, he fails to to provide hard evidence for the existence of God, in his mind the evidence he provided was sufficient. What I am basically saying here is that I don't think God is a representation for something else. I think the meaning of God in Descartes' books is just what God is referenced as in the bible, an eternal perfect being. And in the bible it does imply God will "reveal his power, truth and love to those who seek Him". Thus, according to Descartes and the bible the only way to find the truth is to truly seek God and know he exists.

Meditations part 5

I've read this part over several times and still don't exactly know what Descartes is trying to say. He first tries to free himself from doubts in which he previously fell into before. He says he notices things for the first time that were inface in him for a while. He also says, " what i believe must be considered above all". Sounds like he didn't trust any one but himself, and doesn't want to hear about any one else's theories. Descartes believes that if a triangle doesn't exist any where in the world, that it still has a deterninate nature. Even though he may of imagined it, it's still something. That is what i think he's saying. He even goes as far as saying that all he knows is clearly true. For a man of his time, or any time for that matter, it's a very bold statement. It's not evenn clear what he even knows to be true or not.

Stanford Encyclopedia Information

I found this on the Stanford Encyclopedia: This is Descartes Ontological Argument for God’s Existence.
Version A:
1. Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing.
2. I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea of God.
3. Therefore, God exists.
Version B:
1. I have an idea of supremely perfect being, i.e. a being having all perfections.
2. Necessary existence is a perfection.
3. Therefore, a supremely perfect being exists

I also found this…Descartes argument to the thinking that Descartes believed existence to be a property
"Existence is not a perfection either in God or in anything else; it is that without which no perfections can be present"
I got this information from: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-ontological/#1

Med V: Some of my thoughts

Descartes believes what is clear and distinct in the mind is true. God is clear and distinct, a supremely perfect being, existence is a property of perfection and thus, God must exist. I see his point of view, however, I also question it. In my opinion, the rebuttal he provides to the objections of God’s existence was a waste of time. Who cares if he does not think of a mountain and a valley as separate? That does not mean God exists. What would Descartes say concerning religions that believe in more than one God? He is basing his truths on the truths of a monotheist religion. It seems Descartes is a biased man who cannot think in any other way but that of which he believes. What makes him think he is so special that he can discern the truths of the world? How does he even know he is thinking “clearly and distinctly”? Even though his Meditations may not be correct, he sure does make you think!

Med: part 5 Last Paragraph

Here Descarte say how he finally clearly understood everything about every science when he came upon the "true God". Im not really sure if i understand what he meant when he said this because science and God are most of the time not compared to each other. But i can see where he could say something of this nature since he says that God was the one who is responsible for all that has ever exsisted. I think that God and science are conflicting subjects but most of what i have read of descarte has some type of conflicting subject in it.

meti. part 5 para.12 Perception

In paragraph 12 Decarte talks about perception and the way people see the things that he sees. He has an idea that what he understands and perceives clearly are the only things that he really believes. He compared his idea to math once again and how that is easily understood. He also goes on to say how he believes in God so much that he would never say he didn't believe in him. I find this to be a little contradicting since really there is no way for someone to explain all of the things God has done or said to have done. I mean i believe in God and all but its because I just have faith and even somethings i still have a hard time believing some of the things that have been said. Its really hard not to question something that has no real answer. 

Med Para 10 False assumptions vs. True ideas

Descartes does not at all see his belief in God’s existence (or the existence of perfection) as a false assumption but a true idea. He feels what is "clear and distinct" in our minds must be true. “I cannot even fabricate such a thing, so long as I am of a mind to admit only what I clearly and distinctly understand. Consequently, there is a great difference between false assumptions of this sort and true ideas that are inborn in me, the first and chief of which is the idea of God.” To Descartes God’s existence is more real than anything else. Descartes was really trying to find truths that suited him. You can even tell by his writing that he is sorting out the truth as he writes and thinking about arguments against his belief of the truth. Thus, Descartes must also doubt God’s existence since he feels the need to prove it and defend against arguments to the contrary. Why would you feel the need to prove something that you know exists? And my theory is the more he writes about God's existence, the more he believes it. As brought up in the class discussion, one also has to wonder what Descartes meant by God. Was it in a religious sense or something else? But whatever Descartes meant by God, he believed “God” to be perfect and supreme. Then the question is, as I mentioned in my conclusions on paragraphs 7, 8 & 9, what did he mean by perfection?

Med Para 7 & 8 & 9: Explanations to criticisms

Are the existence and essence of God interchangeable? Descartes believes they are not, however, he also recognizes it is easy for someone to be mistaken and separate the two. He compares separating God’s essence from existence like separating a mountain from a valley. The argument is a mountain cannot be separated from a valley just as God’s essence cannot be separated from his existence. God is a perfect being and how can a perfect being not exist since existence is a characteristic of perfection. Can one think of a perfect being without perfection existing? What really is perfection? It doesn’t seem that Descartes really defines what perfection is. To me, perfection is different for everyone. Thus everyone’s “God” would possess differing characteristics. Perfection does not have to be flawless to all; some may see one person’s view of the “perfect” “God” as imperfect. Thus, I am finding it very find to read without questioning his arguments to the criticisms.

Discourse part 4 par 2&3

Even though he may not have a body, or even may not be in a real place, just the very fact that he doubted the truth clearly showed that he with out a doubt existed. I beleive that he is rite on the money with his concept. Because no one can think for you, so in fact you have to be something, a thinking something. He knew that in order to exist, has no need of any place or any matherial things, it is simply just to think. Because he says i think therefor i am, he assumes that he is speaking the truth, and is very clear to him that in order to think, it is necessary to first exist. For him to think this way, to me is very amazing. By just thinking, he realized that every thing in world may not be what he thinks it is, but no matter all that he is alive and thinking very clearly.

Discourse Part 4 par 1

In the first paragraph in part four, Descartes tries to explain the "foundations" he's laid down. He feels he has to be in search for the truth. instead of finding the truth, he desides to look for the thing that are absolutly false. Descartes says that because our sences decieve us sometimes, nothing was exactly what it seemed, so he was questioning anything and everything. Because people make mistakes all the time, in even the simplest things, he was just as prone to err as any one else. He believes that because when we are sleeping it seems very real, who's to say that the world we're living in now isn't just a dream world. So he thought that the things that entered his mind were no more true than the illusions in his dreams. But then he realized something. He who was thinking had to be something. So he came up with his famous quote, " i think therefor i am". This such discovery was a solid as anything can get.

Discourse part 4 : dreaming

So Descarte things that every thought that is thought of has some points of truth. he says that our thoughts are most complete when they are we are asleep. I find this idea very hard to believe and something that I can hardly even think of. He also says thought that not all of our thoughts can be true since we aren't all perfect. All this kind of confuses me and makes the things that he has already said addressed even more difficult to conceive. 

discourse part 4 page 21-22

In the final part of part for I found that Descarte was really focusing on how God is perfect and exists because we think he does. I find this to be a very confusing concept to comprehend. I feel  that it contradicts what he says earlier in the discourse. He says that everything we think has some type of truth in it, but later says that since we are not perfect we can never be sure about things we think. It seems to me that he talks in circle and in every section of the discourse and in the meditations .