Q&A: A Question About Descartes’ Anthropological Argument
A Question About Descartes’ Anthropological Argument
Question
Hello,
I read that you do not accept Descartes’ argument as long as he is talking about infinity and God, because a person is capable of thinking about the idea of the infinite by reflecting on the idea of finitude that exists within him. On the other hand, I read that you are willing to accept the argument if, instead of being about God, it applies to morality and values. I didn’t fully understand that. Are you claiming that morality and values are things a person cannot think about without help from God? I would appreciate some clarification.
(I’d appreciate it if you could try to write as simply as possible; I’m not an academic.)
Thanks in advance.
Answer
I didn’t say that a person cannot think about values unless God caused him to think about them. What I said is that values have no validity unless God legislated them. That is not the same claim.
But actually, now I would add that it seems one could not even think about them without God. The concept of value is not an extension of another familiar concept, but something that truly has no root at all in our experience or in the reality around us, and apparently is a complete invention. Therefore there is no reason this would occur to us or that we would understand it unless God planted it within us. This is not like the concept of God, which is nothing more than an extension of finite entities.
Discussion on Answer
Why do you think that specifically values are “something that truly has no root at all in our experience or in the reality around us, and apparently is a complete invention”? How do you see things like mathematics or philosophy in reality?
2. Let’s say it is a complete invention—why would that prove the existence of God?
What I’m really asking is: what are the criteria for something that has a root in our experience and in the reality around us? After all, you could also come to observe values and say they exist. How is that different from mathematics, physics, philosophy, and so on…?
There are no criteria. There are things for which we have experience of similar things, and things for which we do not. What is there to explain here? There is simply no way to see value in the world around us. That’s all.
Hello Rabbi, another question regarding the anthropological argument.
Given that it is proven that infinity does not exist in material reality, then by definition we would not be able to imagine God without external help, because a finite material reality like us would simply not be able to think about something infinite. In that case too, the claim that we can learn from the finite things in our world would no longer hold, because it just doesn’t make sense that we would be able to conceive of it.
What do you think, Rabbi?
Thanks in advance.
I really disagree. There is no problem imagining it. Moreover, even if it does exist, none of us has seen it, so even according to your view we still would not have been able to imagine it.
By the way, “anthropological” is spelled with a tav, like “anthropology.” Anthropos = human being.