Ontological Proof

Rene’ Descartes

Descartes, as I understand it, in his Discours de la méthode (1637), was attempting “to unify all knowledge as the product of clear reasoning from self-evident premises.” Following the 11th century work of St. Anselm, Descartes added his reasoning to something called the “Ontological Proof.” It appears to be an attempt to assert the existence of God rationally. I find the proof compelling for that very reason, rationality reaching to explain what many rationalist appear to consider irrational.

There are different versions, possibly translations, of the proof. What follows I owe once again to Dr. Tom Morris’, Philosophy for Dummies. In short, the proof says, “God's existence is inferred directly from the fact that necessary existence is contained in the clear and distinct idea of a supremely perfect being,” or in a longer version as a construct:

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.

Morris writes, “Descartes compared the ontological argument to a geometric demonstration, arguing that necessary existence cannot be excluded from idea of God anymore than the fact that its angles equal two right angles can be excluded from the idea of a triangle.” The ontological proof asserts God’s existence is as obvious and self-evident as basic mathematical truth.

Descartes and Morris point out this proof is intuitively both compelling and unsatisfying. I am less troubled by the ambiguity of their responses. In fact, Descartes ambiguity is part of what I find compelling about the proof. He is represented as believing the most compelling proof of God is primarily experiential, making rational proof just an addendum to faith already embraced, and not evidence bringing the unbelieving rationalist to faith. He presents rational argument asserting God’s existence is “obvious and self-evident,” but draws his faith from what he perceives to be God’s actions in his life.

To me it is as if Descartes recognizes the inherent weakness of rationality. Rational conclusions are only as valid as their supporting data. Rational conclusions are subject to the changes brought about by new data, more complete data, or a new understanding of old data. Rationality is ephemeral because it is totally dependent on evidence from an ephemeral world. Rationalists claiming to have found something eternal or universal, by that very claim, step onto metaphysical turf and away from their core belief, for nothing in the rational world can be eternal or universal.

I believe, by presenting rational proof as secondary to the faith engendered by experiencing God in his life, Descartes asserts faiths’ supremacy. The faithful are sure their hopes will be fulfilled and are certain of things they do not see. The faithful are irrational. They develop faith by believing others testimony about God, by responding to the loving acts of God in their own lives, by making leaps of faith, by any or all of several inherently “irrational” actions. When the faithful step into their core beliefs, embracing the certainties hopes will be fulfilled and that the unseen exists, they embrace the only things eternal and universal accessible to anyone in the transient ephemera of this world.