Week 2 - Descartes, methodological skepticism and the "Truth"

This week I was introduced to Rene Descartes, a 17th Century French philosopher and mathematician who was determined to achieve certainty about the nature of reality. He developed methodological skepticism as a way of rigorously testing his belief system and getting to the truth. If there was a possibility than any of his beliefs could be doubted, he suspended judgement regarding that belief.

I found myself impressed by Descartes' willingness to subject all of his beliefs to thorough examination. I think scrutinizing and demolishing ones formerly held belief system, then reconstructing it through reason and logic, is not for the weak hearted or undisciplined. I don't think I could do it. However I remain unconvinced by his argument for the existence of a biblical style, all knowing God. I'm not sure about the extent to which he really questioned his existing beliefs.  I think that the common tendency for human beings is not to change beliefs that make us feel safe. Once we find a belief system that provides us with comfort, we often protect it and fit any observations of reality into the existing structure. I think that Descartes, in some respects, may have been unwittingly asking himself leading questions that would guide him back to the answers he preferred.

According to my text Descartes was always "a sincere Catholic" "who hoped that his works would be of service to theology". Descartes decided that God must exist because he had an idea of God "as an infinite and perfect being". And he, as a finite and imperfect being, could not generate an idea like that unless such perfection and omniscience actually existed.  I'm not saying that Descartes is necessarily wrong, but this is where his argument fails to move me. I can imagine a lot of things, both pleasant and unpleasant, that are beyond my experience. I can fantasize that our universe is a piece of dust on the bottom of the foot of a being in a larger version of our world, but that doesn't mean it's true.

On a personal note, when Hurricane Irene was about to pass over New York City, I had a telephone conversation with one of my religious relatives about it. She was naturally concerned for me, but she also had decided that God was using the hurricane as a warning to people for not paying attention to his commands. I immediately thought that if such a thing were true, God would be using a very inexact tool to mete out his punishment. What about all of the "innocent" people? My comment, that good people who don't deserve any punishment often have bad things happening to them, was ignored because it made her uncomfortable and did not fit into her preconceived notions.

In viewing a clip this week from the movie, "The Matrix", I thought about the scene in which Morpheus offers Neo the choice of either taking the "red pill" or the "blue pill". The blue pill will allow Neo to fall comfortably back to sleep and forget all of the scary things he is becoming aware of. The red pill offers no comfort, just a clear vision of reality, much of it unpleasant.

I wonder if I have the courage to take the metaphorical red pill and go wherever my philosophical questioning might lead me - even if it leads to answers that I don't want to find. What do we actually do with our knowledge of truth or our uncertainty? Perhaps the way I choose to live my life is more important than being absolutely certain that I have the truth.