Rene Descartes, the father of modern philosophy famous for the saying, “I think, therefore I am,”–evidently I have taught some non-existing students–rejected religious authority in a quest for scientific and philosophical knowledge.
I thought I would increase some brain matter and stretch my power of reasoning by reading his A Discourse on Method Meditations and Principles. I knew I was in trouble when I struggled with the “introduction” section but I thought I would plow through it, anyway. After reading the “introduction,” I opened to the first page and read “Good sense is …” Now, wait a minute. Did the great philosopher Rene Descartes just begin his treatise with the word “good?” OK, I can understand a desire to find a reasonable answer to life by looking within logic and science but why start with an ethical word that transcends human reason? The ethical understanding of “good” belongs to God not to human understanding. I am not saying that there is not a sense of good within humanity but I am saying that any sense of good expressed in humanity has its roots in creation and our being made in God’s image. Any “good” that anyone might see does not have its root in humanity but in deity. Rene is trying to understand the physical by looking at the natural but his argument begins with the ethical and that belongs to the supernatural. Don’t get me wrong, I read past the first word but even his first sentence is flawed. That is another post, for sure.
What do you think? Is it fair for a naturalist to rely on the supernatural to prove his naturalism while denying the supernatural? That is confusing even for me!
