On God

Descartes~Idea of God

How Idea of perfection came into being if nothing perfect ever existed?
The argument is logically correct for we can have knowledge of things which we are acquainted with. Direct or indirect, indirect in case of knowledge by description or by induction (logic). To start with let’s examine perfection as an idea. What exactly does it means to us? Perfection is not God but a quality attributed to God. So we can conclude that Perfection as an idea is a quality and not God itself. What is however more relevant is even for a quality to exist as an idea we must be acquainted with it, which is in fact the crux of the argument.

What is Perfection? Are we acquainted with it?

Perfection if defined will take us to a combination of superlatives. There are qualities which we are acquainted with, qualities like beauty, strength, intellect, courage etc etc. These are qualities/virtues that exist and we are acquainted with. What is perfect then? It is a quality that comprises of superlatives of all other such quality that we are acquainted with. Perfection is thus combination of ideas. Another relevant doubt will be can we ever say 2+2=4 if we are not initially acquainted with the idea of 4. Answer to this lies in Kant’s Transcendental Analytic where in he has clearly pointed out that our mind is not merely a passive instrument, a collection of thought but an active one which can extrapolate knowledge from the already existing one. Relativity and off late the concept of singularity is example of such knowledge, Ideas which we have induced and derived rather than acquainted.

Can God exist as an Idea if not Real?

Well, we have discussed knowledge by acquaintance and induction/derivation but there remains knowledge by description. You have taken up an apt example 100 $ Note. Your knowledge of it is not by acquaintance but by description. If we were to limit ourselves only to knowledge that we ourselves get acquainted to or derive thereof, we would have never progressed so far. Knowledge by description how we share our knowledge, in fact I can further add that what cannot be described is not knowledge at all (limitation of language on description and thus our knowledge is another interesting topic on which James have elaborated). So we can conclude that we perhaps know God also as you know 100$ through description. Obvious question arising is that even the knowledge of description is indirectly knowledge of acquaintance. Somebody is acquainted with 100$ note and so has described it. Fortunately or unfortunately so is the case with the God. There are people who have claimed to have been acquainted with God. Prophets and Messiahs who have described God to us, knowledge of description the liberty lie with us to accept or reject an idea but as long as a single person exist who claims of such an acquaintance, God will exist.

Is all that exist real?

At this juncture I assume that we can agree God exists in human collective conscious as an idea for sure. Ideas are units of thought that are complete in it self. Ideas are to thought as sentences are to language. To examine if an idea is real or not we have to define what is real? I don’t confirm to idealist in this regard, my arguments against idealism as brought out by Russell in ‘Problems of philosophy’ are there in the post ‘On Reality’. Not all of reality however qualifies as absolute reality. There exists a lot of what we construe as reality which is subjective. Subjective reality does not ideally requisition any proof but an individual’s belief in it a trust on his own instincts intellect and senses. God again qualify as a subjective reality so does not requisition any proof in itself for those who believe will believe in it regardless of any argument against it.

God as a construct…

Assuming that God is an idea lets examine what would have led to its origin. What sustains it for no idea as doubtable as God can survive if it had no purpose no reason to exist? Human conscious as we can see is conditioned. What is the greatest pain of being conscious? Being aware but unable to control it, what our future holds for us is very dynamic set of probability where in lies our greatest fears and our greatest hope. I may die the very next moment or worse loose my limbs are a probability. On the other hand there are equally wonderful hopes that are equally probable. Our brains being a survival instrument prefers to dwell in hopes rather than fears. To achieve it needs conditioning a fear-hope conditioning where in I believe lays the reason for idea of God to exist. Hope is more often than not our belief that equations of probability will run in our favour. There are millions of people to whom the concept of God gives hopes and a reason to live. Research has shown that people with atheistic beliefs are more prone to depression than theist. The choice between an optimistic illusion and a pessimistic reality is a rather difficult one to make. From individualistic approach one need not worry as it’s a choice of the individual, let men decide what they want to believe. It is however a sad reality that there exists not many individuals, not many free minds, those who can decide for themselves.

As philosophers here we are facing an ethical question…On name of reality and reason are we justified to take away from the masses their hope. If intellectual reason is able to prove that God is indeed nothing but an illusion what do we achieve on the name of truth…is it worth it. There is a poem I would like to share

To Hope - John Keats

WHEN by my solitary hearth I sit,
When no fair dreams before my “mind’s eye” flit,
And the bare heath of life presents no bloom;
Sweet Hope, ethereal balm upon me shed,
And wave thy silver pinions o’er my head.

Whene’er I wander, at the fall of night,
Where woven boughs shut out the moon’s bright ray,
Should sad Despondency my musings fright,
And frown, to drive fair Cheerfulness away,
Peep with the moon-beams through the leafy roof,
And keep that fiend Despondence far aloof.

Should Disappointment, parent of Despair,
Strive for her son to seize my careless heart;
When, like a cloud, he sits upon the air,
Preparing on his spell-bound prey to dart:
Chase him away, sweet Hope, with visage bright,
And fright him as the morning frightens night!

Whene’er the fate of those I hold most dear
Tells to my fearful breast a tale of sorrow,
O bright-eyed Hope, my morbid fancy cheer;
Let me awhile thy sweetest comforts borrow:
Thy heaven-born radiance around me shed,
And wave thy silver pinions o’er my head!

Should e’er unhappy love my bosom pain,
From cruel parents, or relentless fair;
O let me think it is not quite in vain
To sigh out sonnets to the midnight air!
Sweet Hope, ethereal balm upon me shed,
And wave thy silver pinions o’er my head!

In the long vista of the years to roll,
Let me not see our country’s honour fade:
O let me see our land retain her soul,
Her pride, her freedom; and not freedom’s shade.
From thy bright eyes unusual brightness shed—
Beneath thy pinions canopy my head!

Let me not see the patriot’s high bequest,
Great Liberty! how great in plain attire!
With the base purple of a court oppress’d,
Bowing her head, and ready to expire:
But let me see thee stoop from heaven on wings
That fill the skies with silver glitterings!

And as, in sparkling majesty, a star
Gilds the bright summit of some gloomy cloud;
Brightening the half veil’d face of heaven afar:
So, when dark thoughts my boding spirit shroud,
Sweet Hope, celestial influence round me shed,
Waving thy silver pinions o’er my head.
February, 1815.