Having shown that God, the designer of our world, must exist and must be an omnibenevolent being, Descartes now faced a difficulty: If God doesn’t deceive us, how is it that we can ever be wrong? It is certainly true that we are wrong – as Descartes himself showed in the first Meditation, we are often mistaken about our beliefs. Since our mistakes cannot be the fault of God, they must be our own fault.
Descartes believes that all of our mistakes occur as a result of our arrogance – because we think or pretend that we can know things that we cannot know.
Descartes refers to Aristotle’s four causes or kinds of explanations:
Firstly, we can answer the question by referring to the material that something is ‘made out of’. For example, ‘the table is hard because it is made out of wood’. (This is known as a material explanation.)
Secondly, we can explain something in terms of a formula, rule, or definition. For example, ‘This shape has 3 sides because it is a triangle’; ‘Dave is a bachelor because he is an unmarried man’. (This is known as a formal explanation.)
Thirdly, we can give an answer that relates to the cause, or causer of the event or thing. What causes something to happen? For example, ‘The pencil is on the floor because Dave dropped it’; ‘the snooker ball moved because it was hit by the cue’. (This is known as an efficient explanation.)
Fourthly, we can explain something in terms of purpose or function, in terms of reasons. For example, ‘he went to the supermarket because he wanted bread’; ‘the knife is sharp so it can cut things’; ‘I am late because I wanted to go to the toilet.’ (This is known as a final or teleological explanation.)
The concept of a final cause was taken up and adapted by Aquinas during the Mediaeval period. In effect, the notion was christianised. Whereas Aristotle thought that the purpose of a thing could be derived from the characteristic powers it happened to possess. There was no need for an explanation in terms of a designer.
Aquinas couldn’t countenance such an idea and had to attribute all purposes to God. In one of his arguments for the existence of God he wrote:
‘We observe that some things which lack awareness, namely natural bodies, act for the sake of an end. . . . Now things which lack aware- ness do not tend towards a goal unless directed by something with awareness and intelligence, like an arrow by an archer. Therefore there is some intelligent being by whom everything in nature is directed to a goal, and this we call “God”.’
–Aquinas’ Fifth Way, Summa TheologicaGiven this understanding of a final explanation, Descartes believed that we should not concern ourselves with it. Descartes thought that it was arrogance to think that we could know what the purpose of things was. That would be tantamount to knowing the mind of God.
I consider the customary search for final causes to be totally useless in physics; for I do not think I can without rashness investigate God's impenetrable purposes.
—René Descartes, Meditation IV (1641)For Descartes, the whole universe should be viewed as a huge mechanism, like a great mechanical clock. According to him, it isn’t our job to understand why it is like it is, it is only our job to know what it’s made of, how it works, and most importantly, the rules that govern it all.
But, since I assign determinate figures, magnitudes, and motions to the insensible particles of bodies, as if I had seen them, whereas I admit that they do not fall under the senses, some one will perhaps demand how I have come by my knowledge of them. [To this I reply, that I first considered in general all the clear and distinct notions of material things that are to be found in our understanding, and that, finding no others except those of figures, magnitudes, and motions, and of the rules according to which these three things can be diversified by each other, which rules are the principles of geometry and mechanics, I judged that all the knowledge man can have of nature must of necessity be drawn from this source; because all the other notions we have of sensible things, as confused and obscure, can be of no avail in affording us the knowledge of anything out of ourselves, but must serve rather to impede it]. Thereupon, taking as my ground of inference the simplest and best known of the principles that have been implanted in our minds by nature, I considered the chief differences that could possibly subsist between the magnitudes, and figures, and situations of bodies insensible on account of their smallness alone, and what sensible effects could be produced by their various modes of coming into contact; and afterwards, when I found like effects in the bodies that we perceive by our senses, I judged that they could have been thus produced, especially since no other mode of explaining them could be devised. And in this matter the example of several bodies made by art was of great service to me: for I recognize no difference between these and natural bodies beyond this, that the effects of machines depend for the most part on the agency of certain instruments, which, as they must bear some proportion to the hands of those who make them, are always so large that their figures and motions can be seen; in place of which, the effects of natural bodies almost always depend upon certain organs so minute as to escape our senses. And it is certain that all the rules of mechanics belong also to physics, of which it is a part or species, [so that all that is artificial is withal natural]: for it is not less natural for a clock, made of the requisite number of wheels, to mark the hours, than for a tree, which has sprung from this or that seed, to produce the fruit peculiar to it. Accordingly, just as those who are familiar with automata, when they are informed of the use of a machine, and see some of its parts, easily infer from these the way in which the others, that are not seen by them, are made; so from considering the sensible effects and parts of natural bodies, I have essayed to determine the character of their causes and insensible parts.
—René Descartes, Principles of Philosophy, Part IV,, section 203It's all very well saying that we mustn't question God, but if we remove teleological explanations from science, how can we explain why people do the things they do? Does every explanation have to be in terms of chemistry and physics?
Also, if we can't talk about purpose, and if we must treat everything as if it is a mechanism, how are we to discuss things like morality? Can a machine be moral or immoral?
Explain why Descartes thought we made mistakes in science and what he thought we should do about it. You should mention:
Four kinds of explanation
Teleological explanation
Aristotle
Aquinas
Give one objection to Descartes' claims.
Evaluate his point of view.