13. Question 15

How successful is the deceiving God argument? (3)

The success of the deceiving God argument is a matter of debate. Some philosophers argue that it effectively establishes radical doubt and undermines many of our ordinary beliefs, while others have criticized it for being overly skeptical and for relying on dubious assumptions. However, it is clear that the argument has been influential in the history of philosophy, and has stimulated much discussion and debate.

Although the bot has given us three sentences, I would find it difficult to award three marks. I can see how, if you felt generous, you might award two marks but the answer doesn't really contain very much. I think part of the problem is that it is really quite challenging to write a paragraph answer that would say three things worthy of a point. Once you've said that the deceiving God argument is very effective because it enables you to doubt all your previously held beliefs, including those that remain unaffected by the dream argument, anything else seems like padding. Indeed, given what is said in the previous question even that seems like repetition.

The SQA's marking scheme doesn't really help. It really does look as if something has gone a little awry and I wouldn't be awarding any marks for bullet points 1, 3 or 4.

Award 1 mark for any of the following points:
It is successful

  • if there was not an all-powerful God, then there would be nothing powerful enough to deceive you at all times
  • it allows him to doubt his previous held beliefs and further his project of finding foundational truths.

It is not successful

  • he does not apply the methodological scepticism as rigorously as he does in the rest of Meditation 1
  • it is not convincing for someone who does not believe in God.

Any other relevant point.

The first is surely wrong. There might be a malicious demon and, in any case, just because something is powerful enough to deceive me at all times doesn't mean it has to be all-powerful. It just has to be powerful enough to deceive me at all times.

Perhaps I'm missing something but, with regard to the third point, I don't know why someone would make this claim especially as Descartes goes on to address the objection that a good God can't be a deceiver and considers the alternative of rejecting the existence of God.

As for the fourth bullet point, I wouldn't be awarding that a mark for the same reasons I wouldn't award a mark to a candidate who said the malicious demon hypothesis isn't successful because not everyone believes in the demon. In both cases the crucial point is being missed. It isn't necessary to believe in either entity, the mere possibility is enough to bring about the required doubt.

It is difficult to know exactly what criticisms might reasonably be expected from someone sitting the course. There would be merit in saying that, Descartes' defence notwithstanding, some people may argue that the notion of a good God who nevertheless deceives us at all times doesn't make sense and is somehow contradictory. This ought to be followed by a challenge to Descartes' defence. One might say there is a big and important difference between a God that deceives on some occasions and a God that deceives us all the time.

I thought it worth pushing chatGPT on this...

You said that the deceiving God argument might be "relying on dubious assumptions". Can you be more specific about these dubious assumptions.

Certainly! There are a few assumptions that Descartes makes in the deceiving God argument that some philosophers have criticized as dubious:

The existence of a supremely powerful and deceitful God: Descartes assumes that it is possible for there to be a God who is powerful enough to manipulate his thoughts and perceptions, and deceitful enough to want to deceive him. Some philosophers have questioned whether such a being is even possible, or whether it makes sense to attribute deceitful intentions to a perfect God.

The reliability of clear and distinct perceptions: Descartes assumes that he can trust his clear and distinct perceptions as a reliable source of knowledge. However, some philosophers have argued that clear and distinct perceptions may not always be accurate, and that there may be cases in which they are deceptive or illusory.

The possibility of radical doubt: Descartes assumes that it is possible to doubt even our most basic beliefs, and that this doubt can lead to certain and indubitable knowledge. However, some philosophers have questioned whether radical doubt is a legitimate philosophical method, or whether it leads to excessive skepticism that undermines our ability to make meaningful claims about the world.

Overall, while the deceiving God argument has been influential in the history of philosophy, some philosophers have raised questions about the plausibility of its assumptions and the soundness of its conclusions.

I have some problems with your reply.

With (1) Descartes provides an argument why it makes sense to believe that a perfectly good god can deceive us, albeit an argument that I think is flawed.
(2) is irrelevant as Descartes doesn't introduce the notion of clear and distinct perceptions until much later, and
(3) isn't an assumption behind the deceiving God argument. The whole point of the deceiving god hypothesis is that it does lead to a "skepticism that undermines our ability to make meaningful claims about the world" at least until he realises that you cannot be deceived about your own existence.

Thank you for bringing these points to my attention. I apologize for any confusion caused by my previous response. Allow me to provide a more accurate and detailed answer to your original question about the dubious assumptions underlying Descartes' deceiving God argument:

The existence of a supremely powerful and deceitful God: While Descartes argues that it is possible to conceive of a God who is both supremely powerful and deceitful, some philosophers have questioned the coherence of this concept. They argue that it is logically contradictory to attribute deceitful intentions to a perfectly good God, or that a being that is all-powerful would not need to resort to deceit in order to achieve its aims.

The reliability of perceptual experience: Descartes' argument relies on the assumption that perceptual experiences can be called into question. However, some philosophers have argued that it is difficult to doubt our perceptual experiences in the way that Descartes suggests. They argue that perceptual experiences are immediate and indubitable, and that it is only our interpretations of those experiences that can be doubted.

The legitimacy of radical doubt: The deceiving God argument is one of several strategies that Descartes uses to generate radical doubt. Some philosophers have questioned the legitimacy of this method, arguing that it is unclear whether it is possible to doubt everything, or whether radical doubt leads to excessive skepticism that undermines our ability to make meaningful claims about the world.

While the deceiving God argument has been influential in the history of philosophy, some philosophers have raised questions about the plausibility of its assumptions and the soundness of its conclusions.