The Question of God’s Existence

Jacob Willey

Dr. Susan Brown

Philosophy 2010

27 Oct 2016

The Question of God’s Existence

            Cogito, ergo sum, the expression that means, “I think, therefor I am”, declared by Rene’ Descartes in the seventeenth century, was a groundbreaking revelation at the time. Although this statement is fascinating in itself, an existential conclusion such as this falls short of being able to explain one of philosophy’s greatest questions, “Is there a God?”. Alluded to in his Third Meditation and covered more in his Fifth Meditation, Rene’ Descartes uses Cogito ergo sum as the logical basis for the existence of God, an existence we cannot verify with our five senses. This defense of the God’s existence is what I find the most fascinating out of Descartes’s theories. Descartes must determine whether there is a God, and whether or not He is a deceiver.

            In his Third Meditation, Descartes decides that he must “inquire whether there is a God as soon as the occasion presents itself” (Soccio 163). Descartes uses a technique of “closing my eyes” and “stopping my ears” (Soccio, 164), essentially isolating only what he can know for certain to obtain truth. In doing so, Descartes realizes that he has knowledge of an “infinite, independent, all-knowing, all-powerful” existence. Author David Soccio summarizes Descartes’s conclusion by pointing out that we, as finite humans, cannot possibly have an innate understanding of something that is perfect, because we ourselves are not perfect, nor are we capable of creating anything perfect. If we cannot know what is perfect, then somehow something that is perfect must exist for us to have knowledge of it. As Descartes puts it, “Now all these characteristics are such that the more diligently I attend to them, the less do they appear capable of providing from me alone; hence, from what has been already said, we must conclude that God necessarily exists” (Soccio 164).

            Now that Descartes has established that God exists and is the source of reason, he then sets out to discover whether or not God is truth, or a deceiver. I find this second question equally as fascinating because it follows the thought process of eliminating everything that we “cannot know” and begins with only what we do know. Soccio summarizes Descartes’s conclusion by pointing out that if God is a god of reason, it must be concluded that God wants us to use that reason to find truth. At this point, there are only two options left. If God is, in fact, a deceiver, he has given us the ability to discern truth, which would nullify the point of deceiving in the first place. Since a deceiver would not logically give us the keys to discovering truth, we must thereby conclude that God is the source of reason and is himself, truth.

            The prime reason that Descartes’s conclusion fascinates me is that, although he himself was religious, he used secular logic to come to this conclusion. Of course, his very conclusion makes the term “secular logic” a contradiction in terms, because he found that God is the source of all logic. Still, he sought to prove the existence of God without using typical religious idioms. He did not stop at the existence of God but went further to ensure that the entire idea was not, in itself, a lie. David Soccio concludes that the existence of God and His relation to nature was the centerpiece to Descartes’s philosophy.

           

 

 

Works Cited

Soccio, Douglas J. Philosophy in Context: A Historical Introduction. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth, 2006. Print.

Comparing the Meyers-Briggs Personality Test (PSY 2012)

 A Comparison of Two Personality Tests

            Humans are an incredibly diverse species. As modern psychology evolves, we are developing more precise methods of categorizing personalities by grouping those traits that we deem most important. In this essay, I will be comparing two personality tests, the Meyers-Brings test, and the VIA Strengths test using both to answer three questions: Who am I now? What is my potential? What will inhibit my goals? In doing this, I will determine which test is the most useful to me personally.

Who Am I? That is a question that we have been asking for generations. Psychologists have generally embraces the five factor theory in regard to what makes us unique as far as personality (Grison, Heatherton & Gazzaniga, 2014, p.436). According to the Meyers-Briggs test, I am described as very outgoing (extroverted). The test goes further to explain that I get along with people, even folks who have differing views. The test also describes us as “global learners”, however we learn “just enough to get by”, which is a caveat that will come into play later. The VIA Strengths test agrees with this statement, as it lists my first quality as “love of learning”. Comparing the two tests however, The Meyers- Briggs test gives me a much more detailed idea of how my personality is categorized. For instance, the VIA Strengths test indicates that I love learning, and I believe that I do, but the Meyers-Briggs tests points out that those with my same personality tend to learn things only enough to function, but not to master the subject. If I were trying to find a major to study in college, I would need to know my limitations rather than assuming I must love learning so I can study anything. From this example, I can say that the Meyers-Brigs test is more informative and so more useful to me.

What are my strengths? Two tests give me strengths of others in my category, one is specifically designed to show only strengths. Again, I believe that the Meyers-Briggs test, though not specifically designed to show strengths, is a more effective portrayal of who I am and what my strengths are. My second quality in the strengths test is Zest, described as approaching life full of energy, not doing anything halfway. While I do feel that I am full of energy and that life excites me, I do often leave tasks incomplete. The Meyers-Briggs test mentions this setback in my personality and even brings to light the fact that this inability to complete tasks can be hard on any relationships I have. In my spare time, I enjoy composing music. It is true, I have a zest for music, I have a love for learning music, and I even experience love when I write music, love being the third quality in my strengths test. In this case, and there are many others, the. Meyers-Briggs test provides a more accurate view of myself in regard to zest as a strength.

What are my strengths? Two tests give me strengths of others in my category, one is specifically designed to show only strengths. Again, I believe that the Meyers-Briggs test, though not specifically designed to show strengths, is a more effective portrayal of who I am and what my strengths are. My second quality in the strengths test is Zest, described as approaching life full of energy, not doing anything halfway. While I do feel that I am full of energy and that life excites me, I do often leave tasks incomplete. The Meyers-Briggs test mentions this setback in my personality and even brings to light the fact that this inability to complete tasks can be hard on any relationships I have. In my spare time, I enjoy composing music. It is true, I have a zest for music, I have a love for learning music, and I even experience love when I write music, love being the third quality in my strengths test. In this case, and there are many others, the. Meyers-Briggs test provides a more accurate view of myself in regard to zest as a strength.

What is holding me back? This is a question that can only be answered by reflecting on the Meyers-Briggs test, unless I were to factor the lowest strengths in the Strength test as being non-strengths. I need to know what my limits are before I embark on any new projects or relationships. The Meyers-Briggs test brings to light two setbacks of my personality, which is a short attention span and needing to be the center of attention. Fortunately, empathy and extroversion are my strengths, so to correct this, I know that I need to be more aware of when I become emotionally needy or narcissistic, and use those strengths in getting to know people and making them comfortable to circumvent the more negative aspects. In my workcenter, I’m used to being the center of attention as I am in an advisory role, as a subject matter expert. If I’m not careful, I tend to expect people to do things my way, and I don’t pay attention to their needs or other ways of doing things. After reading my results on both tests, it occurred to me that my strength is love, and love of learning, and that can be applied to learning other ways of doing things. Lately I’ve taken time to step out of the spotlight and become enthusiastic about learning the Navy way of doing things, and understanding the emotional needs of the Sailors in my shop in order to be a better leader. While I appreciate the Meyers-Briggs test more because it suggested my weaknesses, both tests helped me create a better environment at work but harnessing my strengths in ways I would not have thought of otherwise.

Most of us tend to focus on the positive within ourselves, but when taking an honest look at ourselves we need to see the bad with the good, the ugly with the pleasant. In reviewing both tests, it is clear that both offer a set of strengths attributed to my personality type, and both tests were able to describe me accurately. One test, however, was able to capture the “downside”, so because of that, I find the Briggs-Meyers test much more inclusive and thorough.

First blog post

This is your very first post. Click the Edit link to modify or delete it, or start a new post. If you like, use this post to tell readers why you started this blog and what you plan to do with it.