4 ms·

Boyle didn't spend a lot of time writing philosophy, his close friend Locke undertook that; it was a very productive division of labor. Hume is often regarded a

Boyle didn't spend a lot of time writing philosophy, his close friend Locke undertook that; it was a very productive division of labor. Hume is often regarded as the founder of Psychology as a science. Descartes was willing to please the authorities with rationalist-religious smoke, and very proud of smoking them, too - until he too had to flee to Holland when his empiricism was no longer tolerated. So no, he was not "deeply religious." His codification of empirical methodology (which uses the word analysis in the title) was important to science and the philosophy of science but doesn't promote rationalism, quite the contrary. He did make key contributions to empirical science and mathematics. Leibnitz didn't create science or do experimental science per se, he was curious about binary numbers and created better notation for calculus (but these are tools not scientific discoveries). His contributions to science are vaguer - he sowed about as much confusion as light. I haven't looked at his biography in a long time, but I have lectured about him at a conference at Harvard. I certainly agree that scientists tend to be poor philosophers - it's not the same task. Heisenberg's book is just one recent example of that. Descartes and Galileo are exceptions, particularly with regard to codifying what the scientific method was.

cousin_it 9y ago
Do you think Descartes pretended to be religious?
- Nomentatus 9y ago
  My professors absolutely did. Pascal was sincerely (but as a heretic) religious, and contributed to science. Descartes liked to stay alive, and was under pressure by the likes of Martin Schoock to show he wasn't an atheist and so should be tolerated. The church wasn't persuaded by Descartes and his books were ultimately banned. Pretending to be in some way religious is necessary when the Church is in charge. Egypt, today, holds a death penalty in store for those convicted of atheism; strong motivation for a little harmless pretence.
  - foldr 9y ago
    His whole line of argument in the medications would collapse if God didn't exist. He may well have been a heretic, but that is very different from not believing in God. The alleged reasons for thinking Descartes was an atheist basically amount to the observation that if he had have been an atheist he probably wouldn't have said that he was an atheist. That is true, but that is no reason to think that he actually was an atheist. By the same token, if he had liked eating babies for breakfast, he probably wouldn't have mentioned it in his work, but that is no reason to think that he in fact did.
    - Nomentatus 9y ago
      He couldn't say nothing, so he offered some rationalizations for the church. Atheism carried a death penalty, and he was already accused - we only really know that he liked to be alive.
      - foldr 9y ago
        I think the issue here is that there is a huge distance between merely believing in God and being an orthodox Christian. It's easy to see why the Church didn't like Descartes' work, because it upended the scholastic metaphysics that much church doctrine rested on. But there is really no evidence that Descartes did not believe God existed. This is especially so given that one of his arguments for God's existence is original. If he was just trotting out some arguments to keep up appearances, why would he bother coming up with a new argument?
        Nomentatus 9y ago
        Schook's accusations were more profound, Descartes never attacked specific Catholic doctrines to my knowledge. Nor did the Church ban the writings of every person they knew to be Protestant or non-Catholic, as they banned Descartes' works.
        foldr 9y ago
- hyperpape 9y ago
  It's pretty commonly believed in the field, though my impression was that there's no definitive evidence.
  - foldr 9y ago
    Is it really? I can't find any evidence of that. Could you link to an article or something that makes the case for his being an atheist?
    - hyperpape 9y ago
      Hmm, maybe I overstepped by saying it's commonly believed, but there were attacks in his own time, and there have been persistent questions. Perhaps it's all just rumor--I heard about the question from one of my professors who was a Descartes specialist, but I can't recall how seriously he took it. One point has been that the appeals to God in Descartes philosophy have seemed rather tacked on to many readers (the way they might be for an atheist writer operating in a very theistic environment). Mersenne argued that Descartes' system gave no reason to think our knowledge of mathematics depended on God, for instance. Edit: this is something I haven't thought about since a course a dozen years ago, so I wouldn't put much weight on my recollection (positive or negative).
      - foldr 9y ago
        >One point has been that the appeals to God in Descartes philosophy have seemed rather tacked on to many readers I don't see that at all. His entire argument in the Meditations collapses if God isn't there to provide a guarantee that he is not being deceived.

cousin_it 9y ago

Do you think Descartes pretended to be religious?

Nomentatus 9y ago
My professors absolutely did. Pascal was sincerely (but as a heretic) religious, and contributed to science. Descartes liked to stay alive, and was under pressure by the likes of Martin Schoock to show he wasn't an atheist and so should be tolerated. The church wasn't persuaded by Descartes and his books were ultimately banned. Pretending to be in some way religious is necessary when the Church is in charge. Egypt, today, holds a death penalty in store for those convicted of atheism; strong motivation for a little harmless pretence.
- foldr 9y ago
  His whole line of argument in the medications would collapse if God didn't exist. He may well have been a heretic, but that is very different from not believing in God. The alleged reasons for thinking Descartes was an atheist basically amount to the observation that if he had have been an atheist he probably wouldn't have said that he was an atheist. That is true, but that is no reason to think that he actually was an atheist. By the same token, if he had liked eating babies for breakfast, he probably wouldn't have mentioned it in his work, but that is no reason to think that he in fact did.
  - Nomentatus 9y ago
    He couldn't say nothing, so he offered some rationalizations for the church. Atheism carried a death penalty, and he was already accused - we only really know that he liked to be alive.
    - foldr 9y ago
      I think the issue here is that there is a huge distance between merely believing in God and being an orthodox Christian. It's easy to see why the Church didn't like Descartes' work, because it upended the scholastic metaphysics that much church doctrine rested on. But there is really no evidence that Descartes did not believe God existed. This is especially so given that one of his arguments for God's existence is original. If he was just trotting out some arguments to keep up appearances, why would he bother coming up with a new argument?
      - Nomentatus 9y ago
        Schook's accusations were more profound, Descartes never attacked specific Catholic doctrines to my knowledge. Nor did the Church ban the writings of every person they knew to be Protestant or non-Catholic, as they banned Descartes' works.
        foldr 9y ago
hyperpape 9y ago
It's pretty commonly believed in the field, though my impression was that there's no definitive evidence.
- foldr 9y ago
  Is it really? I can't find any evidence of that. Could you link to an article or something that makes the case for his being an atheist?
  - hyperpape 9y ago
    Hmm, maybe I overstepped by saying it's commonly believed, but there were attacks in his own time, and there have been persistent questions. Perhaps it's all just rumor--I heard about the question from one of my professors who was a Descartes specialist, but I can't recall how seriously he took it. One point has been that the appeals to God in Descartes philosophy have seemed rather tacked on to many readers (the way they might be for an atheist writer operating in a very theistic environment). Mersenne argued that Descartes' system gave no reason to think our knowledge of mathematics depended on God, for instance. Edit: this is something I haven't thought about since a course a dozen years ago, so I wouldn't put much weight on my recollection (positive or negative).
    - foldr 9y ago
      >One point has been that the appeals to God in Descartes philosophy have seemed rather tacked on to many readers I don't see that at all. His entire argument in the Meditations collapses if God isn't there to provide a guarantee that he is not being deceived.