Perhaps it is a little surprising that Descartes looks to prove the existence of God as the second thing he is certain of, but when we see what he tries to do with the concept of God in Meditation IV, perhaps it is less surprising.  Through the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being, Descartes attempts to prove that it is not possible that he be the sort of being who is systematically deceived about things.  After all, God would not allow for such a thing.  Any epistemic error we might commit is, instead, wholly our own responsibility, and results when our will outstrips our understanding, and we assent to believing ideas that we don't understand clearly and distinctly.  

The face-to-face section of this class seemed a bit hung up on this argument, though, shrewdly pointing out that he seems to think he can infer, with certainty, that God would not let him be deceived, when all he has really proved so far (if we grant him everything he's done in Meditations I-III) is that God is an infinite substance (presumably, infinite thinking substance).  This is the issue I'd like you all to discuss.

Is Descartes warranted to move from God's infinitude to God's omnibenevolence, therefore making it impossible that God would allow him to be systematically deceived?  Is he really able to move from supposedly proving the existence of God to his theory of how error happens, or is he pulling a fast one here?

@Jennifer Bracken:

     I personally do not see any conflict in having a "perfect" God who allows organisms He created to make errors. Mistakes are how organisms learn. (If we knew everything, what would be the point in living?) Why couldn't learning from mistakes be part of His "intelligent design"?

     As a firm believer in evolution, I do not at all buy into the Genesis story of creation as being factual. It's an allegory. And I don't necessarily believe in God. (But I haven't ruled it out either). But why couldn't a supreme being, if such exists, have created the evolutionary process? It's a brilliant maintenance plan for life on Earth; one in which biological mistakes are filtered out through natural selection- "survival of the fittest." It would take quite an entity to have devised such a plan. Either that, or evolution itself just evolved...

     I don't even have a problem with a God that would intentionally deceive us. If He's God- He can do whatever He wants. Maybe there's some truths we're not ready to handle yet, much like parents shelter their children.

@Jennifer Bracken:

     I totally respect your belief in Genesis. Some people take it more literally than others, and that's your prerogative. What I am actually proposing is that creation and evolution don't have to be opposing beliefs- that the God you believe in might have created the process of evolution. I don't see that as a conflict. If evolution is a reality, and if there is a God, then He made evolution happen... one way to interpret Genesis (and many Christian theologians agree) is that God created the order of things, and that He did so out of chaos. Evolution is simply one of the many ways that this world is organized; just like gravity holds us down, and the oceans control the climate, etc. Evolution is not some "evil" entity, as certain fundamentalists have demonized it.

     As I respect your views, I of course would expect the same. There is nothing "unfortunate" about my views of Genesis. And people do not have to believe in God to live good lives. I do good for its own sake- not so I can go to Heaven or avoid Hell. I have nothing to lose either- it isn't "mine" to lose.

@Brittany Alexander:

     I share your doubt of Descartes' "proof" of God, which occurs (in my opinion) in Meditation III when he states:

"Hence there remains only the idea of God, concerning which we must consider whether it is something which cannot have proceeded from me myself... these characteristics are such that the more diligently I attend to them, the less do they appear capable of proceeding from me alone; hence, from what has been already said, we must conclude that God necessarily exists".

     You've started a trend here with calling it a "fast one", but I would counter that it is in fact a long and arduous, quite meticulously crafted argument. I'll give old Rene that... but it's faulty. Just because he can hold the idea of God is hardly a proof.

     No, the thought of God might not have "proceeded from me [Descartes] myself", but there's plenty of other more mundane possibilities- his parents, his church, his society. He wasn't some lone, isolated individual in a controlled experiment, in which the idea of God coming into his mind might have been remarkable- he grew up immersed in the concept.

     Historically, philosophers and scientists have often fallen prey to "proving" what they already believe to be true, or worse yet, want to be true. Descartes reminds me somewhat of Percival Lowell, a respected astronomer- (he helped discover Pluto)- who became obsessed with some geographical features on Mars that resembled canals, and the idea that "Martians" had built them. The maps he drew, based on his "observations" at Lowell Observatory, grew more and more intricate, as did his theories espoused in books. Until better telescopes came along and showed him as utterly wrong... Lowell saw what he wanted to see/ Descartes proved what he wanted to prove.

     That doesn't make Descartes unworthy of our study or admiration however. His process is the key here- the way he applied himself to these existential and theological questions is his legacy.