Descartes vs Pascal

“Descartes vs. Pascal”

For centuries, human beings have been debating over the validity of the use of reason. This is a very, very difficult subject to discuss, as one is forced to study something which is at that moment being used in their study. Two classic thinkers who contrasted on their view of reason were Descartes and Pascal. Though both saw reason as the primary source of knowledge, they disagreed over the competence of human reason. Descartes, the skeptic, said that we could use reason to find certain truth if we used it correctly, while Pascal said that we can’t know certain truth, but reason is the best source of knowledge that we have.
Reason is the tool by which we know everything that we know. But most people make the mistake of basing their reasoning on assumptions which are not known with 100% certainty. As I’ve said, “I am greatly astonished when I consider [the great feebleness of mind] and its proneness to fall [insensibly] into error” (K&B, p. 409). But it is possible to avoid falling into error if we use the valuable tool of reason correctly. In order to do this and find certainty, we must find something that we cannot doubt. This is impossible, as we can logically doubt anything. A certain truth must be something that is not logically possible to be false.
We must doubt, as that is the only way to find certain truth. It is the only way to wipe the slate clean of all of the uncertain assumptions which are believed and taught in the universities today. Just as mathematics will lead to uncertain assumptions if it is not built on certain truths, so will all use of reason lead to uncertain assumptions if it is not built on certain truths. There is a way to use doubt, though, to find certainty. If 100% certainty equals 0% doubt and we are certain that we can doubt everything, then we can use doubt as our certainty. We cannot doubt that we are doubting.
With our one certainty, we can now methodically use reason to find more certainties. For example, we can use the certainty “I am doubting” to find out that “I exist.” If I am doubting, than there must be an “I” who is doubting, which means that I must be. Like I’ve often said, “I think, therefore I am.” We can continue building on our certainties using rational reasoning. Now that we know that we exist, we can logically deduce that our ideas also exist. If our ideas exist, then something has caused them to exist. This is a very useful step, because I can take my idea that a perfect being (God) exists. Since this idea is greater than myself, there must be a perfect being who has caused this idea in me. Continuing on, if there is a perfect God, than I can logically deduce that a perfect being would not give me a deceptive faculty. If we do not have deceptive faculties, than we can know for certain that we can trust our senses with certainty.
The certainties that I have arrived at by starting with the one certainty can be known with complete certainty because they were arrived at using rational, logical reasoning. It is true that we can doubt that God exists, yet this skepticism is superseded by rationality. We used a rational argument which is based upon certainties; therefore, we know with 100% certainty that God exists.
Rene Descartes must realize that our world is not like mathematics. As I have stated, “Let man consider what he is in comparison with all existence; let him regard himself as lost in this remote corner . . . What is a man in the infinite?” (Pascal, #72). How can we expect to gain a grip on certain knowledge when we cannot even grasp where we are in relation to all of reality. Descartes was right in saying that reason is the basis of all of our knowledge, but he must realize that we have severe limitations in our use of reason.
We have been deceived, as I’ve previously written, “Man is only a subject full of error . . . Nothing shows him the truth. Everything deceives