Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy, Part I

Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy was written in Latin, whereas his earlier Rules for the Direction of the Mind was written in French. It has two introductory sections: an address to the theological faculty of Sorbonne University, and a preface to the reader. The two sections make for some interesting contrasts, bearing in mind Maimonides' rules for understanding esoteric books. In his dedicatory letter, Descartes makes a number of notable points:

1. Unbelievers will not accept any religion and practically no moral virtue unless the the existence of God and the immortality of the soul can be proved
2. We must believe in God because it is a doctrine of Holy Scripture, and we believe Holy Scripture because it comes from God
3. The knowledge of God is easier to acquire than the knowledge we have of created things
4. Everything known of God can be demonstrated by natural reason alone
5. The arguments Descartes has set forth shall leave no room for the possibility that the human mind will ever discover better ones
6. Only a few people are able to follow and understand Descartes' arguments 
7. If the Sorbonne faculty promotes his work, everyone will agree with it too because they are regarded as authoritative, and this will clarify the mind and purify the morals of man on a mass scale

A flattering, fawning tone permeates the entire letter, depicting an obsequious vassal loudly entreating an exalted lord. The one passage of self-praise (the fifth point) is cloaked in religious piety, "to the greater glory of God", which would allow him to plausibly deny arrogance. It is difficult to interpret this tone as anything but performative insincerity. 

More interestingly, almost all of these points are absurd, contradict one another, or both. 

1. It is not true that non-Christians will only accept religion and moral virtue if God and immortality can be proved, for three reasons: a) most people, whether Christian or not, aren't interested in those sorts of arguments at all; b) Descartes was well aware of accounts of moral virtue relying neither on the existence of God nor the immortality of the soul, e.g. the Stoic writers and the Nicomachean Ethics; and c) using reason to demonstrate God's existence and attributes has no relation to practicing moral virtue, because reason cannot determine if God will reward virtue and punish wickedness. 
2. By framing Christian belief in circular terms, he renders it absurd, and protects himself with a two-fold mask; first by identifying himself explicitly as a believer, and second by acknowledging that "unbelievers would judge it to be circular." A genuinely Christian attitude, by contrast, would be choosing to believe in the divine revelation made known in the person of Jesus Christ. 
3. God, particularly as Christians conceive of him, is the least evident to us because he is the most unlike us - not limited, not composed of parts, not confined in time and place, not having beginning or end. It takes more effort to acquire knowledge that is less-evident to us, not less. 
4. This is either a meaningless tautology, if Descartes is referring to natural theology (e.g. Aquinas' Treatise on God, QQ. 1-27), or it is heretical, because the knowledge that comes through faith in Jesus Christ cannot be proven, and it isn't knowledge in the same way as a philosopher would understand knowledge.
5. This is so absurdly hyperbolic that to accept it would require something like an act of faith.
6. Perhaps the only true statement Descartes writes in the entire dedicatory letter, and one which the reader must seriously take to heart. 
7. Even if it were true that the Sorbonne endorsement would be as authoritative on a mass scale as Descartes claims, claiming it would trigger a Catholic revival in not just France but the whole world is absurd for the same reasons as the first point. 

With all these things being false, what is the purpose behind Descartes' seeking the endorsement of the Sorbonne? It's not because he expects a religious or philosophic revival to sweep across France and the world if he gets it (and in fact, he did not), but it would shield him against charges of impiety and atheism from other Catholic academics, who would be the most aware of this newly-published book.