Berkeley argues that, given the truth of idealism, God must exist. Is he correct? If so, how valuable is this argument? Does this argument give theists anything to cheer about? Or can we get something less than the omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God that Berkeley believes in?
Berkeley claims in his dialogues that if idealism is true, and he believes he has proven it, God is necessarily real because there must be some infinite perceiver. I am not entirely convinced that the leap he takes here is logical or has any basis other than the fact he wants to argue for the existence of God. If idealism is true, the only things that exist are ideas and minds, and I do not see any problem with the concept that if nobody is perceiving something it does not exist. Berkeley's appeal to common sense does not convince me of anything other than the frailty of his whole argument, given he tries to justify the justification of his argument with common sense, perhaps the weakest justification there is, given the main reasons people pursue philosophy. If we are to consider Berkeley's argument, though, the most important distinction to make is what a perceiver is. Do the millions of bacteria and other microscopic organisms count? If so, why is God necessary if nearly everything is perceived all the time? This idea at least greatly limits the necessity of an infinite perceiver, but it comes to a halt when outer space and completely desolate places are considered. However, if everything is perceived all the time, why does Berkeley not consider the universe to be a mind? Wouldn't this fix his problem that everything has to be perceived? Finally, even if the proof of God does come with idealism, He is not the omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being that theists might hope to prove. The only God that Berkeley has a chance to prove is an infinite mind that perceives everything all the time, nothing more.
ReplyDeleteBerkeley argues that if idealism is true, God must exist, as there must be an infinite mind perceiving everything. In a world of idealism, there is no material substance, and everything is a perception, or an idea. Everything must be perceived to exist. In other words, to be is to be perceived. What happens, though, if I am not currently perceiving a certain object? Does that object still exist? Berkeley appeals to common sense, arguing that it does still exist. Thus, it would follow that it would still be perceived, leading Berkeley to the conclusion that there must be an infinite mind (God) which perceives all so that everything remains in existence even when no people or other mortal creatures are perceiving it. This type of God would definitely be omniscient, but nothing indicates that he would be omnipotent and omnibenevolent. He would perceive or know all but not necessarily be all-good and all-powerful. It would seem that this means that if idealism is true, an omniscient God exists. However, this argument is contingent on whether something actually does still exist when nobody (or at least no mortal creature) perceives it. It certainly does seem, based on common sense, that something would still exist regardless of whether it is being perceived. However, it only seems sensical because we generally think of the world as having material substance, and we generally separate perception and existence. By contrast, in a world of idealism, existence lies in ideas, so if nobody is having an idea, then that idea would not exist. An idea’s existence depends on its being the subject of thought. In other words, to be is to be perceived, so if an idea is not perceived, it does not exist. So, it does not necessarily follow in a world of idealism that there is an infinite mind or omniscient God that perceives everything. This does not necessarily mean that God does not exist if idealism is true, but Berkeley’s argument does not provide sufficient proof of God’s existence because his argument is dependent on an unsupported premise.
ReplyDeleteBerkeley believes that everything must be perceived by a mind to exist. Nothing disappears when we stop looking at it so there must still be someone looking at it. This person, according to Berkeley, is God. God is watching everything and making sure that nothing disappears in front of us. I think that this argument is mostly sound except it makes a few assumptions. One is that something must be perceived by a mind to exist. One could argue that if it only exists in our minds then what is preventing the mind from knowing where it is and popping it into existence before we look at it. We also do not know for sure that things disappear when no one is looking at them, just because we do not have evidence to the contrary does not make it true. Another assumption is that the being watching over everything is God, it could be many little minds watching over it or even 3 or 4 Gods. Both would disprove Berkeley’s belief because his belief is centered around one God being all powerful. These two holes give theists something to cheer about because it shows that there isn’t complete prove in God. It also gives other religions something to cheer about because Berkeley’s prove does not prove that it must be one God. I personally do not feel that Berkeley is correct. Between both the gaps in his own argument and the science that we know today, I do not believe in a God.
ReplyDeleteBerkeley's argument is that if idealism is true, then there must be a god that perceives all. His argument is that because existence requires senses/perception, then that means there must be a god that perceives all, because otherwise objects would just pop in and out of existence when humans/organisms are around and not around.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there are a few problems with this argument. Firstly, Berkeley only establishes a if-then relationship, with two difference scenarios, but doesn't offer sufficient proof for us to prefer either option. If objects don't pop in and out of existence, then that mean god exists. But if objects do pop in and out of existence, then that means god doesn't exists. Berkeley then takes the easy way out and says OBVIOUSLY objects don't pop in and out of existence, and thus there must be a god that perceives all. I don't think that is a sufficient warrant. Berkeley needs to prove that objects don't pop in and out of existence in order him to prove god exists. He fails to meet this burden, which just adds further example of philosophers lowering their threshold for argumentation when god is concerned.
Further, in order to justify idealism, Berkeley argues that everything is a secondary quality, and there are no primary qualities. As already discussed, he claims that subjectivity on size (large/small) means something only exists in the mind, and thus is a secondary quality. However, this is a win for atheists. Given there is difference in opinion of whether god exists (similar to difference in opinion on whether something is big/small), that means god only exists in the mind. This is in a stark contrasts to the omnipotent/omniscient God that Berkeley believes in, as the god that only exists in the mind would not be omnipotent as it would be binded by humans and human ideas which have limited knowledge, power, ability, and creativity.
Further, even if we were to buy that Berkeley can prove that god exists, it is still not the triple omni god he believes in. He only proves that there is an omniscient god that can perceive everything and make sure things don't pop in and out of existence. There is no warrant as to whether we will be omnipotent or omnibenevolent. Overall, we shouldn't be quick to allow Berkeley to attach two extra omni qualities, when he has only proven one to be accurate.
If idealism holds true, Berkeley’s argument is somewhat solid except for one main weak point. The argument is that because, according to idealism, for an object to exist, it must be perceived. This would mean that when an object is not being perceived, it will cease to exist. However, Berkeley argues that things do not shift in and out of existence, so an ultimate perceiver must always perceive our world to ensure that all objects continue to exist. The weak point in this argument is that there is no evidence to support why objects do not disappear. Berkeley practically claims that things do not disappear because it is common sense that they would not. There is no method of ultimately proving whether or not an object disappears, so having this as the backbone of an argument is not very strong. However, Berkeley’s argument applies to the idea of time. For example, when one is sleeping, they do not perceive time; however, time exists since they wake up at a later time than when they first initially fell asleep. Assuming that idealism is true, therefore, if time exists, it must be perceived. Since you do not perceive time, there must be an ultimate perceiver, god. The argument itself is entirely based on whether or not idealism is true, so if one could disprove idealism, Berkeley’s entire argument is meaningless, which is another flaw. Despite these flaws, this argument gives theists something significant to cheer about since the argument gives god a purpose. According to Berkeley, god is responsible for perceiving the entire universe and thus is responsible for keeping the universe in existence. If Berkeley’s argument holds true, then God must be the omnipresent, omniscient being he is generally thought to be. This is because humans cannot perceive all ideas about our universe; however, these ideas must still exist, so, therefore, god must be omniscient to perceive these ideas. God also must be omnipresent since he must be able to perceive all things. Thus, if Berkeley’argument holds true, god can be nothing less than the all-powerful being he believes in.
ReplyDeleteThere seem to be many issues with the leap Berkley makes from idealism to God. Firstly, the argument depends on the idea that objects still exist when they are being perceived, a conclusion he claims to gain from common sense. I might just as easily say that according to common sense, material objects exist, so idealism is false. This is not to say that my appeal to common sense in this instance is “more correct,” but rather that appealing to common sense isn’t really proof of anything. Because we cannot gather any data about objects which are not being perceived, it is simply impossible for us to know whether or not they still exist in that state. Even if we were to videotape objects in an otherwise empty room, we would have no way of being sure that the footage was not created as we observed it. Much as Berkeley might hate it, we appear to have no choice but to be skeptics on this matter, as it is literally impossible for us to perceive the continued existence of unperceived objects, or their lack of existence. Further, even if they exist did, that does not prove the existence of a Christian God, as a single mind which perceives all things does not necessarily have the other powers associated with God. Similarly to how Descartes argues the will of people is humans Is infinite, but not our knowledge, we could say that the knowledge of an all-perceiving God is infinite, but not his will. Therefore, even if Berkley’s arguments of idealism are correct, and his assumption that matter exists perpetually, that does not prove that the necessary infinite mind is a God as he would define that sort of being.
ReplyDeleteThrough Berkeley’s argument of idealism being true, I don’t believe that God needs to exist. In order to explain why, I would need to briefly explain idealism. Idealism is the belief that there simply are no material substances; there exists only the mind and ideas. So, things that we believe to be material substances are just bundles of ideas that come from our perception of them. This brings us to the phrase ‘esse est percipi’ which means: to exist is to be perceived. So, for something other than the mind to exist, it has to exist as a bundle of ideas that come from the perceiver. Now we can talk about how Berkeley thinks God fits into this. Berkeley believes that since things need to be perceived to exist, within idealism, and things don’t just disappear into nothing when nobody is watching, then God must exist so that he can always be perceiving. Since God is an omnipresent being, he would always be everywhere perceiving everything, which is why things don’t pop in and out of existence depending on if there is someone perceiving it. What Berkeley fails to address however, is the simple fact that since things only need be perceived to exist, then anything living could be the perceiver. In class, we talked about the example of micro-organisms that live on surfaces, yet are too small to be seen with the naked eye. These organisms are living on the surfaces on things, therefore they are always perceiving those things. Through this, God doesn’t need to exist for there to be things.
ReplyDeleteBerkeley’s claim of idealism being real, then God must exist is correct. Berkeley is correct because God does not have to exist physically, but in your mind. According to idealism, nothing is a material. Instead, it is a perception or idea that is made from our minds. Therefore, God can exist if we perceive the existence of God. Our view on God as the noblest can be what the mind perceives as God. For example, the idea of God can be perceived as a spirit over all people. He can also be perceived as the infinite perceiver. This argument is valuable because it unlocks the theory of whether God exists or not. This is arguably one of the most controversial questions in the world because of the surplus of faith that religious people have for God and the lack of concrete proof for non-believers. Berkeley attempting to prove that God is real through idealism draws much attention to God’s existence.
ReplyDeleteIf idealism is true, than God exists. The very idea of idealism is that everything you perceive and think about is real. If you think about God, he must be real because the concept of God exists in your mind. Now does this mean that God themselves are really out there? That's arguable. But in our minds, God is real. Because of idealism, the world is an extension of what the mind perceives, therefore God is real. Typical theists should cheer since this argument actively gifts them a line of reasoning that definitively proves that God exists. In order to combat the sentiment, one would have to dismantle the entirety of idealism. Because of this massive task, God's existence is assured to the average idealist.
ReplyDelete