Thursday, October 23, 2014
Who Needs God?
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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that Berkeley is mistaken in his conclusion that the truth of idealism necessarily leads to the existence of God. Berkeley asserts that all sensible things exist solely in the mind. However, their existence is still very definitely real. In other words, their existence is constant and independent of a single person’s mind. According to idealism, though, sensible things must be perceived by some mind in order to exist at all. In order for their existence to be constant, Berkeley argues that all sensible things must be constantly perceived. Since only God has an infinite mind that can so completely perceive the universe, God must exist. I see two errors in Berkeley’s argument for the existence of God.
ReplyDeleteThe first is his premise that sensible things must exist independently of any one person’s mind. He tries to validate this premise by saying that he is not the author of his ideas since he cannot control what he perceives with the senses at any given time. This claim contradicts Berkeley’s system of idealism; if we are not the authors of our perceptions, something distinct from the mind must exist that creates our perceptions. If such a thing exists, the theory of idealism fails. Therefore, Berkeley’s argument for God is invalid because it contains two opposing premises: all things exist in the mind and all things have an existence distinct from a person’s mind. Another similar flaw emerges when one considers what God’s existence means for idealism. If God exists, he must exist independently of how I perceive him. However, this would mean that not everything exists solely in my mind. Thus, God cannot exist as part of a theory of idealism.
Berkeley’s second error comes from his assumption that an infinite perceiver is the same as God. If the rest of his argument works, Berkeley knows only that an infinite mind exists. His argument does not determine any of the other characteristics of his infinite perceiver. To prove that God exists, Berkeley would also have to prove that the infinite perceiver is good, wise, and powerful. Though he mentions the characteristics of his perceiver, he never proves why they are the same as God’s. As it is, Berkeley’s argument for God proves the existence of Descartes’ “evil genius” just as much as it proves the existence of God. Therefore, the argument is ineffective.
Berkeley in his Second Dialogue argues that idealism, or the belief that all objects are solely based on perceptions, leads to the existence of god, although there are a few fundamental flaws with his argument. His argument is fairly simple. He says that all objects are dependent on a mind that perceives them. Next he argues that because things don’t simply pop in and out of existence depending on if people are directly perceiving them or not, that means that there must be some omnipresent mind that perceives all things all the time. It seems simple enough, until you actually think about it.
ReplyDeleteThe first flaw is that he bases some of his premises purely on or “common sense” which leads to large holes in the argument. Berkeley simply assuming that objects don’t come in and out of existence based on whether it is being perceived at that instant is based off of nothing but an appeal to common sense. If, and that is a large if, we come to agree on idealism, which may or may not be an outlandish idea in the first place, then just simply throwing this general knowledge statement is invalid on many levels. Because there is no proof for this statement, we don’t know whether it is true or not, and while we can’t ask Berkeley to go on a journey for fundamental truths to base god off of, it would be nice to base god off of something more than just a “duh” premise.
Secondly, let’s say for instance that we go along with this spoiled argument, just for fun, and we do say that this omnipresent mind must exist in order to be the “ultimate perceiver”, if you will. Under no circumstances can we now come to believe that this “ultimate perceiver” must be the omnibenevolent and all-knowing god that we have all grown accustomed to. Nowhere has anyone made a connection of perceiving everything all the time to being the definition or morality and goodness. Because of these reasons, while the argument for god is rotten in the first place, even if we get there, there is no reason to believe that this perceiver is the god that we think of, and because of that, Berkeley has successfully failed to please the great judge who is Sam Schneider.
After Berkeley has rigorously proven that objects are only a bundle of perceptions, and hence has supported the notion of idealism, he lays out an argument that he hopes to use to prove the existence of God. The argument goes like this:
ReplyDelete1. Objects exist solely in the mind
2. When I do not perceive these objects, they do not exist in my mind
3. To the best of our knowledge, objects cannot pop in and out of existence
4. Objects, therefore, must exist in the mind of an infinite and omnipresent spirit
Conclusion: This spirit must be God
Berkeley sufficiently supports premises 1 and 2; however, I believe that there are flaws with premises 3 and 4, which may disprove the conclusion. Berkeley never supplies proof for his assertion that objects cannot pop in and out of existence! While it seems to be common sense that objects cannot suddenly exist, cease to exist, and then re-exist, it is not possible to support this claim. To elaborate, in order for objects to cease to exist, no one must perceive them; however, in order to prove that objects can pop in and out of existence, this event must be witnessed (which is impossible because the cessation of existence requires no witnesses to be present) or be a conclusion to a logical argument. Since we will never be able to perceive this event, and Berkeley does not detail an argument or counter to the ability of objects to exist and then cease existing, the third premise can be deemed invalid. Even if we assume the third premise to be true, there is yet another flaw in the argument, namely in premise 4. Objects do not necessary have to exist in a single, infinite, omnipresent mind; it is possible that they are always being perceived by an infinite number of limited minds.
Hence, there are three possible conclusions that can be drawn from this argument:
1. Berkeley’s conclusion that God must exist
2. An infinite number of finite minds exist and perpetually perceive everything in existence
3. Objects are capable of existing and ceasing to exist depending on whether or not they are being perceived
Unfortunately, this means that God’s existence is only one of three possibilities; hence, while this argument is valuable, it is only 1/3 as valuable as it seemed to be originally as it doesn’t definitively prove the existence of God. Sorry theists, but it looks like you’ll have to rely on faith to prove the existence of God rather than this argument!
Berkeley argues, in his existence of god argument, that God must exist because of the truth of idealism. He says that things need to be perceived in order to exist, but things can exist separate of his perception of them. Because of this, the world must have "an infinite, omnipresent Spirit who contains and supports it"(30). This conclusion seems to make sense, and Berkeley does stay consistent with his idealism and the fact that something must be perceiving an object in order for that object to exist. However, I do have one objection to Berkeley's notion of an omnipotent and omnipresent God. This objection comes not from this part of his dialogues, but actually from his idea of creation and what came before it. Berkeley says that our beings had existed inside of God's mind since before time and before creation; if new ideas had come to God's mind at any point in time, imperfection would be suggested (as change means imperfection) and this does not work with the idea of a perfect God. So, Berkeley concludes that creation only consisted of God making the ideas (of beings and things) in his mind perceivable to other beings besides himself (whose mind the ideas had always been inside of). However, this conclusion means that there had to have been other beings besides God in existence before creation to perceive the objects of creation; Berkeley solves this problem by saying that there were spirits in existence. However, this means that God not only wasn't the only everlasting being, but also that there were things that he didn't create (assuming that the creation of beings was the single creation of God and that he hadn't created anything before that), and that because of this these spirits were part of the universe before creation as well; this defeats the notion that God is absolute, because these other spirits existed separate of his creation and they had also been around just as long as God, making his "omnipresence" seem less significant and special to only him. Additionally, the idea that God is omnipotent also falls because he was not the single thing around during the time before creation; these other spirits existed separate of God and he is therefore not the creator of everything and not omnipotent. So, because of Berkeley's other arguments on God/creation, I have to say that his idea of God's existence due to idealism falls apart. If it is left standing on its own, however, this argument seems to be well put together and makes its point rather well. The only problem that I see with Berkeley's description of an all-powerful and omnipresent God is the fact that he cannot be absolute with Berkeley's idea of creation. Due to this, I would say that Theists who believe in a God which is not all powerful (which seems to not fit Berkeley's definition of God but can still be considered a deity nonetheless) still have an argument that they can hold up, but any theists that believe in an all-powerful God are actually struck down by Berkeley's attempt to prove them correct.
ReplyDeleteBerkeley believes that since A. idealism is true, B. I only think of things when I percieve them, and since objects don't pop in and out of existence, then God must exist since there must be an infinite mind to percieve things in order for things to not pop in and out of existence. Even if we grant idealism, this doesn't necessitate the existence of God. Just because everything must be percieved doesn't mean that God must exist. Any other mind that percieves something could explain why objects don't pop in and out of existence. For example, bacteria or micro-organisms. Therefore, idealism can be compatible with the idea that objects don't pop in and out of existence without relying on God.
ReplyDeleteI am not so sure if Berkeley is correct in his argument for the existence of God. First of all, he never proved that there could never be an all-powerful evil genius who always deceives us whenever we try to think about something. Why does he necessarily have to be omnibenevolent as God is? He could still have the ability to perceive things infinitely.
ReplyDeleteBut on the other hand, though, it makes sense that things don’t pop in and out of existence, so something would have to perceive objects when they were not being perceived by humans or other animals. Then this being would have to be omnipotent and omniscient, but does not have to be omnibenevolent.
There could also be infinite number of minds instead of one infinite minds to be able to perceive everything. That would also get the job done, showing that everything is perceived all the time, therefore giving the whole world existence.
I think that this argument is also one of the most important parts of Berkeley’s work, much like Descartes’ proof of God was crucial to Meditations on First Philosophy. I think that this proof is a bit more definitive than that of Descartes. Therefore, idealism has more credence than foundationalism in my mind.
This proves that there has to be an all-powerful being that perceives everything; therefore there can’t be something less than that. The question becomes whether or not he is omnibenevolent or not. Berkeley fails to disprove skepticism when it comes to this aspect, a major goal of his.
Even if you believe that objects only exist in the mind, Berkeley still does not prove that god exists. For his proof, Berkeley states that there must be some being that perceives everything. Objects still exist even if you look away for a second, proving that someone else must be observing it also. What he does not prove, is that this being is god. God is a being who is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. Because this being is watching over everything, it could be argued that they are omniscient. Berkeley also thinks that this being is omnipotent because they control everything and follow the will of every person to execute their actions. Although this argument is not very compelling, I will go on to argue the next point. Berkeley believes that this being is omnibenevolent because they always execute the actions of everyone. I think that while his premise is correct, his conclusion is false. If this being was actually omnibenevolent, they would do everything possible to prevent bad things from happening. Berkeley would argue that having free will is an ultimate good, but I would argue back that every evil action has been committed because of free will. Some may argue that some bad is a small price to pay for free will, but if God only restricted evil actions, people will still be able to make their own decisions. Berkeley has proved that there is a being that is omnipotent and omniscient but he has failed at proving that this being is omnibenevolent. Because this being is not omnibenevolent, it is not God. Berkeley has not successfully proved the existence of God.
ReplyDeleteIdealism is a set of philosophical principles that essentially argue that “whatever can be known to exist, must be in some sense mental”. This goes in conjunction with Descartes argument that the existence of the things in the universe is based on our own perceptions. Idealism separates the world into two different parts: the internal world which is the mind containing ideas and thoughts and the external world which is really the physical world which contains the foundation for these ideas. The main argument that idealism makes is that reality is dependent upon the mind; basically stating that the world exists within our minds and only within our minds. If something were to exist in our mind as an idea, an idealist such as Berkeley would have justification for the existence of the particularly idea. But does that particular idea really exist in the ‘external’ world. The world outside of our minds. Some extreme idealists even go as far to deny the existence of any real world other than the one inside our minds. Returning to the true existence of something inside our minds, if idealism says that anything we believe or perceive within our mind exists, then does God exist? The answer to this question depends on exactly where you are arguing God exists. God undoubtedly exists in the mind of the perceiver, or should I say the mind of the believer, but does it follow that God exists in the external world just as omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent as he does in the internal world. Based on the idealist point of view I think it would be a tough claim to make that God truly exist in the external world, but inside one’s mind, God does exist. But maybe, that is really the definition of God. Maybe God is just confined to a person’s mind. As a believer of God that is tough for me to say, but regardless God exists in the eyes of the beholder.
ReplyDeleteBerkeley firmly advocates that through idealism, God must exist. This argument is centered around the notion that essentially, because within idealism an object is merely a sum of perceptions and ideas, that if nobody is actively perceiving it at the time, that it does not exist. This would essentially suggest that the moment we leave our bedrooms, all of our furniture ceases to exist until we enter our bedroom, and perceive it again. Berkeley admittedly understands the ridiculousness of this idea, and forms his argument around God to tie all the pieces together. Berkeley argues that for the basic fundamental components of idealism to stay true while inanimate objects don’t float in and out of existence, that these objects must be constantly perceived at all times, and because of humans’ natural limitations, that the only way that everything is constantly seen at all times, is for there to be an omniscient God who perceives them.
ReplyDeleteOf course, a simple objection to this is belief in moderate realism or realism, in which an omniscient God is not necessary for objects to maintain a constant state of physical existence. Berkeley’s argument essentially hinges on existence by necessity, but take that necessity away, and in this situation, God’s existence becomes obsolete. In addition, Berkeley’s argument argues for the omniscience of a supreme God, but not necessarily a God who is omnipotent or omnibenevolent. Berkeley presents and intriguing argument for the existence of an omniscient God, but one built on a faulty framework easily shot through by the equally-likely concept of realism.