Thursday, October 25, 2012
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)
Berkeley presents a coherent argument for God’s existence, but it raises the issue that the sensible things we perceive to be true are actually falsely presented by our senses. He defines sensible things as things that “are perceived by sense” like sight, touch, smell, and “perceive nothing that they do not perceive immediately”(11). Berkeley thinks that in order for sensible things to exist, a mind needs to be present at that exact moment to perceive it. If sensible things do exist, which we can see they do because we perceive things from our senses, then there has to be a mind where all sensible things exist at all times. The only mind that can perceive sensible things at all times is an omniscient figure, otherwise known as God. If these sensible things exist in God’s mind, Berkeley determines that God must exist.
ReplyDeleteBerkeley’s argument to prove God exists from sensible things ultimately provides doubt in our own senses. If God is omniscient, then his mind is all knowing. Our minds are not omniscient because we cannot perceive sensible things at all times like God. Therefore, God has a different type of mind than ours. Having different minds means that within the mind, ideas can be perceived differently and exist as different things. If this omniscient mind can see the same things that we see differently because it knows more than us at more times, than what we see and think is possibly completely wrong. For example, if we see and feel a wooden chair, we use our senses to assume the existence of this object and its build as wooden and brown. However, because our mind is not eternally omniscient like God’s, he can possibly see something completely different than our limited observations. If God is all knowing, then his senses overpower ours. In the same chair, God can use his own superior senses to feel the chair to actually be plastic and see it as yellow. His senses are wiser and more eternal than ours, so the wooden chair we perceive is disregarded as false without us even knowing that our senses are unreliable. By assuming that God is existent and relying on his constant perception, Berkeley is opening the possibility that all of the sensible things we perceived are wrong. His argument trades the reliability of our senses for the proof of God’s existence.
Berkeley is correct in his assessment that if Idealism is true there must also exist a higher being. This higher being, namely God, is always perceiving everything so that the idea of everything always exists. This postulate is necessary to prove his theory of Idealism. One objection where Berkeley runs into significant problems involves the perception of a chair. Without the existence of God, according to Idealism, when one turns around and ceases to perceive the chair, it does not exist. When the same person turns back around, he sees the chair and therefore the idea of the chair exists again. Something cannot come in and out of existence, thus it must be kept in existence through the constant perception of God, in turn proving that God exists.
ReplyDeleteMy problem with this argument is that Berkeley falls into the exact same Cartesian circle that Descartes stumbled into. In order for Idealism to be true and objects not to come in and out of existence, there must also exist a God. Likewise, in order for God to exist, Idealism must be true and everything must be perceived to really exist. He has no other explanation other than the existence of God to explain how something could be there even if it not being perceived.
In essence, Berkeley is right that given the validity of Idealism, comes the existence of God or a higher power. What I disagree with is the validity of Idealism. Any argument, which requires the existence of God, in my opinion, runs into a problem from the very beginning. God is an idea that I believed cannot be proved by human reasoning, or I have never encountered an argument which has not run into fundamental flaws. I think that the closest one can get to God is through faith, we will never be able to prove his existence, even if we can see or talk to him!...According to Skepticism we could just be having a spiritual hallucination. I don't think Berkeley's argument gives theists anything to cheer about because one must first prove Idealism, which, by itself, runs into significant problems. So, who needs god? I'll answer that! Every single philosopher I've studied so far!
Based on Berkeley’s idealistic views, he is forced to prove the existence of God. Based on his belief that something exists only if it is being perceived, he is forced to prove that an omnipresent being exists and is always a perceiver. Berkeley is accurate with his idea that some sort of God must exist because if no one was always perceiving something, it would be popping in and out of existent. After proving that material objects are inexistent, he makes a very strong argument proving the existence of God. He first claims that sensible things cannot exist otherwise than in a mind or spirit and while they have no real existence, they don’t depend on my thought to be perceived. Then he argues that sensible things have an existence distinct from being perceived by me, therefore they must exist in some other mind. His final premise is that there must be an omnipresent spirit who contains and supports sensible things. While the Theists are happy that he has proven an omnipresent being, they are not satisfied with Berkeley’s definition. He successfully proved that there is a God of some sorts that is omnipresent but fails to do anything more. He proves that a God always perceives everything and is present everywhere, but never proves that he is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. While there is some sort of spirit that oversees everything, it is not fair to call him the God that Berkeley believes in. The criteria for his God is that he must be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Berkeley fails to do so and therefore fails to prove the existence of the God that he imagines.
ReplyDeleteHere is Berkeley's argument for God's existence through idealism (I'm leaving the argument in premise form here so I can refer to specific premises):
ReplyDeletePremise 1: Sensible things need to be perceived by a mind (idealism)
Premise 2: For sensible things to exist always, there must be a mind that is always perceiving them
Premise 3: There must be an infinite mind
Conclusion: God exists
Berkeley argues that, because sensible things must be perceived by a mind to exist, there must always be a mind that is perceiving them. This is the definition of idealism. In order for something to always be perceived, there must exist an infinite mind that is always perceiving them. (For instance, we discussed the chair's existence in class. Since the chair does not disappear when no one is looking at it, a mind must be perceiving it at all times.) The only mind that would have the ability to never stop perceiving everything is an infinite mind. From there, we can conclude that God exists.
Assuming that idealism is true (which is certainly debatable), there are still a number of lingering questions that undermine the argument in Premise 2. First, I do not think we can actually prove that an object must be perceived at all times--that is, how do we know that an object does not disappear when there is not a mind perceiving them. That is exactly the point--if there is not a mind perceiving something, we would have no knowledge of its existence. It seems unlikely, according to common sense, that an object would disappear when a mind stops perceiving it, but according to Berkeley's argument, it makes perfect sense. The objection I immediately think of is the video camera--say you taped a chair when no one was in the room perceiving the chair. The chair should not appear on the tape, according to this argument. Actually, who is to say that a video camera is not enough of a mind to perceive the chair and make it exist? And if that video camera was not there, then we would have no idea if that chair disappeared. I don't think that there needs to be a mind always perceiving something--only when I mind does perceive an object does that object have to exist (not at all times!).
The next major objection I have to this argument is to the assumption that there must be an infinite mind. Even if premise 2 was true, an infinite mind does not have to exist for all objects to always be perceived. It is equally as possible for an infinite number of microscopic minds to exist that are assigned to every single object to always perceive them and make them exist. These minds are not god-like--in fact, their only capability may be to perceive that one object.
Now, even if premise 2 and 3 were true, we still would not reach the conclusion of an omniscient, omnipresent, and especially omnibenevolent God as we understand him. All the argument would prove is that a single mind exists whose purpose is solely to perceive all objects. This conclusion does not get us anywhere in the philosophical path because it stops, right there. So what if there is a mind perceiving all things? We still have no idea who created everything (including that infinite mind). This God does not answer any questions about the nature of God (well, actually, just that he has no nature) .
Even if every premise of Berkeley's argument was true, cough, then we would end up with only the dead end conclusion that there is a mind that perceives all things. Cool.
Although it pains me to say it, if we are to take idealism as truth, then Berkeley presents a sound argument for the existence of some type of God. He argues that as idealism tells us all things must be perceived at all times in order to exist, and things exist even when we are not perceiving them, therefore it is necessary that there is an infinite mind that is constantly perceiving all objects in order for them to constantly remain in existence.
ReplyDeleteWhile Berekeley is correct in his assumption if we hold idealism as true, I do not see his ‘proof of God’ as anything for theists to cheer about, for a variety of reasons. First off, as mentioned in my previous post, and I will not go into great detail in this post, but I do not believe that idealism as a belief system is accurate.
Furthermore, and more importantly, even if idealism is true his proof does not provide us with the omni-potent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent God that he believes in. Berkeley’s proof provides us with an infinite mind that is capable of perceiving all objects at all times, and nothing more. This could be a mind that simply created the world and continues perceiving it, but has resigned all power over the world meaning that he is far from omni-potent. Additionally, it is most definitely not required that said God be omni-benevolent. Furthermore, it is possible that in Berkeley’s scenario rather than having one infinite mind perceiving all objects, there are in fact an infinite number of minds perceiving all things. In this scenarios, let’s say each object had a mind associated with it that’s sole job was to constantly perceive this object. This would lead to the conclusion that there is no God at all, or rather an infinite number of powerless Gods.
Ultimately, although Berkeley does use idealism to provide a sound argument for the existence of God, this argument should not be held too seriously. Aside from the fact that I believe idealism is flawed, his argument does not provide that the standard omni-potent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent God exists but rather some type of an infinite mind. Additionally, it is my belief that any system of beliefs that requires the existence of God in order to be true is not a solid one, just as in this case Berkeley’s idealistic argument requires that there be a God.
Idealism states that things only exist in the mind and that for things to exist they need a mind to perceive them. This presents a problem, however. When you turn your back on a chair and forget about it so that you are no longer sensing it or perceiving it in any way, the chair no longer exists. This means that objects pop in and out of existence, which seems somewhat problematic. Things don’t appear to pop in and out of existence when we turn our backs on them. Berkeley concludes that this can’t be possible; however he never justifies this claim. He then uses this claim to prove gods existence. He writes that, “the reality of sensible things consisted in an absolute existence out of the minds of spirits”(46). Things have no real existence expect for in the minds of the things that perceive them. Things don’t pop in and out of existence. So Berkeley concludes that there must be, “some other mind werein they exist. As sure therefore the sensible world exists, so sure therefore is there an infinite and omnipresent spirit who contains and supports it”(46). This argument seems to stand, however, at its foundation is the unjustified assumption that things can’t pop in and out of existence. I don’t see why things can’t pop in and out of existence as our ideas of them do. It seems contradictory to reality, however that alone is not enough to justify the statement that things can pop in and out of existence.
ReplyDelete