Monday, October 21, 2019
Berkeley's BOGO: Idealism and Theism
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 argues that idealism directly leads to theism or proof of God. His premises do not clearly lead to the conclusion that God exists, so his argument is false. He argues:
ReplyDelete1. All things that exist are in a mind
2. I cannot determine what I perceive.
3. So, things that I perceive exist independently of my mind
4. They must therefore exist in another mind
5. The mind affects me with an omnipotent way having power over everything.
6. God is in an omnipotent mind or spirit.
7. God exists.
The jump from 5 and 6 to 7 is not correct, since this proves that there is some mind that appears to be omnipotent, but it is not necessary God, especially the benevolent one mostly thought of in Abrahamic religions. It could potentially prove that an evil all powerful deceiver is controlling everything we perceive in his mind, which in many ways makes more sense than a benevolent one with all the bad out in the world. Therefore, this argument does not give theists much to cheer about since it more proves the existence of an all-powerful evil deceiver than God. This may not even prove that something omnipotent is out there, since there is a possibility of things existing through the collective mind having infinite things being perceived and kept in existence by an infinite amount of minds. This still does not fully make sense because then the world would be able to be shifted by the will of the people as a whole in the world and I would assume that the majority of people would want more peace, food and overall prosperity. Overall, Berkeley's argument is a big failure in proving God.
If idealism is true, it does not necessarily prove God’s existence, or at least the God of the Abrahamic faiths. Berkeley’s idea is that, if what we know as the material world exists purely in our minds, then there must be a God. His reasoning is that things do not randomly move in and out of existence if we are not focusing our mind on them, so there must be an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent mind that keeps things permanently in existence at all times. Berkeley calls this being God, and believes that with this argument he has thoroughly proven His existence. However, this is not the case. Berkeley has no way to prove that billions of human minds working together are not able to keep the material world in existence the same way that his theoretical God could. Perhaps we are all a part of a larger collective consciousness, where each of our minds work as a simple gear in a larger machine that keeps reality in place. Berkeley does not approach either of these questions and appears to not have proof against them. Additionally, even if this God exists, Berkeley cannot prove that this all-powerful mind cares about human beings in the way that the Abrahamic God does. In fact, it seems as if, according to the rest of Berkeley’s argument, that God is an omnipotent mind whose objective is simply to observe. This conclusion does not illustrate a kind, loving God that actively participates in the lives of the beings He created. Overall, Berkeley not only fails to prove how God is the only solution to the problems idealism poses and he does not explain why the all-powerful, all-seeing mind that he describes is anything like the God he believes in.
ReplyDeleteBerkeley’s existence for God is as follows:
ReplyDelete1) All things that exist are in the mind (esse est percipi).
2) Yet, I do not have the ability to have certain ideas in my mind when I use my senses; I cannot create things just by thinking they exist.
3) That means there must be some infinite mind that perceives all things at all times so that they exist in a definite form, and so that they allow me to perceive things consistently.
4) That infinite mind is God; therefore, God exists.
This argument is flawed. Berkeley believes that God needs to exist because the infinite mind is necessary to ensure that everything exists. According to Berkeley, if I go to sleep, for example, something must exist that perceives my existence so that I can wake up. Moreover, that perception needs to exist for anything. However, this argument relies on the belief that the way I perceive the world is the same as everyone perceives the world. There is no reason why what I perceive Grant is saying is what he is actually saying. The way I perceive the world, the things in the world, the conversations I have can be entirely separate from the way others perceive the world. As Descartes discussed, I could just be in a very lucid dream and none of this exists. Berkeley’s argument for God stems the flawed belief that we all must exist in a single coherent reality.
It is my belief that Berkeley is correct in his argument that God exists because He exists in my mind. However, there appear to be some flaws in his argument. This argument is commonly referred to as ‘idealism’. In his ‘Three dialogues between Hylas and Philonous’, Berkley explains ‘idealism’ as the claim that everything that exists either is a mind or depends on a mind for its existence. I believe it is true, that a person knows God exists in a way that is personal and completely independent. Berkeley’s argument of idealism and the existence of God agrees. People believe in God differently and no one else can know exactly how another person believes in God. People are not able to demonstrate their belief in God because that belief is only known to the believer and in their mind. Although Berkeley’s idealism argument appears credible, there are some weaknesses. For example, our mind is capable of deception and open to interpretation. One person might believe God to be a flying pink Giraffe even though many other people believe God is the omnibenevolent perfect creator of life. Each person perceives God as something different and both perceptions are in their individual minds. The thought of God as a Flying Pink Giraffe sounds absurd, but we cannot prove otherwise. However, it is more likely that God is not a flying pink giraffe but rather an omniscient and perfect being and creator that we know in our own mind.
ReplyDeleteBerkeley believes in Idealistic thought—the belief that everything we perceive is a secondary quality, as opposed to primary. In other words, all things exist only in the mind and our perception thereof. From this, Berkeley concludes God also must exist as a omnipotent mind “whose will it is” to exhibit those ideas “to me,” as “it being out of my power to determine at pleasure, what particular ideas I shall be affected with upon opening my eyes or ears” (49). According to Berkeley, God exists as an infinite mind who exhibits thoughts in our finite minds, as we could not be the authors of what we sense—see, hear, feel, etc. However, Berkeley’s argument seems to make a giant leap of faith and lacks common sense. While our minds may not be as infinite as that of the omnipotent God, it is irrational to believe God predetermines everything we perceive, or that there might even be a God doing so. Berkeley rushes to conclude the existence of God. If one was reasonable and did not jump to conclusions like Berkeley does, one would not assume God exists, but question more: What exactly it is we are perceiving? What source does it come from. Berkeley seems to use the philosophical confusion over what we perceive as an excuse to justify God’s existence and justifying his own Christian beliefs. Truly, there is no rational way to determine what or who dictates what we witness, if there is anyone or anything at all. In fact, this source of our thoughts might not be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, as Berkley assumes. As Descartes questions, there could be an evil genius deceiving us at each moment—the opposite of God. Berkley lacks sensible reason and common sense in his argument for God’s existence, leaving many questions unanswered and gaps in the argument unresolved.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn his Three Dialogues of Hylas and Philonous, Berkley argues that because idealism is true, (assuming that Idealism is correct) God exists. His premises go as such,
ReplyDelete1. All things that exist are in a mind (idealism)
2. However, I did not create the things that exist in my mind
3. Therefore, things have to have an existence outside of the mind
4. Since the previous premise is true, there must be an infinite, omnipotent mind where those things always exist
5. Things always exist only when there is an infinite, omnipotent mind to perceive them (God)
6. God exists
I believe that Berkley’s claim is sound because any idea that exists finite mind is not created in their mind. If ideas do not exist when a mind is not perceiving it, for those ideas to exist in the finite mind, there MUST be an infinite mind that is ALWAYS perceiving them. We call that infinite mind God. For example, let us say that I claim I invented the pencil. If idealism is true, we cannot say that “one day the idea just came to me and I made the led and shaped the wood into a pencil” because one cannot create their own ideas without other ideas. In order for an idea to exist in my head, I need a past influence to help me perceive it. If this is true, then there is always something perceiving the ideas that are not being perceived in that moment. Hence the omnipotent mind, or God as we call Him. This claim strongly supports theist belief, and proves atheist wrong by taking using simple premises. However, how do we know that the singular infinite mind that Berkley speaks of created all ideas? And if he didn't, where do ideas come from? Did ideas always exist? Perhaps if Berkley answered these questions thoroughly, his claim would make more sense.
In his dialogues, Berkley attempts to prove idealism, believing that if idealism (the dependence on everything existence on minds perceiving them) is proven to be true, then god has to exist, disproving skepticism. The argument Berkley uses follows:
ReplyDelete1) All things that exist are in a mind (idealism)
2) Things exist not because of being dependent on my perception, and exist whether or not I perceive or create them (things have existence with or without my mind, and whether or not anyone is there to perceive them)
3) Therefore, all perceivable things must exist in an infinite mind, which is always perceiving all objects
4) An Infinite mind must exist
5) a God is an Infinite mind
6) Therefor God must exist
Berkley’s proving of a god has several problems. In the Abrahamic versions of theism, god is defined to be something which created the world for humans and is an all- all-powerful being, who helps people. If a god is always positive, as often depicted in theist religion, then an evil genius would not be a god, though he still can be an infinite mind. In order for god to always be an all-powerful being, it is needed for all all-powerful beings to be classified as gods to make this argument sound, no mater if they are good or evil. This therefor does not prove a god as theists believe to be true, but only an infinite mind to exist, that can be all good, all evil, or somewhere in between. This results in this argument being important only to those who want proof of an all-powerful being. Another flaw in his argument is that he believes when no one is there to perceive something, it stays in existence, yet there is no way to prove that, as in order to try to find out if something is there, you have to think of it, and therefor perceive it, so there is no way to prove if things pop in and out of existence when not being perceived. This leads to the conclusion that there is no way to determine if something is popping in and out existence, based on when people think of it, putting up questions as to whether or not premise 2 is definitively true. In conclusion, Berkley’s argument is seen to be flawed due to premise 2 not being definitive, as well as no consideration of an infinite mind that is not a god.
*and is an all-good, all-powerful being,
DeleteIt is my belief that two flaws within Berkeley' argument invalidate it.
ReplyDelete1) All things that exist are in a mind
2) Sensible things are not only dependant on my perception
2) God perceives all things
3) Sensible things do exist
4) If sensible things exist, they must be perceived by an infinite mind or god
Conclusion: God Exists
Firstly, if Berkeley's original argument were to be correct, it does not prove a god at least in the sense that we would consider god, it merely proves a higher mind. Having a mind that can perceive all does not necessarily equate to the god of Abrahamic beliefs. This "god" is essentially a collection of information. The Amazon Alexa device is a artificial intelligence "mind" that has access to a world of resources and information, but that does not make her a god. God, as most believe, is benevolent and caring for his people. Additionally, the idea of one infinite limits the way in which everyone may perceive the world. If everything's existence is limited by the perception of one "gods" mind, then that would lead one to believe that everyone in the world must perceive everything in the same way. This is of course false, therefore if idealism is true, it is more likely that existence is contained by a collection of everyone's mind and ideas, not just one "gods" mind.
1. all things that exist are in the mind
ReplyDelete2. my mind does not create things
3. there must be a higher mind to perceive these things
4. god perceive all things
5. these things exists
6. god exists
Berekely argues that idealism proves that God exists. This argument is flawed because the premises do not directly lead to the proof of God. Berekely uses idealism as a way to conclude to the idea that everything that exists is in the mind. This means that there must be a higher mind that perceives everything in existence. This is how Berekely proved the existence of God. Although, there is no proof in this argument. Berekely believes that god is an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being. This means that he has the power to prevent evil. History by itself can prove this argument wrong.