Wednesday, October 16, 2013
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)
Once validating the belief of idealism through proving the relativity of perception of both primary and secondary qualities in an object and that an object only exists with the presence of a mind, Berkeley then uses this idea to prove the existence of God. If an object exists only when there is a mind to perceive it, when, say, a sentient being leaves the room, does the object no longer exist because there is no longer a mind there to perceive it? Can things pop in and out of existence? Berkeley assumes that objects are unable to do such things; thus, there must be an infinite mind present which constantly perceives everything to prevent such an absurdity from happening. This infinite mind is God. Because all objects are ideas and must be perceived by a mind, and these ideas have to originate from a mind that is not my own which is constantly perceiving things, then this mind must be infinite, and only God can possess an infinite mind. Berkeley’s argument is valid to an extent; however, the idea that objects cannot pop in and out of existence is just an assumption! Can we really prove that? And can we confidently attribute an infinite mind to a God? A God have more aspects to perfection than infinite ability. An infinite mind does not automatically confirm the presence of a God. Ultimately, how reliable is it to base an argument of a mere assumption, something taken for granted and accepted as truth without real proof? If these questions are left unanswered, then the value of Berkeley’s argument for the existence of God is weak and incomplete.
ReplyDeleteBerkeley reasons that since objects only exist through our perceptions, then they pop out of existence when there is no one to perceive them. However, he assumes that the world is “stable” and therefore objects do not pop out of existence at all. This means that there must be another being constantly perceiving everything, and this being is God.
ReplyDeleteThis argument fails in multiple ways. It may be true that material objects do not exist, but we cannot assume that they pop out of existence when we do not perceive them. We have no way of proving this. Even if they do cease to exist without someone to perceive them, would this be a bad thing? If no one is perceiving these objects them no one needs these objects at the moment, so it does not really matter if they don’t exist as long as their lack of existence does not create some sort of black hole that alters the makeup of the universe.
If we assume that objects do cease to exist when there is no one to perceive them, and that for the stability of the universe they cannot simply disappear, then there must be some higher being to constantly perceive all the objects that humans perceive too. This being can be called a God because it is certainly more omnipotent than humans; however, this God is not necessarily omniscient. It could be possible that this God only perceives and maintains the existence of all the objects that interact with humans. It is also possible that this God is omniscient and perceives all the objects in the universe.
Either way there is a problem with this argument, because if everything must be perceived for it to exist, then God too must be perceived into existence. This means there must be a more powerful god than God, and a more powerful got than that god, and so on in an infinite regress of gods without a start or end point. This is not necessarily a problem, but Berkeley does not factor this argument into his version of idealism.
Berkeley argues that if all objects have no physical form but are instead mentally constructed that there must be a God. However, all of these objects are still real and simply exist as ideas which must be constructed by some being. The existence of these objects aren't dependent on the mind of the beholder and therefore every object must come from some external source that is infinite which he labels as God.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Berkeley's proof of God requires more than the acceptance of idealism. It requires us to accept that all objects have some objective constant existence that doesn't rely on us. While the unyielding existence of objects seems to be something very intuitive and by extension, true, we should keep in mind that Idealism itself is far from intuitive - our intuition does not dictate truth. It is very possible that one's surroundings are constantly generated by his own mind and the existence of everything subconsciously stems from his or her own mind whether or not they are aware of it. By extension, it is possible that those objects aren't truly real and are just phasing in and out of reality as the mind of the beholder dictates.
I propose a more radical argument: Berkeley's usage of God in his conception of reality is just an excuse to yield to some amounts of realism. More coherently put, Berkeley's idealism with God has no fundamental difference from sophisticated realism with the only difference being the medium from which reality is created from. Perhaps everything has a material existence that people then perceive and mold - thus secondary qualities would arise from that. However these objects would have inherent primary qualities that give rise to secondary qualities. The idea that these objects are real and have some existence outside of our minds isn't a one way street to God as Berkeley would like to imagine. Instead it leads down another path as well: the path of sophisticated realism. Applying principles like Occam's Razor, the most compelling argument is generally the simplest. Rather than some extravagant existence like God, perhaps Berkeley is wrong and there exists a material world - an argument far more intuitive and simple.
Razer*
DeleteIdealism states that the only things that exist are minds that perceive, therefore there is not material substance. Thus it is similar to Descartes’s idea that we think therefore we exist, but it is difficult to discern whether anything else we perceive also exists, even our bodies. Berkeley concludes that objects only exist, because they are being perceived. If things ceased being perceived they would jump out of existence. Berkeley’s argument for the proof of god’s existence is laid out like this:
ReplyDelete1. All objects are bundles of ideas and they must be perceived by a mind
2. They are mind dependent but independent of my mind and others
3. The mind that perceives these things is infinite
Conclusion: God exists.
Essentially, God’s existence allows for things to be consistently perceived so things will always exist.
Berkeley has a flaw in his argument when he assumes things don’t disappear and reappear. It is not necessarily apparent that things do not jump in and out of existence. There’s no harmful impact if things were to disappear every time we leave the room. Items only have a purpose if their being used, so at any given time there’s no particular reason why something should exist if no one is using it. Consequently, Berkeley doesn’t give a reason why God should exist in the first place.
Now, theoretically if God does exist, Berkeley’s definition of God doesn’t automatically give us the stereotypical religious God in all his totality. Berkeley gives us a God that omnipotent and omniscient but not necessarily omnibenevolent. Berkeley’s God is omnipotent, because he has all the power to bring things in and out of existence. Also, Berkeley’s God is omniscient, because he perceives all things at all times so he knows everything that goes on even in our minds. And yet, Berkeley’s argument doesn’t prove that his God is omnibenevolent. Really, his God doesn’t really have a reason to be omnibenevolent because his job is to keep everything existing. With this flaw in his argument, Berkeley cannot even claim that skepticism doesn’t against by assuming we are not deceived. It is completely possible that Berkeley’s God is an evil mind that creates an idea of us, because he enjoys torture.
Berkeley’s argument falls at the hands of assumption. Berkeley takes too many things for granted as truth without valid proof.
Berkley's argument is as follows:
ReplyDelete1) Objects only exist when they are being perceived.
2) Objects are somehow always in existence, even when not being perceived by me or any other human.
3) An "infinite mind" must exist to continually perceive everything at once.
Conclusion: god must exist.
I have so many objections to Berkley... First of all, playing along with Berkley a little, how do we know that everything must exist? Stuff could simply NOT exist when not perceived, according to other philosophers like Descartes, and we could have a "radius of perception" in which things in a space just materialize into existence as soon as that circle passes into that space.
The second problem is that of science. Science and philosophy have always been volatile ingredients when mixed, but we must go there to discover the truth. We must look on the very very small-scale. What happens to a table when no one looks at it? Does it disappear? Of course not, because there are still things to perceive it; bacteria and microbes in the air sense the table and its electromagnetic field. Who perceives the bacteria, then? In this case, I would go atomic. Can the bacteria's atoms exist without a god? Well atoms are made up of electrons, protons, and neutrons, which are in turn are composed of quarks, neutrinos, and photons... You see the cycle? Like this, we get a bit circular, just like Descartes did. In this way, I don't think there really is a way to prove how things really work, but I believe that it certainly disproves the existence of some god if we can continue to get smaller and smaller.
Going in the opposite direction–very very big–how do we know that god exists? There could be two scenarios: the first is that god perceives himself, sustaining both everything in the universe and also himself. The second is that there is some other, more powerful god observing the first. In the latter case, who perceives the larger god? It goes on in a cycle, which leads to no answer whatsoever. In the former case, however, I would make this argument: does god possess the ability to stop perceiving himself? If so, everything, including god himself, would cease to exist. If not, he is not omnipotent. Therefore, god must not exist.
Atheists 1, Berkley 0.
Berkeley makes the idealist argument that to exist is to be perceived, esse es percipi. In other word, reality is mind dependent. Objects being bundles of perceptions, they have no existence outside of minds. Yet, he struggles with the notion that things might pop in and out of existence. He claims to know that things must exist independent of himself, thus they don’t disappear every time he leaves the room. Through this logic, he asserts there must be a mind constantly perceiving everything. This mind must be infinite since it perceives everything at once. Finally, an infinite mind constitutes a God. The first objection to rise from his argument is that he cannot possibly say whether or not things pop in and out of existence when he is not around. He has absolutely no way of knowing. He argues common logic validates that things always exist; however, logical as it seems, he cannot prove this claim as true. Further, the second question is whether or not an infinite mind meets the qualifications of God. Berkeley makes a strong argument for the existence of an infinite perceiver, but we also attribute other different qualities to God. He is all-powerful, all-loving. In my opinion, Berkeley makes too large of a leap in asserting the destruction of atheism from the existence of an infinite perceiver, as the existence of an infinite power does not mean God exists. Take a square and a rectangle, for instance. A square is always a rectangle, just as God always possesses an infinite perception. Yet, a rectangle is not always a square, as a square has more specific properties attributed to itself than just four sides and four right angles. Just the same, what goes into the definition of God is more than an ability to perceive infinitely. He is also all-mighty, loving, supremely good, and all-powerful. Berkeley does validate the existence of higher being that is able to perceive everything at once, but this does not merit the assumption God exists.
ReplyDelete