Monday, October 17, 2011
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)
With the given truth of idealism as objects are bundles of ideas that exist in, and are dependent on, the mind, Berkeley’s argument for the existence of god relies on the idea that objects do not go in and out of existence when not being perceived by a finite mind. Berkeley’s argument creates god through creating the necessity for something to be able to perceive all ideas, so that they do not cease to exist when not being perceived by a finite mind. If the thought that things are constantly moving in and out of existence is entertained, then there would be no reason for god to exist with Berkeley’s argument.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of this, Berkeley fails to prove the existence of anything other than something capable of perceiving everything there is to perceive. This may not have to be an infinite mind, as there may very well not be an infinite amount of things to perceive. This thing also does not have to have any characteristics other than this ability to perceive. Berkeley’s argument does not prove the existence of the god he believes in, and it is hard to say that this being he has argued the existence of could even be considered as god with regards to any sort of perfection.
Berkeley claims to prove the existence of God by using his argument based in Idealism. He uses the premise that everything in the universe is simply a collection of ideas which are purely mentally created and only exist if they are being perceived. He then states that because we know that things don’t just disappear, there must be something perceiving all objects at all times. Because no finite mind like you or I could ever perceive everything all the time, he states that there must be an “infinite mind” perceiving everything all the time. He concludes that this infinite mind must undoubtedly be God himself, thus proving the existence of God.
ReplyDeleteThere are more than a few problems with this argument. Firstly, Berkeley assumes that objects do not simply disappear when nobody is perceiving them. He draws this premise from the idea that most reasonable people would agree that this is true, but drawing conclusions based on a popular consensus of “that seems reasonable” is no way to go about philosophy. He never makes a concrete justification for why objects do not simply disappear when not observed. In fact, (forgive me for getting scientific, but although all of these points can be made without the need for modern physics, it is certainly a helpful aid) we see applications of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle which conclude that we actually don’t know if the moon still exists if nobody is observing it. So, in short, his argument is suspect at best at this point due to a lack of justification of premises.
The larger and more glaring problem with Berkeley’s argument is the fact that he draws the conclusion of God’s existence from the premise that he has proved an infinite mind. The problem is two-fold here. Firstly, even if he could prove an infinite mind, we do not generally accept God to be only an infinite mind. We expect him to be all good, all knowing, all powerful, and such. He does not prove any of these other attributes of God, so how are we to know that this so called “infinite mind” is in fact God himself. Furthermore, Berkeley is not even justified in drawing the conclusion of an “ultimately infinite mind” from his premises. As I have discussed in class, simply proving that there is a being which observes everything in our 3D world does not prove an infinite mind. To give a clearer example, consider an ant which is crawling along a Mobius strip. This is a strip of paper with a twist in it which has two sides, like most 2D paper, but it has only one edge. Thus, an ant crawling along this, from our view, finite strip of paper with two sides, can walk in a straight line without crossing the edge and traverse both sides of the strip of paper. The implication of this is that the ant observes this finite closed loop of paper as an infinite non-orientable surface on which he can traverse both sides of this infinite plane. Now, assuming that the ant is our fictional 2D person, we see that they observe this finite closed loop as an infinite 2D universe. From our perspective, in the 3D world, this is simply a strip of paper that I can hold in my hand and observe. Thus, I, who am only one dimension higher than the 2D person, can observe this entire infinite universe at one time. The same argument can apply to our universe in the sense that our universe which we perceive as infinite, is in fact as simple to a 4D being as a Mobius strip is to us. Thus, even if we buy the argument about objects never disappearing, we can only conclude that there is a higher dimensional being who is observing us, just as a 2D person could only prove our existence, but we are certainly not God. Ultimately, we cannot buy Berkeley’s argument for at least three reasons which I have clearly stated in the previous paragraphs.
Idealism is the belief that every corporeal thing is just a bundle of ideas. Berkely uses this belief not ony to refute skepticism, but also to prove the existence of God. He says objects are dependent on minds to exist because they are just bundles of ideas. However, objects have to be independent of finite minds because they cannot perceive everything all the time. This then means that whenever an object is not perceived by a finite mind, they would pop out of existence. Because this is not plausible, objects must be dependent on an infinite mind that perceives everything all the time. Therefore, God exists.
ReplyDeleteBerkeley needed the existence of God to make idealism plausible and account for a stable universe.According to Berkeley, there are only two things in the universe: ideas and minds. Sensible objects (things perceived by the senses) are real only if a mind is perceiving them. But what happens when a mind is not perceiving them? Berkeley argues that there might not always be a finite mind perceiving them, but that there is an infinite that percevies everything all the time. If everything was always popping in and out of existence with the presence of finite minds, the universe would be eratic and unpredictable. There are several objections to Berkeley's argument. First, if one argues with idealism, then the entire argument falls apart. Objects could exist outside of any mind, but we only know objects as we perceive them, not their true natures. Also, how do we know that the infinite mind is really infinite and that it is God? God is not just an infinite mind, but also a multitude of other qualities that are not accounted for in this argument like omnibenevolence.
ReplyDeleteBerkeley is not correct in his assertion that God must exist because of the truth of idealism. Berkeley argues that because objects are bundles of ideas that exist in the mind and are independent of finite minds, they are thus dependent on an infinite mind to exist because they need to always be perceived in order to exist. In order to be perceived, an infinite mind must exist to constantly perceive everything, and as a result, God must exist in order to fill the role of the always- perceiving-infinite-mind.
This argument is essential in Berkeley’s argument of idealism. Berkeley argues that material objects only exist if they are being perceived in our minds. He elaborates however, that reason objects exist is because there is an infinite mind perceiving everything, thus objects always are in existence. Without the presence of some supremely being capable of perceiving everything all the time, his entire argument of idealism fails. However, I do not think it is fair to give this being the label of “God” nor should it give theists anything to cheer about. Even if Berkeley’s idealism argument is proven to be true, this infinite mind would not play the same role of God in Berkeley’s idealistic world then it does currently in our world. Across basically all cultures and religions, God is considered an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscience creature; Berkeley does not express in his claim that God exists that any of these qualities are present. In order to be God, this infinite mind would have to be able to give people hope, faith, and strength, not just material objects. Berkeley’s argument would not give theists anything to cheer about, but actually would have the adverse affect. If Berkeley is correct, then God’s main purpose in the universe would be to maintain the presence of material objects. However, theists believe God has the power to create miracles through divine intervention. To learn that God’s role is solely to perceive material objects would be very upsetting