Monday, October 18, 2010
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 believes that if one accepts idealism to be true then God must exist. His argument is as follows: all things exist only in a mind, perceptions are independent of my mind or else I would be able to manipulate the world at will; perceptions must however, be dependant on a mind and since that mind is not mine there must be a omnipresent infinite mind they belong to. I believe this argument is logically sound if and only if you accept the first premise that all things exist only in a mind as perceptions. I believe that this first premise is debatable, but for the sake of argument I will accept it to be true. I think that although the conclusion that there is an infinite, higher mind is true seeing as it logically follow the premises it may not prove a Christian or benevolent God. I would go as far to say that it does not necessarily prove the existence of what is typically accepted as “God.” For instance, the omnipresent mind could be a collective mind that is representative of the whole population of earth. Each mind on earth could subconsciously be connected and thus form a whole mind that perceives things the same way. Similarly, there is nothing in this argument that proves God is benevolent. God or the infinite mind could be an evil genius that deceives. In conclusion I believe that if you accept the first premise then you cannot deny the existence of an infinite or higher mind, however this argument does not prove that, that mind is a Christian or benevolent God.
ReplyDeleteI do think that, if we accept idealism to be true, then we must accept the presence of an omnipotent being. However, this does not prove that such a being would be God, or at least that this being is God in the sense that we typically think about God. If God is generating all our perceptions, then he is responsible for everything evil in the world. God gave us bodies that can feel pain, break down, and cease to function. God created natural disasters. God is also responsible for every human who hallucinates. A benevolent God would have no reason to create these things. Under Berkeley's argument, the most logical conclusion is that God created us for personal entertainment rather than any sort of benevolence. Ultimately, Berkeley's proof of the existence of an omnipotent being goes against his original intention.
ReplyDeleteBerkeley claims that, if idealism is true, then it follows that God must exist. If sensible qualities cannot exist outside of the mind, then they must exist in some mind. We cannot control our senses, and therefore they are independent of our mind. Therefore, they exist in some other mind. This mind must always be and must always have been thinking about all these sensible qualities. Therefore, there must exist a God who has an omnipresent eternal mind that knows all things.
ReplyDeleteThough I believe this argument does prove that there is a greater mind, I do not believe it proves that there is neither a God nor that this God is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent. First, there is no reason to assume this thinking mind is God. There could be advanced scientists thinking of all the perceptions possible. This mind also does not have to be eternal, as Barkley cannot prove that perceptions existed before he was born and that they will continue. It’s even plausible to conclude that there is no time because we have no proof of time passing, so this mind might only have to be thinking for a moment. Similarly, this mind does not have to be benevolent. In fact, Barkley never gives a substantial argument to why God must be benevolent. Rather, he assumes that if there is a God, it must be the Judeo-Christian God and therefore be munificent. God could just as easily be an evil genius. Because of these reasons, though I believe that his argument does prove the existence of a higher mind, I think Berkeley fails to prove that a benevolent, omnipotent, omnipresent God exists.
Berkeley writes that there must be some kind of god. He uses his belief in idealism to reason that everything material in the world exists solely in our sense perception. Berkeley wanted to then kill two birds with one stone. he knew that there was a hole in his argument because his reasoning didn't fit the fact that we all perceive the same things when "looking" at a object, and he wanted to prove the existence of a god. Berkeley goes on to "reason" that since we all share perceptions individuals are incapable of creating perceptions, thus the perceptions must be created in some all powerful mind that has access to everyone's mind and can plant the created perceptions in these minds. Thus Berkeley reasons there must be some kind of god. Assuming Berkeley’s belief in idealism is true and in fact there are no material things in the world and the only things that exist our human minds floating around in space then it seems true that there must be some sort of all powerful all knowing creator. Even so, this creator doesn’t necessarily need to be a benevolent Christian god or a god of any religion.
ReplyDeleteBerkeley’s proof of idealism is faulty and based off of illogical principles. He believes that there are no primary qualities in an object because he reasons that an object cannot be two contradicting things. He states that all the things that would be considered primary qualities are in fact relative and states that anything relative can be contradicting. Thus he states that all traits are in the mind. It is true that the notions of big and small are relative, but primary qualities can be measured in terms of constant and objective scales of measurement. Thus even though I may perceive a grain of sand to be tiny and a bacterium may perceive it as something large, in the end of the day the grain of sand has a certain size in micrometers that is the same for all observers. When his argument proving idealism breaks down, so does his entire reasoning as to the
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Argument-
ReplyDelete1. Perceptions exist independent of a mind
2. But perceptions are dependent on a mind, although it is not my mind
3. Therefore, there must be some other mind that created and controls these perceptions
4. Therefore, God must exist
In terms of logic, this argument works. If Idealism is true, then the other points follow, including that there is another mind controlling the perceptions. If not for this argument, then it would follow that things do pop out of existence when no one is around. But Berkeley is taking this argument too far when he calls this being God. Using the logic of the argument, all we know is that there is some sort of infinite mind out there. Berkeley wants to call this infinite mind God, and then assumes many commonly held beliefs about God; that he is the Judeo-Christian God, that he is kind and benevolent, and so on. But really, all the argument does is let us known that there is an infinite mind out there, nothing more. We don't know that this mind is a "God", and we certainly don't know if it is the Judeo-Christian one, in fact, this being could have no connection to religion whatsoever. We also don't know if this being is benevolent. It may be, sure, but it could also be completely evil or anywhere in between. Berkeley is simply making assumptions about this God that are not warranted. Berkeley is just trying too hard to make this argument prove something that it does not.
Berkeley argues that idealism proves the existence of a god because there must be an infinite mind that percieves everything. He also argues that no perception can exist without a mind, so if the mind isn’t mine, it must belong to an infinite being or God. Assuming that this idea of idealism is correct for the sake of the argument, it does logically follow that God exists.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the argument doesn’t have a lot of worth because it doesn’t prove the existence of a God in a specific religion or context, just that there is an infinite mind somewher e in the universe. It does support theists because there is supposed to be an all powerful and knowing mind in the universe that they call God, but it doesn’t really prove the existence of a God in the Christian definition, an all perfect and benevolent God who cares about the day to day morality and general doings of humans. Even if the athiests among us accept idealism, they would just say that although there is a mind it is not the creator of the world or humans, just an all percieving mind and nothing more. Idealism doesn’t even prove that this all knowing mind even thinks independently of perceptions. Being a bishop, it isn’t surprising that Berkeley casts this infinite mind as the God in the Bible, but in reality this is jumping to conclusions. Idealism only proves that there is an infinite mind somewhere that percieves everything, not necessarily that he is the protagonist in religious texts.
Using idealism as a base, there is no denying that Berkeley's argument for a god existing is viable. He believes that everything is perceived, and only someone as powerful and almighty as a god can perceive everything at once. However, just because someone or something may perceive everything around the world, doesn't necessarily make it a god. Berkeley describes god as an omnipotent being that in responsible for everything good that happens in life. But there is nothing to say that god isn't a deceiver. If god is omnipotent, then why is he creating havoc around the world? There is no reason to suggest that an all-mighty being would create hurricanes, famine and disease, so there is no reason to suggest there is a god. By Berkeley’s idea, there is a being that is perceiving and creating everything in the world, but there is no proof that it is a god.
ReplyDelete