Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
David Hume
Which statements do you accept?
Followers
Blog Archive
Berkeley
Which of the following most closely describes you?
Descartes
The philosophy or religion that most closely matches the message of "The Matrix" is
Plato
If idealism is taken as fact it is easy to prove the existence of a certain sense of god.
ReplyDelete1) All objects are dependent on a mind (esse est percipi)
2) All objects are independent of my mind, and your mind, and all minds because things do not pop into and out of existence
3) There must be some mind that is always perceiving all ideas GOD!!
The first premise is simply a statement of the idealist doctrine. For the purpose of this post it is to be taken as a given.
The second premise is clearly valid. I will concede this point and the entire argument if you can give an example of something that exists, ceases to exist, and then exists again.
I will now respond to the argument that was raised in class about clapping your hands. Zach and Gavin argued that they were causing the same thing, namely a sound to repeatedly enter into and out of existence every time they clapped their hands. This does not violate the second premise. Berkeley does not deny that it is possible to bring things into existence (like a sound by clapping your hands) nor does he deny that it is possible to remove that thing from existence. It is an absurdity however that you bring the same sound back into existence. Not only does it exist in a different point in time, it is impossible to duplicate the exact sound. You are therefore bringing a different sound into existence when you clap a second time.
The conclusion that a god exists follows logically from these two premises.
However, the slipping point for Berkeley comes when he tries to extend this argument to include an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god. This argument for god only demonstrates that a force exists that contains all the ideas that exist in nature. I have a difficult time calling this force God. I am a very strong atheist, yet I can still believe in this force. It reminds me of a quote by Frank Lloyd Wright, “I believe in god, only I spell it nature.” This proof does nothing to advance the argument against atheism even when idealism is taken for granted. All that it accomplishes is showing that the ideas of all objects in nature are contained in some form in a central understanding. Although a tremendous achievement, this proof does not demonstrate a god that is self aware, let alone possessing omnipotence, omniscience, or omnibenevolence.
I mostly agree with Nate. When you accept two of Berkeley's main principals, idealism and that things cannot go in and out of existence, proof of a greater consciousness easily falls into place. Quite simply, because everything is based on perception, there has to be something there to perceive at all times (going back to our original question of: if a tree falls and noone is around to hear it, does it make a noise; god hears it) and that observer is god.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I disagree with Nate's contention that proving this does nothing to disprove atheism. We can argue over definitions, but I think a central tenant of atheism is that there is no god, or overarching presence, that there is no higher being. Berkeley's god, no matter how limited, definitively shows this to be false, that there is something more powerful and aware than humans. Rather,I think what Berkeley lays out is closer to an Agnostic view of a god we cannot comprehend
I disagree that this implies something "more powerful and aware than humans." It only implies that there is an observer. This observer is not necessarily self aware. I don't think there is any way to separate it from a fundamental force of nature (gravity, strong,...) This may be an absolutely powerless passive observer. Correct me if I am wrong, but that does not qualify as a god to me. This does not even fit the bill for omniscience. This "god" observes all things but does cannot necessarily understand, remember, or analyze them.
ReplyDeleteThe universe itself might be doing the seeing. I don't know what exactly is observing.
I have to agree with Nate here. Theism or Atheism aside, Berkeley's God clearly exists, accepting the tenants of idealism. Nate does a good job summarizing this argument so I will not dwell on that point.
ReplyDeleteBringing the argument back to whether God exists or not, it is critical to determine what we mean by God in order to discuss this question. Atheism as I connotate it is the denial of all classical Gods, that is, the denial of all concepts in which God is capable of passing judgment and interacting with the material world. I find fault in Berkley's idea that he proves God's existence through idealism. A more accurate statement is that Berkley proves the existence of an omnipresent observer. In my mind there is an important distinction between a God and an observer.
Thus, I do not believe Berkley actually proves God's existence to any legitimate extent since there is an important difference between God and the observer Berkley proves.
Evan, Berkeley's God doesn't have to be anything more than an observer. His power lies in his omniscience, so for Berkeley and the rest of the Idealists, whether or not God can participate and interact with the material world is insignificant. In fact, one could fairly argue that observation is tantamount to participation in an idealist world, so the omnipresent observer resembles the "classical gods" to which you refer.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Berkeley's argument for God, which Nate summed up nicely, the conclusion does logically follow given that the first two premises are true. The reason why theists aren't jumping for joy is the fact that the first premise is based upon an unstable foundation, which is unfortunate because it is essential to the argument. Because the evidence for Idealism is controversial at best, the proof of the existence of God is just as shaky.
ReplyDeleteIf someone could give a definitive proof for Idealism that is based upon sound premises and logically follows from said premises, then we would have unquestionably proven the existence of God. But until that day, this argument is nothing more than an intellectual exercise.
I also agree with Nate, that if the truth of idealism is assumed, the existence of a constantly present, omniscient force, coined "God," logically follows. Berkeley's further argument that this "God" is also omnipotent and omnibenevolent does not logically follow his first two premises. I believe that these two characteristics of "God" he tries to defend originate from the stereotypical, common concept of "God," rather than originating from his argument. Instead of using idealism to determine what characteristics must be present in this force in order for there to be the most basic forms of existence, he attempts to prove previously believed characteristics of "God" through idealism. Consequently, several of the characteristics he uses to define God do not logically follow his argument, making it invalid. I am willing to say that there must be some force constantly perceiving all that exists, but I completely reject the other qualities given to this force (such as absolute power and goodness) because I view them to only be argued due to their presence in the popularized idea of "God," rather than an original, unnamed, and therefore untainted idea of a "force."
ReplyDelete