George Berkley: His View Of God Essay, Research Paper

George Berkeley: His View of God

As man progressed through the various stages of evolution, it is

assumed that at a certain point he began to ponder the world around him. Of

course, these first attempts fell short of being scholarly, probably

consisting of a few grunts and snorts at best. As time passed on, though,

these ideas persisted and were eventually tackled by the more intellectual,

so-called philosophers. Thus, excavation of “the external world” began. As

the authoritarinism of the ancients gave way to the more liberal views of

the modernists, two main positions concerning epistemology and the nature

of the world arose. The first view was exemplified by the empiricists, who

stated that all knowledge comes from the senses. In opposition, the

rationalists maintained that knowledge comes purely from deduction, and

that this knowledge is processed by certain innate schema in the mind.

Those that belonged to the empiricist school of thought developed quite

separate and distinct ideas concerning the nature of the substratum of

sensible objects. John Locke and David Hume upheld the belief that

sensible things were composed of material substance, the basic framework

for the materialist position. The main figure who believed that material

substance did not exist is George Berkeley. In truth, it is the

immaterialist position that seems the most logical when placed under close

scrutiny.

The initial groundwork for Berkeley’s position is the truism that the

materialist is a skeptic. In the writing of his three dialogues, Berkeley

develops two characters: Hylas (the materialist) and Philonous (Berkeley

himself). Philonous draws upon one central supposition of the materialist

to formulate his argument of skepticism against him; this idea is that one

can never perceive the real essence of anything. In short, the materialist

feels that the information received through sense experience gives a

representative picture of the outside world (the representative theory of

perception), and one can not penetrate to the true essece of an object.

This makes logical sense, for the only way to perceive this real essence

would be to become the object itself! Although the idea is logical, it

does contain a certain grounding for agnosticism. Let the reader consider

this: if there is no way to actually sense the true material essence of

anything, and all knowledge in empiricism comes from the senses, then the

real material essence can not be perceived and therefore it can not be

posited. This deserves careful consideration, for the materialist has been

self-proclaimed a skeptic! If the believer in this theory were asked if a

mythical beast such as a cyclops existed he would most certainly say no. As

part of his reply he might add that because it can not be sensed it is not

a piece of knowledge. After being enlightened by the above proposed

argument, though, that same materialist is logically forced to agree that,

because the “material substratum1″ itself can not be sensed, its existence

can not be treated as knowledge. The materialist belief has, in effect,

become as futile as proving that the cyclops exists; his ideas have lead

him into skepticism.

Having proven that the materialist is, at best, a doubter, Berkeley

goes on to offer the compelling argument that primary and secondary

qualities are, together, one thing. As the materialist believes, primary

qualities of an object are those things that are abstract (not sense

oriented). Examples of these would be number, figure, motion, and

extension. Secondary qualities are those things that are concrete (sense

oriented), such as color, smell, sound, and taste. The materialist feels

that these primary qualities persist even when the secondary ones are not

there. Thus, if a person were blind, then that individual would not be

able to hear or to touch items; yet the so-called real qualities such as

figure would remain existent in the objects. As previously shown, the

materialist is agnostic in his belief of these real (primary) qualities.

It is here that Berkeley directs an alternate hypothesis: that the abstract

primary qualities don’t exist at all. In fact, the immaterialist position

states that these qualities are merely secondary in nature, as they, too,

can not be perceived as being separate from an object. For instance, if a

person is asked to imagine a primary quality alone, as an abstraction, it

is impossible. To illustrate this point, suppose that a person is asked to

think simply of number alone. This person may reply that the idea he is

formulating is that of three red spheres. In truth this is not an abstract

idea, because when the qualities of color (red) and shape (sphere) are

taken away, all that is left is three of nothing! Thus, it is impossible

to think of the abstraction of number, given that an abstract quality can

not focus on anything concrete (such as red spheres in the above mentioned

example). Therefore, it follows that, since no primary, abstract quality

can exist alone, it is the same as a secondary quality in which an actual

object must first be perceived.

Berkeley moves on to show that the perceived qualities of an object

are ideas which exist only in a mind. To do this, he states that a

sensation is an idea. This is logical, for sensations can not be felt by

mindless objects. However, it is this point which Berkeley scrutinizes in

the materialist statement that an external object “is a material substance

with the sensible qualities inhering in it.2″ The materialist is

proclaiming that sensible qualities, which exist in the mind only, are

actually in the object. Logically, the only possible way for this to occur

is if the external object had a mind for the qualities to be thought of and

stored by. The notion that inanimate objects have minds is ridiculous, and

thus the materialists’ belief has been reduced to absurdity. Let the

reader consider this example to reinforce the point. A ten-story building

is erected, and a person who lives in a single-story house in the country

sees the new building. To this person the structure may seem quite tall,

as he has never seen any building taller than three stories. However, a

construction worker comes across the same building and perceives its height

quite differently than the previous man. Since the second man usually works

on buildings about thirty stories high, he thinks that the building is

fairly short. Obviously, the new building can not be both tall and short

at the same time; yet this is the outcome if one believes that the quality

of tallness is inherent in the object. In fact, if the idealist

(immaterialist) position is considered it seems logical that one person

could view something differently than another. This is because the idea

concerning that thing could be different in the two separate minds.

At this point Berkeley explains that the so-called tertiary qualities

of an external object are non-existent. The materialist defines these

qualities as the ability in one object to produce change in another object.

In the three dialogues, Hylas brings up the point that these qualities are

“perceive[d] by the sense… and exist in the object that occasions

[them]3.” An example of this quality would be a burning candle. Suppose

that a person puts his finger in the flame long enough to feel the pain of

a burn. The materialist would attribute this pain to the lit candle

itself, stating that the ability to produce pain is inherent in it.

However, this can not be the case. As previously discussed, the external

objects are merely ideas which we perceive through sense experience. Just

as these objects do not possess any primary or secondary qualities, they

also can not have the ability to cause change in something else. In fact,

these tertiary qualities are also ideas perceived only in the mind.

Given that objects are ideas and humans possess minds to perceive them

with, the nature of both ideas and minds deserves careful consideration.

Berkeley assumes the view that ideas are passive and only perceivable in a

mind. He goes on to state that these ideas are existent only when a mind is

perceiving them. This is logical, for when something is not being

ruminated upon it does not exist in the realm of knowledge at that

particular time. As an example, if I were to move to another country and,

after some time, forget about my old house in America, it would not exist

to me anymore. In accordance with the immaterialists’ view, my actively

perceiving mind would be electing not to reflect back upon the past. Thus,

only the active mind can create the purely passive idea.

Since an idea only exists when it is being perceived or reflected upon,

this brings into question the nature of reality. For instance, assume that

a person attends an art museum early on Sunday morning. As that person

views the artwork, the paintings themselves are sensible things, or ideas,

actively being perceived by a mind; in short, they exist. However, when

the museum closes and the person goes home, does the artwork continue to

exist? Obviously the person pursues other activities of the day, and he

ceases to think about what he did earlier. However, at a certain time

those paintings were part of what the person knew to be true through

sensation; the artwork was part of the person’s reality. Do the paintings

therefore cease to exist since they are no longer being thought of?

Berkley argues that such objects still exist because the mind of God is

always perceiving them. Unlike the materialists’ view, the immaterialist

puts God at the center of his views. In truth, God is the “omnipresent

external mind which knows and comprehends all things, and exhibits them to

our view in such a manner and according to such rules as He Himself has

ordained and are by us termed the ‘laws of nature.’4″ It is important to

stress the idea that God shows people the ideas in his mind, and these

ideas make up the reality beheld by the human mind. Therefore, for any

person to perceive something, the idea must be in the mind of God first.

The fact that there are two distinct minds raises questions about the

nature of these minds. The idealist proclaims that the human mind is

strictly finite in its ability to have sense experience. With this being

the case, a person can only have a single sensation at a time. Since

sensations are the same as ideas, humans can only have one idea at once.

On the other hand, God’s mind is infinite and is thus able to have multiple

perceptions. These perceptions of God are also ideas, and it follows that

these ideas comprise the reality beheld in the finite human mind. Instead

of the materialists’ belief in the representative theory of perception,

where a material object has real (primary) qualities which humans perceive

as sensible (secondary) qualities, Berkeley has posited an alternate

theory. This is that God upholds all of the ideas which comprise human

reality, and people perceive these ideas as sensations directly from God’s

infinite mind.

It should also be noted that just as the finite mind is different from

the infinite mind, the ideas in each mind have some certain distinctions.

The finite mind can only contemplate a limited range of thoughts. To

illustrate this, let the reader attempt to imagine an infinite number of

stars. After some intellection, the reader will realize that it is an

impossible task. This is because the human mind can only think in terms of

bounded entities; thus, in the above mentioned case, the reader may have

thought of a great many stars. However, the stars were finite in number and

could therefore not represent the notion of infinity. In short, the finite

mind can only conceive finite thoughts. Not only this, but, as previously

disgussed, humans can perceive only one thought at a time. If the reader

does not think this to be the case, then let her attempt to imagine a small

boy and a thunderstorm as completely separate ideas. Although both ideas

may be thought of, the only way for this to occur is when they are placed

in the same mental picture. In summary, the human mind has important

limits which can easily be observed.

On the contrary, the infinite mind of God is limitless in its ability

to perceive ideas. In God’s mind, an infinite thought (a thought without

boundaries) can exist. This infinite idea’s existence in God’s mind is

more that possible; it must necessarily be the case. This is because

infinite concepts such as the number system and the universe must come

from, as do all thoughts, a mind. However, since the human mind is finite

and therefore incapable of conceiving boundless thoughts, then those

infinite ideas must arise from the infinite mind of God. Not only does

God’s mind contain infinite thoughts, but it also must possess the ability

to think of, in the least, many thoughts at once. This is necessarily the

case for the collection of God’s ideas which people call reality to exist;

if God did not have this ability then external objects would not exist when

the finite mind was not perceiving them.

Thus far the immaterialist position has been considered in its parts;

at this point it shall be viewed as one simple model. Let the reader

picture an isosceles triangle which is divided into three parts: the top,

middle, and bottom. At the apex of the figure is God’s infinite mind. The

middle portion of the triangle is occupied by the finite minds of people.

Lastly, the bottom section contains the ideas perceived by humans. Because

God is at the pinnacle of the figure, He also perceives the ideas that

people do. However, since the human mind is finite, it can not conceive of

the infinite ideas in God’s mind at the apex of the triangle. Now, the

concepts of either perceiving or being perceived can be added to the

picture. Both the top and middle portions of the figure are minds, so both

of these sections are perceivers. At the bottom of the model are ideas,

and since they do not act of their own volition, they are perceived. As

previously shown, perceivers are active and the perceived is passive.

Lastly, the concept of existence can be applied to the triangle. Since

existence is that which is either perceived or perceives5, and each part of

the model has been shown to meet one of these criteria, then the entire

triangle must be considered to exist.

In the final analysis, it is evident that Berkley’s immaterialist

position is logically feasible. From his definitions of minds and ideas to

his careful attribution of their respective qualities, George Berkeley has

produced a compelling argument for his views. However, this is not all

that he has done; in fact, Berkeley has shown the necessary importance of

God. In the materialist view, a belief in God is not logically necessary

to uphold the “material substratum2.” Berkeley shows that God must exist,

for He is at the heart of Berkeley’s position. In short, the materialist

view allows for atheism as a possible option.