Berkeley's argument for the existence of God

[GrandizerII]

Light, for instance, exists only because it's being perceived, because, if it weren't perceived, it wouldn't by light by definition (a natural agent that enables vision).

This is problematic. It seems clear that light exists, whether we exist to experience it or not. It's just that when the human mind perceive light, it perceives it a certain way. It doesn't mean that light does not exist in a totally objective sense.

Since perceptions are ideas, they have to be caused by other ideas.

Ideas that correspond to actual things in the objective realm of existence, things that we can indirectly interact with.

Ideas have nothing in common with material things (they don't occupy space or have mass), and therefore they can't be caused by material things.

What's the logical argument for this? I'm all for parallelism if it makes sense, but I need to see that argument first. As of now, I am not convinced that mind and matter cannot interact, or that mind does not simply emerge from matter.

Since perceptions, which are ideas, can be caused by the natural agents such as light, it has to be that those natural agents are also immaterial. Now, here is the important part: if those natural agents are being caused or affected by something, that is, the things we perceive as material, it has to be that those things that affect them are also immaterial. If they were truly material, they couldn't affect the ideas through which we perceive them (such as light), and therefore they couldn't be perceived at all. Therefore, the material world has to be an illusion. All we can actually perceive are ideas.

Well, considering that I do not agree with the premises overall, I cannot agree with the conclusion. So further argumentation needs to be made to establish the conclusion, if possible.

Now, if those things are ideas, how it is that, if we open our eyes in the middle of the day, we can't choose what we will see or whether we will see anything? It has to be that those ideas aren't ours, but that those are actually ideas of a supreme being, and that we are also one of his ideas. That being is called God.

Or that ideas arise subconsciously. Either way, I don't agree with the premises overall, so conclusion rejected.

[robvalue]

A lot of this seems to be, "If you don't let me have magical stuff, you can't have light/numbers/ideas/etc". It's conflating loads of different things, and trying to sneak God in as an abstract concept which somehow has agency too.

[FatAndFaithless]

Not to trawl back through yesterday's fun times, but I still just don't see how this argument is useful, meaningful, or enlightening about reality at all (let alone the existence of a god), especially considering how much more we know about reality nowadays.

[vulcanlogician]

Not to trawl back through yesterday's fun times, but I still just don't see how this argument is useful, meaningful, or enlightening about reality at all (let alone the existence of a god), especially considering how much more we know about reality nowadays.

FWIW its utility is in plotting out what we actually know about the real universe. It is asking, "If the material world exists, what evidence is there for that? Could it all be ideas?" It's always nice to question one's own assumptions, and that is a major part of a philosopher's work.

It's an investigation into the very foundations of knowledge. The answer to Berkeley's question is meaningful or enlightening no matter how you slice it.

As to "useful"... who knows? It is a search for knowledge. In a quest for knowledge it is often difficult to see what utility the knowledge you are looking for has. For instance, astrophysicists and cosmologists study the cosmic background radiation in an attempt to work out what happened after the big bang. How is that useful to know?

You can't say to an astrophysicist, "Show me how this is going to be useful information and THEN we will allow you to look for the answers." If that had happened, Galileo would have been prevented from proving that the earth revolved around the sun. After all, how useful is that bit of information to a 17th century European? We use that information for a lot of things now, but it would have been hard to argue back then how such information would have proved beneficial to the life of the average person.

[FatAndFaithless]

Not to trawl back through yesterday's fun times, but I still just don't see how this argument is useful, meaningful, or enlightening about reality at all (let alone the existence of a god), especially considering how much more we know about reality nowadays.

FWIW its utility is in plotting out what we actually know about the real universe. It is asking, "If the material world exists, what evidence is there for that? Could it all be ideas?" It's always nice to question one's own assumptions, and that is a major part of a philosopher's work.

It's an investigation into the very foundations of knowledge. The answer to Berkeley's question is meaningful or enlightening no matter how you slice it.

As to "useful"... who knows? It is a search for knowledge. In a quest for knowledge it is often difficult to see what utility the knowledge you are looking for has. For instance, astrophysicists and cosmologists study the cosmic background radiation in an attempt to work out what happened after the big bang. How is that useful to know?

You can't say to an astrophysicist, "Show me how this is going to be useful information and THEN we will allow you to look for the answers." If that had happened, Galileo would have been prevented from proving that the earth revolved around the sun. After all, how useful is that bit of information to a 17th century European? We use that information for a lot of things now, but it would have been hard to argue back then how such information would have proved beneficial to the life of the average person.

I don't think that's fair, comparing it to science.  Even if some sort of scientific knowledge isn't immediately useful, we can still map out how they arrived at their conclusions/data through empirical evidence and replication.  We can see how they're building upon the knowledge we have about reality, and that knowledge could become useful at a later date as we gather more information.

Berkeley is just "if" after "if" after "if".  It is certainly an interesting question, but there's no way to prove the reality of his premises or conclusions.

[polymath257]

There are things for which obviously "esse est percipii", that is, they exist only because they are being perceived by somebody.

The word 'obviously' is always a warning bell for me.  Like 'obviously' what I am telling you is the truth so don't bother questioning it.

Putting aside ill-defined terms and equivocation for one moment, it would be easier to argue that there is nothing that exists only because it is being perceived by someone.

By far the most common place to find a mistake in any argument is after one of the following: 'obviously', 'clearly', 'hence', 'therefore'.

Often, there is a hidden assumption, which then invalidates the whole argument.

[robvalue]

Not to trawl back through yesterday's fun times, but I still just don't see how this argument is useful, meaningful, or enlightening about reality at all (let alone the existence of a god), especially considering how much more we know about reality nowadays.

FWIW its utility is in plotting out what we actually know about the real universe. It is asking, "If the material world exists, what evidence is there for that? Could it all be ideas?" It's always nice to question one's own assumptions, and that is a major part of a philosopher's work.

It's an investigation into the very foundations of knowledge. The answer to Berkeley's question is meaningful or enlightening no matter how you slice it.

As to "useful"... who knows? It is a search for knowledge. In a quest for knowledge it is often difficult to see what utility the knowledge you are looking for has. For instance, astrophysicists and cosmologists study the cosmic background radiation in an attempt to work out what happened after the big bang. How is that useful to know?

You can't say to an astrophysicist, "Show me how this is going to be useful information and THEN we will allow you to look for the answers." If that had happened, Galileo would have been prevented from proving that the earth revolved around the sun. After all, how useful is that bit of information to a 17th century European? We use that information for a lot of things now, but it would have been hard to argue back then how such information would have proved beneficial to the life of the average person.

The ideas discussed are interesting, and potentially useful, but he's only doing so as a smokescreen before throwing a "God" in at the end. If he cut that crap out it could become a worthy discussion, but it would have nothing to do with his desired conclusion.

[FlatAssembler]

The illusion that philosophy is useless is created by the fact that, when philosophy succeeds at explaining something, it starts to be called science. Galileo almost certainly wouldn't have come up with his ideas if he hadn't read the Aristotle's natural philosophy.

[polymath257]

The illusion that philosophy is useless is created by the fact that, when philosophy succeeds at explaining something, it starts to be called science. Galileo almost certainly wouldn't have come up with his ideas if he hadn't read the Aristotle's natural philosophy.

And rejected Aristotle's ideas.

[I_am_not_mafia]

The illusion that philosophy is useless is created by the fact that, when philosophy succeeds at explaining something, it starts to be called science. Galileo almost certainly wouldn't have come up with his ideas if he hadn't read the Aristotle's natural philosophy.

Yeah but in modern times, what does philosophy ever explain which then becomes a science? Not disputing that has this happened in the past. After all, even today any progress in the field of Artificial Intelligence becomes a field in its own right. But whenever people defend philosophy in this way they almost always refer to achievements several hundred years ago.