Bishop George Berkeley

He argued for Idealism, the position that all that exists is mental things, minds and ideas.

He says that we have no reason to believe that there is an external, material world because all we have experience of is our ideas. Because of this, we also have no reason to believe that our ideas are caused by material objects.

We have experienced our minds causing ideas, this is called imagination. And so, he argues that it is more parsimonius to suppose that minds are causing our perceptions as well. The mind causing our perceptions is God, and it is because of that mind that objects appear permanent and independent to us.

I do not hold this position. I am looking for ways to argue against it. I am finding it difficult.

Any ideas?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

His idealism is essential solipsism. All that exists is "your" mental things.

The proposition collapses under its own weight.

Mental objects certainly exist and some seem wholly your creation but ones tied to external events seem to work in a much different way. So we have two "kinds" of of mental event one of which we think of as internal and the other as being tied to external sensory events.

So do we jump through hoops trying to explain why that is or do we accept the most parsimonious explanation, that some events really are tied to external events?

Having got this far it is not hard to being testing our position to see if it fits the available data, and there is pretty universal agreement that it does.

So even if he, i.e. you since he would just be another mental object, is right at some "metaphysical" level, the day to day reality you must deal with doesn't follow his notions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, no, not exactly ...it might only seem that way. For example, if everything is you own mental imaging, then if you stand in front of fast-moving train, all that splattering blood and guts might still be only your own mental image of the incident. You don't know, from what seems to have occured, that your mind has stopped working. Your mind could keep going on to other things that aren't so apparent after the accident.

See? You just can't know. But that doesn't prove or disprove anything. If life is just mental imaging, it's still no less "real" to the one imagining it all.

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is one thing that bothers me about philosophy.

You can argue one way or the other, but since neither really have any basis in observable, testable reality, what is to gain? No, let me say it this way...how could one possibly change another's mind?

 

I feel like arguing that we do not have any reason to believe our minds cause imagination because all we have is the idea of our minds causing our ideas, and therefore we have no way to check whether our minds are causing our ideas. All we know that there are are ideas.

That being said, if we go forward in the exploration of our ideas on the supposition that they correspond to an external, physical world, we can explain a lot more than if we go forward on the supposition that our ideas are caused by a Mind. So, Occam's Razor would side with the physicalist position.

 

So you're saying this person's position is that nothing is real, as it is all caused by our imagination? And that there is no external influence on our ideas? But you say that the outside world does influence our ideas and imaginations?

Firstly, we have a way of checking if we're all just imagining this...logic. Tell me why we would have eyes if they weren't required for sight? I mean, if this was all a dream, then why the detail? Where does the appendix fit into all of this, a vestigial organ that at this point only serves to occasionally kill someone?

Also, Einstein and other great thinkers have reached solutions to their problems while dreaming. This has lead some to say that dreaming serves as a way to compute all the information we currently have, and that we can reach a conclusion on a certain thing while in the dream state, and it's also possible that we wouldn't be able to reach that conclusion while awake. Would that not speak to the outside world influencing our ideas? The simple fact that without enough information we cannot solve a problem?

The crux of the argument, though, is that we have no reason not to believe that the material world around us is real. We have five senses, and we can examine this world with them, so why would we not believe that this place is real? And if it were not, why the outrageously unfun limitations? Why is internet bandwidth a concern in this imaginary world? See what I'm driving at?

 

Yep, philosophy is really only to exercise ones own brain! ...or worse, to flap ones own gums and lecture about something which no one can prove or disprove. It's like lecturing ...and usually to yourself.

Well, unless it's on a site like this ...where you can write it out as if it means something.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Baron Max

 

Nope, that don't work either. In the concept of mind-only imagery, you DON'T have those sense, you only image that you do. And you imagine everything that those imaginary sense sense, too. So, ...there is nothing but ones own mind doing everything.

Baron Max

 

baron max Well, no, not exactly ...it might only seem that way.

Seeming that way is sufficient.

baron max See? You just can't know.

That sort of "knowing" is irrelevant because it is not possible. Knowing requires context and when you arbitrarily remove all context there is no knowing left. Mental is just a means of distinguishing mental from non mental, but that is denied in the premise.

The premise is self denying.

 

Well that is simply presumptuous on his part.

"reason to believe" is rather subjective.

I agree in principle that it's fundmentally wrong to assert anything absolutely, including the physical world, etc. As he notes, all that we have are the experience of ideas, etc.

So I think that philosophically, I cannot assert anything external to self. Practically however, I do so all the time. In fact I'd say he's doing so too by attempting to apply his ideas to the general case. So I think the argument contradicts itself.

While certainly we are ideas, those ideas seem to generally result from what is apparently interaction with a physical medium common to everyone I've ever thought I met.

 

Fine, but that doesn't make his case any stronger. It makes it weaker, in fact, because now we have to take all the complex details of life and assume that we are imagining them all...despite the fact that we don't understand all of them. You imagine you have eyes, but it's not like they're empty pussbags...there's stuff going on in there, ya know.

And like Swarm said, sensing is sufficient. I can feel the keyboard beneath my fingers, I can feel the wind in my hair...why would I make the outrageous jump from "this is real because I can feel it" to "this is imaginary because I suppose it's possible"? Which one benefits me? Which one is more likely?

 

From that response, I can only image that you've never had any realistic-type dreams during the night. Interesting if true ...because you'd be one of only a very, very few humans who've never had realistic dreams.

I don't believe that anyone is forcing you to make any outrageous decisions about anything. As I see it, this thread is simply pointing out one of many varied ways of interpreting life. This is not an argument, contrary to what you might think.

Baron Max

 

<"Atheists feel this way? Have you ever spoken to a theist? I don't know where you've been looking, but atheists are not the ones on the attack. It's quite the contrary. And not just on the interwebs...>

I have been all over the web and yes, it is atheists who are leading the charge against faith. Theists are simply responding to this phenomenon in our culture. Have you ever heard of dawkins, hitchens, dennet? Dawkins called his book "a full frontal assault on Christianity".


“ First of all, Modern science has it roots in the Christian faith. ”

<No, it doesn't. Science is the study of things, whereas faith teaches you to believe what you're told without questioning it. Faith is illogical by nature, so it cannot be the root of scientific study. Perhaps because of the rigid dogmas of ancient religions, people's curiosity as to the alternative explanation for things was piqued, but that's as close as you'd get to "roots".>

you do not understand logic, science or faith. There is nothing illogical about faith nor have you demonstrated that there is. Believing in things you do not see is not equivalent to believing in things you have no evidence for. Early scientists were motivated by the bible to inquire about the natural world. The bible encourages this inquire and teaches about an orderly creation which can be understood. By studying nature they felt they were "thinking Gods thoughts after him".


“ Nearly all of the founders of the various branches modern science were in fact, bible believing Christians. ”

<Sigh...I suppose you have some evidence to support this? No?>


yes, see post, and this is common knowledge, even among most literate atheists

<early scientists had to contend with religious institutions that had real power, and heresy and non-belief were things you could have been killed for.>

this is a myth and a distortion of early controversies. Atheists love to tell the Gallileo story with glee as if this proves that faith and science are incompatible. However this simply isn't true, nor did Galileo renounce his faith in God or the Bible.

<So of course you'd hear that such-and-such was thanks to God, or that so-and-so was a God-fearing man, but the truth is you can't rely on those accounts because it simply was unwise to admit that you didn't believe in God. And by unwise, I mean suicidal.>

again, you are devoid of any real knowledge of history. The catholic church (of which I abhor) encouraged scientific discovery, you are offering a rewrite to suit your myth.


“ That science is somehow impeded by Christianity. is a fallacy. Science has advanced Because of Christianity. ”

<Oli already pointed out the whole problem with the Geocentric solar system, and the flat-earth, but how about recently, like the whole refusal by our Evangelical Christian president to federally fund stem cell research? That is Christianity, as usual, standing in the way of scientific advancement.>

the flat earth story is another myth perpetrated by anti christians who have failed to do their homework (beyond reading books from the unholy trinity). The rewrite was refuted in the following works: The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1985), Colliers Encyclopædia (1984), The Encyclopedia Americana (1987) and The World Book for Children (1989). Only a handful of Christians believed in the flat earth, which was rejected by most based upon clear references in the bible to a spherical earth. Is 40:22

<But let's play a little game here...name me one instance in which Christianity was the cause of science advancing. Please, take me seriously and answer that.>

as I have already pointed out, Christianity spawned modern science. Nearly all of the early scientists were bible believing Christians. This is no coincidence; it is due to the fact that the Bible encourages scientific inquiry. It teaches that the world operates according to laws because it was created by a Lawgiver.

Atheistic evolutionists offered to modern medicine that over 180 organs in the human body were vestigial (useless throwbacks of the evolutionary process). During the last Century Surgeons yanked out tonsils and adenoids and appendixes of perfectly healthy children because of this myth. They have now proven that the evolutionists were dead wrong. Young children who were subject to this terror were now 80% more likely to get such diseases as Hodgkin’s later in life. We now know these organs have immunological properties. Evolutionary atheism is anti science, stopping or slowing inquiry and fueling superstition.

“Atheism however, is not compatible with true science. Atheists have simply hijacked science and created a religion out of it. Atheists love to pretend they are "rational", but they are not. Atheism is hopelessly self contradictory! How can you prove that no God exists? If you state that the proof is with those who hold to the affirmative position, you must then prove that statement, since it is an affirmative position! ”

<Well, that is to assume atheism is the active belief that no gods exist. I contend that it is not.>

Your contention would be wrong, and I think you know that. Atheism as “lack of belief” is a smoke screen to avoid criticism. Other atheists have acknowledged this as well.

http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1.htm

No dictionary defines atheism in the manner that the “new” (and presumably ‘improved’) atheists have tried to do.

“In that case, I agree that taking the position of absolute certainty that no gods exist is pretty foolish. But let's also note that most theists (especially the ones here) believe that a god does exist, and they have no more evidence for their position than the anti-theist does for his...you see how now you happen to be stumbling into "Pot, meet kettle" territory?”

I disagree, theism is based upon logic reasoning. There are numerous arguments for the existence of God. I have offered one, first cause. All of these arguments may have their critics, but that is not the same as saying they are refuted, they are not. It all comes down to what an individual considers convincing. The converse is not true, there are no (zero, nada) arguments for the non existence of God. It is a stance of “I refuse to believe unless you can prove it, and if you can’t, it must not be true”. An argument a little child might make, but one would expect more from an educated person.


“ since the immaterial laws of logic are inexplicible to the materialist atheist, but predicted by the biblical theist. ”

<You're not talking about logic, you're talking about faith. I hate to be the one to say that to you, but you can't compare faith to logic. It does not work that way. That's like comparing apples to grenades.>

You are missing the point. Let me break it down for you. A materialistic atheist only acknowledges the material world and he attempts to use the laws of logic to make his arguments. Yet the laws of logic are immaterial, universal laws! What explanation does the atheist have for the existence of immaterial laws, since his belief denies the existence of the immaterial? Answer: He avoids the question altogether. When an atheist advances his position using logic, he is using the tools of the theist who believes in the existence of the immaterial world and can explain why logic exists. That is, logic exists because a logical lawgiver created the universe.


“ While it is true that absolute proof of the existance of God is not possible, it is so likely as to be "self evident" to most people, which is why athesits will always be in the vast minority, as vocal as they may be. ”

<It could also be that atheists are in the statistical minority because it is still rather taboo in most social circles to admit to being an atheist, and that includes family circles. For as frank of a conversation as I am capable of having with my mother, the thought of saying to her "Ma, there ain't no such thing as God" to her breaks my heart. I'd never say it to her or around her.>

I can appreciate your respect for your mom. But your belief in the non existence of God is not rational, it is held to by faith, just as your moms is. I simply assert that your moms faith is vastly more reasonable.

<Or it could also be that we are a really young species, and only now starting to pull our heads out of the sand. Perhaps this growing number of folks who don't believe in a god is just the first step towards the next stage of our civilization. It is entirely possible.>

Atheism and its ugly results are not really that new. They have been around in small numbers for thousands of years. They raised their ugly head during the French Revolution, which resulted in unbelievable carnage and brutality. It raised its ugly head again in the form of atheistic communism in Russia and China, which resulted in more loss of life than all of the wars fought in history, and it was a war against their own people! Atheism isn’t just a cool stance to take by intellectual sorts to confound theists. It is a belief system which has despicable consequences in the real world. Thesism has had negative consequences at times also, but much less severe. And the benefits of Christianity to the world have been profoundly good on balance.


“ Since science is rooted in Christianity and is based upon the principle of causality, it is incompatible with atheism, which posits no first cause. ”

<Again, what do you base the claim that science is rooted in Christianity?>

That modern science exploded in Christian Europe and the West. That it flourished in the West to the point that the atheist countries had to send spies to discover our secrets. That nearly all of the early modern scientists were bible believing Christians. Not cultural Christians, but devout. Newton for example loved the bible and wrote much about biblical prophecy and why it demonstrated its divine inspiration. Kepler, Linnaus, Dalton, Boyle, Mendel all devout. Name a branch of science and you stand a good chance of it having been founded by a Christian. I am not saying that science didn’t occur in other countries prior to this period. Only that it was codified, systematized and advanced to an amazing degree during the period that Christianity dominated the world. These men were not atheists, they were anti atheists.


“ It is generally agreed that the universe had a cause, therefore there must be a God. ”

<Where is this generally agreed? Your house? Your church? >


I am beginning to wonder if you have had any sort of science education. This is a science forum so I was just assuming you had heard of the big bang, the laws of thermodynamics etc.. While I don’t agree with the big bang, I do agree with the majority of scientists that the universe had a beginning. The laws of science lead us to this conclusion. The universe is winding down and spreading out, therefore it must have been wound up in the past. This leads us reasonably to the conclusion that there must have been a beginning.

<See, what you fail to understand about science (what a shock) is that not having every slice of pizza doesn't mean that pizza doesn't exist. You keep talking about logic, and yet you just can't seem to wrap your mind around this really simple and logical idea.>

Lol, that argument can be turned against you!

<To jump from "We don't know what first caused the universe" to "It must have been God" is as illogical a leap as one could possibly make.>


Not at all. What is the most basic definition of God if it is not the first cause of all things. Not only does this argument lead to God, but it leads to the Judeo Christian God as apposed to the hindu gods or greek gods etc…

<Replace that second line with "It must have been a giant red paper clip", and it's about as probable (and logical) as assuming it must have been God.>

Lets try that:
Premise: Everything which has a beginning has a cause
Premise: The universe had a beginning
Conclusion: The universe had a cause (i.e. God)
Conclusion: God must be a giant red paper clip

Sorry, but I don’t think your conclusion is logical at all. While this logical argument doesn’t tell us everything about the nature of God, it does tell us that God exists and is responsible for the Creation we see around us. Most people don’t have to think this hard to know this intuitively, which is why so many laugh at atheists.


<Once again, just so you really understand this...just because we don't know what the first cause was does not mean that the entire idea is wrong; it does not invalidate the Big Bang, it does not invalidate evolution (which I'm sure you know just as little about as you do logic and causality), and most importantly, it does not automatically mean that the answer is God. You don't even know if such a being is capable of existing, so let's not go jumping to the assumption that he's the answer.>

I don’t know a lot of things, but I do understand basic logic and logic points to God. As for the big bang, it is a transient theory which is infinitely better than the steady state theory which some atheists I know still cling to for obvious reasons, but it will go be the wayside in time as there are many problems with it. As far as evolution, your statement that I don’t know anything about it is silly. Not only did I learn about it in every science class from 8th grade through college earning my B.S. in biology, I taught if for 7 years in the public schools. I moderated debates on the subject at two universities. I know more about evolution than I want to know. And I find it to be the most laughable hypothesis on the face of the earth.

 

How on earth do you reach that conclusion? Of course I've had surreal dreams, lucid dreams, all kinds of dreams. But I can tell the difference. Can't you? That moment you wake up, can't you tell?

[quoteI don't believe that anyone is forcing you to make any outrageous decisions about anything. As I see it, this thread is simply pointing out one of many varied ways of interpreting life. This is not an argument, contrary to what you might think.

Baron Max[/QUOTE]

It is one way of interpreting it, but in my opinion, it's the wrong way. And thanks for clearing up the little matter of this being an argument or not. I just figured it was, since you were losing.

MynameisDan...is it too much to ask that you use the goddamn quote button? Why is that so hard? Clean up your post and then I'll respond. But I'm not going to waste my time by trying to decipher that crap.

 

Prove it then. Even to yourself, prove that your dreams were really just dreams, and that when you're awake, it's anything but just another dream.

Well, then you should be able to prove it. Otherwise your opinion is nothing more than a belief without foundation in fact ...like religious beliefs. Even opinions should be founded on at least some facts that can be supported, don'tcha' think?

Baron Max

 

Record the moon's movements. Find out they are elliptical. Make all kinds of long-term very specific and fanciful data and make some meaningful equations out of them.

Look at the difference in knowledge over the centuries. Do you think your mind could just create the human genetic sequence out of thin air?

How do you explain just minds creating all of this. There is something out there that we are taking in.

Or is the argument different? And why would you choose to believe otherwise?

 

"prove it" prove it how? With some pointless logical sequences that ultimately live in the confines of ever-changing language? Why try to prove something like this, in such a manner?

Do you think you are on the edge of something special, the next generation of scientific belief, ahead of your time? Like, when would it ever be feasible, to believe something like this?

Why choose such a funky point of view. I'm not banging the hammer at you, but at everyone that considers such a question very important.

Otherwise your opinion is nothing more than a belief without foundation in fact is a religious belief!

 

The point is that I don't have to. If the burden of proof is anywhere, it's on the one that claims this is all a dream. And even then, you can't prove it either way. That's why my senses are good enough for me.

Are you really that dense? Yeah, I guess you are. I mean, my opinion is based on fact; the fact that I can touch, see, smell, and taste this reality. You can say that it could be a product of my imagination--and it might be--but you can't base that assumption on anything other than hypothetical possibility...meanwhile, I'm basing my opinion on my observations.

But I don't expect you to get it.

 

But those observations are only in your dreams!

Baron Max

 

I have no problem telling the difference. People who do have trouble telling the difference are called schizophrenic.