Berkeley's Argument On The Existence Of God

435 Words2 Pages
Berkeley was troubled by the opening of the door to atheism and skepticism as a consequence arising from Locke’s argument. Locke’s view proposed that all knowledge rested on the existence of material objects independent of minds or ideas. Locke held that objects produce ideas in our minds, and that our ideas resemble objects in the material world, but some qualities that objects appear to have are not in the objects but depend on our minds. Meaning, material objects may in reality possess measurable qualities, such as size and weight, but their sense qualities such as color, odor, and taste, depend on human perception. Berkeley felt the distinguishing between material objects and the ideas through which we perceive them does not provide…show more content…
Infalsafiable it may be I do not find it persuasive due one singular point of contention. I cannot find tenable any argument that is contingent on the existence of God or any divine spirit. Berkeley’s answer to his own admission of the likelihood of the continued existence of ideas over time is contingent on the existence of God or some sort of Divine perceiver. Berkeley’s theory presents God that is at all times perceiving. If, for lack of better terminology, God were to “turn his head” all that is not being perceived would cease to exist. To support his claim of God as the divine constant perceiver, Berkeley must prove the existence of God and God’s constant perception of existence. Berkeley’s arguments one weakness and last step to being completely empirical is the removal of God as a divine perceiver. Perception presupposes two parts, a perceiver and the perceived; why not a singular entity; human. With the removal of God from his argument, Berkeley would take empiricism to its conclusion, and position self-perception as maintaining our existence. I feel as though in his argumentation God is unnecessary and a human awareness of ourselves would be more tenable as an empirical
Open Document