Critical Thinking

Born in Ireland, George Berkeley had a strong desire to found a seminary in Bermuda. He never achieved his end but he did serve within the church as Bishop of Cloyne.  He was an empiricist like John Locke, but he came to difference conclusions. 

Like all empiricists, George Berkeley saw experience as the primary way to attain knowledge.   He decided that what we perceive are ideas not the things in and of themselves. This thought pattern is called: Everything is an idea and not a physical thing. 

The progression of his thought goes as follows

• all knowledge comes from perception
• what we perceive are ideas, not things in themselves
• a thing in itself must lie in outside experience
• so the world consists only of ideas
• and minds that perceive those ideas
• A thing only exists in so far as it perceives OR is perceived.

It is not that he denies the existence of the external world but believes that the only way to gain knowledge is through experience, and experience comes only from our perceptions.  Since all our perceptions are merely ideas, we have no way to prove that anything more exists than ideas.

The question arises then.  If I stop observing things, or if I am no longer being perceived, do I disappear?   Berkeley’s response to this is that God perceives everything all the time.  Therefore, since God perceived things all the time, nothing ever disappears.

None of us though share the same mind, hence why people perceive the world around us differently.   My idea of what an pumpkin looks like isn’t exactly the same as how someone else sees a pumpkin, and definitely not the same way God would see that pumpkin.  So the only way that I know that something exists is if I personally see it, which means only I can cause changes to the physical world around me. Which means I need to have the idea to do so, and since I can’t come up with ideas on my own, I need to rely on someone who perceives everything.  Ergo I must rely on God (since he is the only one who can perceive everything) to supply with the idea to change the physical world around me. 

Did he find truth?

Isn’t it interesting that Berkeley is aware of God’s eye being on us all the time.  That he perceives us all the time.  So a tree can fall in the forest (or a sparrow can lose a feather) God perceives, and therefore it happens.  And then the idea that everything is immaterial, only ideas, and it’s ideas supplied by God that change the world.  Isn’t that just a fascinating notion.

I see these ideas that Berkeley had and I think he is trying to show the dichotomy of faith.  As Christians we know that God knows everything.  He knows our past and our future.  He gives us freewill to act, but he also knows that actions we will take before we even know we are going to take them.  How does one truly explain this?  Is Berkeley somewhat close?   I don’t know. 

In seeing the reliance we must have in God and how that would shape our perceptions of it, I see that as spot on.  Really.  Not necessarily the everything is an idea part, but that firm reliance on God to shape our thoughts, feelings and perceptions about that which is around us.   I find myself intrigued. I can see his struggle to understand it and to think deeply upon it. 

To go to my worksheet on George Berkeley, click here or on the image below

Thomas Hobbes was orphaned in infancy and taken in by a wealthy uncle.  Through the generosity of his uncle he received a good education, which in turn offered him a chance to travel.  He is perhaps best known for his political philosophies but he wrote on a wide range of subjects, included his philosophy of physicalism.

His basic premise:

Thomas Hobbes thought that people and animals were nothing more than flesh and blood machines. He lived in a time when great advances were being made in the physical sciences.

A rough outline of his progression in thought goes as follows

Nothing with substance can exist
So everything is the universe is physical
A human being is therefore entirely physical
Therefore man is a machine.

Using science and mathematics he thought was the perfect counter for scholastic philosophy so predominant in medieval times.  He saw no real need to balance the physical and the spiritual.  He saw zero limits to what science could achieve. Therefore saw the whole world as being physical having length, breadth and depth.  EVERYTHING in the universe was physical and nothing more.  He did believe in invisible spirits but still believed that just because we couldn’t see them didn’t mean they didn’t have length, breadth and depth.   He saw these spirits as moving through the body in a similar way we would view the nervous system today. 

The only differentiation he made was to God.  He believed that ONLY God could be described as an incorporeal being.   God’s divinity is something that a physical human being could never fathom.   Science and matters of faith were divergent and therefore God will always be beyond our comprehension. 

Hobbes never dealt with how the mind works or affects these physical only beings. He believed that in time science would explain this aspect of our physical beings.   He had a strong insistence that everything could be explained in the physical and in the end man is nothing but a machine. 

Finding Truth:

Understanding the time that Hobbes lived in helps me to understand his philosophy regarding people.  Living a time when physical science was making great strides, it is easy to see why he believed that man was merely a physical machine and believed that eventually everything about us could be explained in a scientific manner. 

I see how he separated out God from the physical and made it very clear that God was different than all physical beings.  God was incorporeal and it’s not possible for human beings to understand him. I see much truth in this understanding because honestly, can we, as sinful beings ever truly understand God?  I just don’t see God as being as totally non-understandable as Hobbes makes him out to be. God’s word teaches us about God, and the example that Jesus set and how he lived, showed us God as well. The seeing God as different than everything else in the world is a pivotal thought that we often really fail to understand.  

To download a worksheet to help you think about Thomas Hobbes more, CLICK HERE. 

Others in the series
Francis Bacon.

Ah.. it has been a LONG time since I have written a philosopher post.  You can find the series I was writing over here. 🙂   Today we are briefly looking at Francis Bacon and learning a touch more about him.

Did you know that Knowledge is Power?

It is!  (at least according to Francis Bacon).

Francis Bacon lived from 1561 to 1626, he was a brilliant man.  I was unable to find out if he was a true man of faith, his statements could lean both ways, and his choices in living leave room for doubt.   He was a strong proponent from separating faith from science.  He lived in a time when if the church didn’t agree with a scientific advance it would act against further research. He was a strong proponent of empiricism and the scientific method.  Bacon has been called the Father of Empiricism.

His basis premise 

Scientific knowledge builds upon itself.  It advances steadily and cumulatively, discovering new laws and making new inventions possible.  It then enables people to do things that otherwise could not be done, therefore knowledge is power.   Much of his struggle was to push against the traditions of thinking that we all hold.  We need to push past old thinking, formulate new thoughts and then prove them to be real.

Mr. Bacon always put an emphasis practical thinking and work.  Of being able to prove an idea rather than just thinking it might be true.   He advocated separating science from religion in order to let science advance more quickly to help people needing it, rather than needing to vet ideas through religious teachings.

He never saw the mind as a blank slate, but more of a mind with knowledge written on it that had to be overwritten for progress to be made.   So we have to write over what he calls “the Idols”.

The Idols

These Idols are
1. Idols of the Tribe – human nature leads to false concepts which leads to distorted reflections.
2. Idols of the Cave – the doctrines which are dear to the individual without knowing if they are true.
3. Idols of the Marketplace –  human communication and semantics and how words change
4. Idols of the Theatre – Ideas taught by other philosophies which create fictional worlds.

ALL these idols create problems with people fooling themselves all the time. The scientist needs to battle against all these idols in order to gain true knowledge of the world.

Finding Truth

As  I sit here pondering Francis Bacon and his idols I have to wonder… is he so far off the truth?   The truth is .. sin changes us in ways that we don’t even fully comprehend because we grow up in a world filled with it.  As Christians we have fight against our natural tendencies to live the way God would want us to, kinda like how Mr. Bacon saw scientists needing to fight against their preconceived notions in order to arrive at a proper scientific result.  To be mindful of their culture, word usage, doctrines and philosophical outlooks.   They needed to learn to keep an open mind and to rewrite how they thought.   So to we have to do the same eh?  Not just in science, but in lives of faith.

Mr. Bacon only applied this to the field of science and not to a persons whole and didn’t really take God into account (other than to dismiss him from the field of scientific inquiry).  

Divergence from Truth

Francis Bacon strongly believed the science needed to be separated from religion in order to make quicker advances.  I question whether this approach is truly effective.  I know it’s one that many ascribe to, that science needs to stand on it’s own. I just wonder if it limits.  For instance, many scientists fully embrace evolutionary theory as fact and often base their opinions around it.  It’s not really a religion…but it’s a tenet highly held to.  Should that premise then also be tested and removed from consideration?  If it was, would scientific advancement increase then? If religion needs to be removed, perhaps theories should be as well.  Just thinking, you may have your own thoughts. Does taking faith out of the equation truly limit advancement in science?

Sources:
Sir Bacon.
Philosophy Basics.
Stanford Philosophy.

Want to test your thinking and learn to seek after truth?   Check out my printable.