Skip to main content

Atheism: Berkeley and Mach

Image result for tree in the quad

A participant in Yahoo!Answers recently asked this:

In philosophy, how does an atheist idealist react to the criticisms faced, that Berkeley can only reply to using God?

It is a provocative question, and even knowing that I was probably being too helpful regarding someone's homework assignment I couldn't refrain from a reply:

I'll try to reconstruct what you mean here, then provide a three-point answer,

Berkeley said material substance does not exist, matter is only the perception thereof in some mind.

This raises the famous question about the tree in the Quad. Does it exist when no one is around?

Berkeley says that it does still exist, and for this purpose he brings in the always-perceiving Mind of God.

So what you mean to ask is: can an atheist coherently believe that Berkeley was right about the non-existence of material substance, and so the non-existence of unperceived matter, and what would THAT person have to say about the tree in the Quad?

The first point to make in answer to this question is that "atheism" is defined only by negation. An atheist denies what some particular theist asserts. Otherwise, even if we're sure they're denying the same thing, said by the same theist(s), any two atheists might have very different views of the world.

That said, we can move to the second point, which is that MOST atheists are probably non or even anti-Berkeleyan, willing or even eager to asset the objective existence of matter or material substance in some sense.

A third point, though, is that yes there are SOME atheistic Berkeleyans out there. In particular, you might want to study up on Ernst Mach (1836-1916).

My understanding is that to a Machian the unobserved tree in the quad exists only as a postulated source of future or hypothetical observations. These future or hypothetical observations need not be anchored by God -- according to Machians, they float freely, as indeed do we all.

Whether you regard that as a satisfactory conception is of course up to you. 


  1. I assume that "Whether you regard that as a satisfactory conception is of course up to you" is not meant to imply that this is merely a matter of taste. Rather, it implies that you choose not to address the question. For it is not a matter of taste, but is a question that one can debate.

    I agree that, given Berkeleyan views, the unobserved tree exists only as a postulated source of future or hypothetical observations, and that means that it does not exist. And, if it does not exist, it does not float freely, whatever that means. We postulate that it will exist the next time we look because it existed the last time that we looked, and, in our experience, appearances of trees (unlike appearances of, say, bubbles) tend to repeat themselves.

  2. My "up to you" comment did, as you say, merely signal in a friendly spirit that I wasn't going to go any further for now. But I would also accept, as you might not, the idea that there is a subjective component to the goal of a "satisfactory conception" in such matters. I'm thinking of William James' well-known essay on "the sentiment of rationality." Rationality is a sentiment in that it has much in common with aesthetic fitness.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Great Chain of Being

One of the points that Lovejoy makes in the book of that title I mentioned last week is the importance, in the Neo-Platonist conceptions and in the later development of the "chain of being" metaphor, of what he calls the principle of plenitude. This is the underlying notion that everything that can exist must exist, that creation would not be possible at all were it to leave gaps.

The value of this idea for a certain type of theodicy is clear enough.

This caused theological difficulties when these ideas were absorbed into Christianity.  I'll quote a bit of what Lovejoy has to say about those difficulties:

"For that conception, when taken over into Christianity, had to be accommodated to very different principles, drawn from other sources, which forbade its literal interpretation; to carry it through to what seemed to be its necessary implications was to be sure of falling into one theological pitfall or another."

The big pitfalls were: determinism on the on…

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.

We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majestic wate…