1
The Theological Orthodoxy of Berkeleyâs Immaterialism
James S. Spiegel
It is well known that the chief end of Berkeleyâs philosophical labors was to defend the Christian religion. He says as much in the closing section of the Principles, where he states that that work was calculated to âbetter dispose [his readers] to reverence and embrace the salutary truths of the Gospel, which to know and to practice is the highest perfection of human nature.â1 This being Berkeleyâs aim, it is no surprise that he is careful to insist that his metaphysics is fully consistent with biblical principles. Indeed, in the Philosophical Commentaries, he proclaims âthere is nothing in scripture that can possibly be wrested against me, but, perhaps, many things for me.â2 Here Berkeleyâs claim is two-fold. On the one hand, he boldly asserts that his immaterialism implies nothing that in any way contradicts scripture; on the other hand, he suggests that in scripture there are to be found some passages that in fact favor his immaterialism. For the sake of brevity, let us call the above two claims Berkeleyâs âconsistencyâ thesis and the âendorsementâ thesis, respectively. In this chapter I shall assess these two theses, investigating, first, Berkeleyâs defense of the biblical soundness of his immaterialism and, second, the degree to which, if at all, his immaterialism is recommended by scripture.
Berkeleyâs immaterialism and the consistency thesis
Before proceeding to an examination of these two theses, let us review the essential features of Berkeleyâs metaphysics, which earn him the title âimmaterialistâ and which his Christian opponents have on occasion found offensive. The central thesis of Berkeleyâs system is the principle esse est percipi aut percipere (to be is to be perceived or to perceive). Nothing that is not itself a mind exists independently of perception by some mind. In the Principles Berkeley arrives at this conclusion by arguing as follows: Since an object is nothing more than a collection of sensible qualities, and sensible qualities are ideas, an object is just a collection of ideas. Now since ideas are mind dependent, existing only when perceived, it follows that objects exist only when perceived. Their esse is percipi. In Berkeleyâs ontology, then, there are two categories of being: minds and ideas. There exist only ideas perceived and minds perceiving them. Ideas are entirely passive, having ânothing of power or agency included in them,â while minds are âsimple, undivided, active substance[s].â3 Only mind possesses the power to produce and perceive ideas. Insofar as it does the former, it is called will; as it does the latter it is called the understanding.
Implicit in Berkeleyâs principle that to be is to be perceived is a denial of material substance, the inert, qualitiless âI know not whatâ of which Locke spoke and in which, according to him, all of the sensible qualities of bodies subsist.4 This doctrine is repudiated by Berkeley as unintelligible, since it is impossible to conceive of something that is unperceived, and Lockeâs material substance, itself possessing no sensible qualities, is unperceivable. These are, in a nutshell, Berkeleyâs philosophical reasons for rejecting material substance. But, as we shall see in evaluating his consistency thesis, his objections are not entirely philosophical but theological as well.
Berkeleyâs consistency thesis, once again, is that his immaterialism in no way implies anything that is inconsistent with scripture. I want to explore those doctrines or issues that the orthodox Christian might think to be threatened by a Berkeleyan metaphysics. That is, I shall discuss those issues where inconsistency between Berkeleyâs immaterialism and scripture might be (and in some cases has been) alleged.
In both the Principles and the Three Dialogues Berkeley anticipates objections from scripture. In the former he proposes the objection that although no rational demonstration of the existence of bodies can be made,
Berkeleyâs reply, of course, is to deny that his principles in any way conflict with the scriptures or âthe right use and significance of language.â He is prepared to abide by the âvulgar acceptationâ of words such as âtimber,â âstone,â âbody,â and so on, which denote tangible objects and to distinguish between real and imaginary objects. And, reiterating his central thesis, he reminds us that it is only âmatter,â as some philosophers use the term, which he denies. In the Three Dialogues, through Philonous, he presents us with this challenge:
Until then, Berkeley urges, the authority of the scriptures is irrelevant to the discussion, for they are neutral on the issue of material substance. In this way Berkeley shifts the burden of proof onto the matterist, convinced that he has already fully demonstrated the truth of esse est percipi aut percipere. But with regard to the propriety of Godâs use of material substance, Berkeley has yet another argumentâfrom the principle of parsimony. In section 61 of the Principles he argues that the use of material substance in creating the world would be unnecessary and superfluous for an omnipotent deity. That is, Berkeley in effect asks, why should God use material substance in doing that which âmight have been effected by the mere command of His will without all that apparatusâ? To posit the existence of matter, then, when God can accomplish all that he has accomplished without it, is to violate Ockhamâs razor (or, at least, the theological principle that a being of perfect wisdom and power will always effect his ends by the simplest and most expeditious means). The existence and operations of the universe are entirely explicable by Godâs will and are needlessly explained with the addition of corporeal substance.
Theologically Berkeley considers the doctrine equally repugnant, because it implies that âGod has created innumerable beings that are entirely useless and serve no manner of purpose.â7 Belief in material substance, then, amounts to the highest irreverence, for it suggests divine frivolity in the creation of the physical world.
A second potential objection from scripture pertains to Berkeleyâs doctrine of mind or spirit. His view, we will recall, is that there exist only two kinds of things, spirits and ideas, or respectively, perceiving subjects and that which is perceived. So, Berkeley tells us, we have no idea of spirit. Now the problem is this. The Old and New Testaments, especially the latter, are replete with hundreds of discussions of and references to the human soul or spirit that clearly presuppose that we have some ideas of these entities. Numerous particular attributes are predicated of the human soul or spirit, for example, that it can be âdowncast,â8 âsteadfast,â9 âbroken,â10 âjoyful,â11 âcontrite,â12 âlowly,â13 and âstrong.â14
How is Berkeleyâs professed ontology to be reconciled with this biblical language? He seems to have glimpsed the seriousness of the problem, for he deals with the matter explicitly in the Principles as follows: Spirit, being an active substance that perceives, cannot itself be perceived, for this implies passivity, a characteristic of ideas only. He says of spirit that it is an active being. So âthere can be no idea formed of a soul or spirit; for all ideas whatever, being passive and inert, they cannot represent unto us, by way of image or likeness, that which acts.â15 Therefore, spirit âcannot be of itself perceived, but only by the effects which it produces.â16 Berkeleyâs position here in no way precludes him from describing spirits using the same sorts of ascriptions employed by the biblical writers, for these do not require the having of an idea of spirit, in the strict sense.
The technical distinction Berkeley makes in this context to allow for knowledge of spirit is between âideationalâ and ânotionalâ knowledge. He writes, âWe may be said to have some knowledge or notion of our own minds, of spirits and active beings, whereof in a strict sense we have not ideas.â17 Unfortunately, Berkeley says little more in the way of explicating this distinction.18 This much we know, that notional knowledge has an active being as its object rather than a passive being, which is the object of ideational knowledge. Furthermore, the object of notional knowledge is perceived indirectly, through its effects, whereas the object of ideational knowledge is directly perceived.19 It seems that Berkeley is suggesting that notional knowledge is best (or only) understood as knowledge, which is non-ideational. At any rate, his doctrine of notions, cryptic though it is, is certainly motivated by his concern to preserve the possibility of genuine knowledge of spirits, which in turn can be seen as an attempt to reconcile his immaterialism with the basic scriptural presumption of this possibility.20
A third objection from scripture comes from Berkeleyâs associate Samuel Johnson. He argues that given Berkeleyâs view of bodies as collections of ideas the perception of which is not really dependent upon sense organs, the doctrine of bodily resurrection seems to be undermined, since upon death it is conceivable that âwe should still be attended with the same ideas of bodies as we have now.â21 The result is that the wonder of physical resurrection is diminished by the ease of its explicableness under Berkeleyâs principles. Johnsonâs ironic conclusion is that immaterialist metaphysics explains too much and that therefore Berkeleyâs ontology âseems to have no place for any resurrection at all, at least in ...