About this topic
Summary In the New Theory of Vision, Berkeley argued that our visual experience forms a language. In Alciphron IV, he uses this as an argument for the existence of a speaker of the language of vision, namely, God. This is usually classified as a version of the Teleological (Design) Argument for the existence of God, but exactly how the argument is supposed to work, and how it relates to more familiar teleological arguments is disputed.
Key works Hooker 1982 surveys a number of possible interpretations of the argument. Olscamp 1970 argues that Berkeley's thesis that vision is a language is intended literally, and hence that the existence of God follows trivially from it, since every language must have a speaker. Kline 1987 defends an interpretation based on Descartes's argument for the existence of other human minds. 
  Show all references
Related categories
Siblings:See also:
9 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Sort by:
  1. Margaret Atherton (1995). Berkeley Without God. In Robert G. Muehlmann (ed.), Berkeley's Metaphysics: Structural, Interpretive, and Critical Essays. The Pennsylvania State University Press.
  2. Walter E. Creery (1972). Berkeley's Argument for a Divine Visual Language. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 3 (4):212 - 222.
  3. James P. Danaher (2002). Is Berkeley's World a Divine Language? Modern Theology 18 (3):361-373.
    George Berkeley (1685–1753) believed that the visible world was a series of signs that constituted a divine language through which God was speaking to us. Given the nature of language and the nature of the visual world, this paper examines to what extent the visual world could be a divine language and to what extent God could speak to us through it.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Stephen H. Daniel (2001). Berkeley's Pantheistic Discourse. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 49 (3):179-194.
    Berkeley's immaterialism has more in common with views developed by Henry More, the mathematician Joseph Raphson, John Toland, and Jonathan Edwards than those of thinkers with whom he is commonly associated (e.g., Malebranche and Locke). The key for recognizing their similarities lies in appreciating how they understand St. Paul's remark that in God "we live and move and have our being" as an invitation to think to God as the space of discourse in which minds and ideas are identified. This (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Michael Hooker (1982). Berkeley's Argument From Design. In Colin M. Turbayne (ed.), Berkeley: Critical and Interpretive Essays.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Douglas M. Jesseph (2005). Berkeley, God, and Explanation. In Christia Mercer (ed.), Early Modern Philosophy: Mind, Matter, and Metaphysics. Oxford University Press.
    This paper analyzes Berkeley's arguments for the existence of God in the Principles of Human Knowledge, Three Dialogues, and Alciphron. Where most scholarship has interpreted Berkeley as offering three quite distinct attempted proofs of God's existence, I argue that these are all variations on the strategy of inference to the best explanation. I also consider how this reading of Berkeley connects his conception of God to his views about causation and explanation.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. E. G. King (1970). Language, Berkeley, and God. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 1 (2):112 - 123.
  8. A. David Kline (1987). Berkeley's Divine Language Argument. In Ernest Sosa (ed.), Essays on the Philosophy of George Berkeley. D. Reidel.
  9. Paul J. Olscamp (1970). George Berkeley's Unique Arguments About God. Studi Internazionali Di Filosofia 2:29-48.