Theology in Science, written by Kenneth Francis, is a fascinating book that covers a variety of topics from quantum theory to the dream life of spiders. For myself, the portion of the book I found the most interesting was the discussion on George Berkeley and the philosophical idea known as solipsism.
Solipsism claims the only thing that is sure to exist is one’s own mind. This is an idea that I find particularly irritating. If I am the only thing that exists, and my reality is some sort of byproduct of my own imagination, then I have some words for the manager.
Speaking from a storytelling standpoint, I’ve always found the idea irritating because realities that are essentially an illusion are detrimental to stakes in a plot. There’s a reason the Matrix franchise has to consistently return to reality. If the whole movie were set in the Matrix and Neo died, nobody would have much reason to care because he’s probably still alive somewhere and can be rebooted at some point.
In order for the suspension of disbelief to take place, the audience must—to a certain extent—believe what they are watching is real; that is to say, they must believe that the events within the story will have lasting consequences.
If a story’s reality is subjective, then the rules can be changed at the writer’s whim, and if the audience ever catches onto this fact, they will possibly disengage from the plot because there’s no way for the story to really end; there’s no reason to assume that the loop—the story—will ever close. In previous reviews, I’ve used the analogy of a game, like chess. The tension comes from the rules. If reality is an illusion, then there are no rules. No rules; no tension.
Berkeley’s approach actually corrects this problem by positing God as the ultimate source of reality. Francis summarizes his idea as follows: “Being reasonable for Berkeley is being anti-skeptical and acknowledging that the only ‘real’ things that exist in the world are spirits who are created by an infinite Spirit, God. Put simply, the whole of reality is mental.”
This is a clever counter to solipsism because it addresses one of its core problems. Even if reality were an illusion only perceived by spirits, then there is still a source of order for that illusion, a core source of reality. Rules still exist, even if everything is an illusion. Francis summarizes Berkeley’s point as follows: “For Berkeley, God or religion is the basis for improving one’s life, not damaging it, and a common-sense view of life is the best path to achieving such a goal.”
George Berkeley (1685-1753) was an Irish philosopher who argued that physical objects only exist when perceived. He was attempting to refute skepticism and atheism by stating that physical reality is secondary to spirit, and therefore an “Absolute Observer” must perceive reality. This is a handy way to refute solipsism because, since there is an “Absolute Observer,” there is no need to posit additional causes for the illusion of reality, no need to claim either my imagination or a group of maniacal robots is creating the world around me because, even if this were the case, God is still observing either me or them. To posit such additional causes would violate Occam’s Razor. These additional explanations are redundant.
I won’t go as far as to say I agree with Berkeley, and neither does Francis, but I do find Berkeley’s ideas useful for my own purposes. I’ve been in the middle of reviewing A.I. Artificial Intelligence, arguably Stanley Kubrick’s last film, although Steven Spielberg wrote the script and directed the movie. A.I. Artificial Intelligence is based on the short story Super-Toys Last All Summer Long by Brian Aldiss.
In it is a particularly presumptuous quote: “Nobody knows what ‘real’ really means.” This is the thesis statement of both the story and the film. The idea is that since the robots walk like humans and talk like humans, they are essentially humans in every way that matters. But if Berkeley is correct, then this couldn’t possibly be the case because God is the one who gives reality its value.
Something doesn’t even exist unless He observes it. He is the one who determines what is real, not human observation. God is the source of reality, and, therefore, value. If reality is sustained by an Absolute Observer, then what the finite minds perceive as valuable within that reality is immaterial.
The Absolute Observer has the final say. Berkeley states that the prime reality consists of spirits, so if the Absolute Observer has not created a spirit within the robot, and in so doing deems that the robot isn’t real, then the robot isn’t real. I’m not sure if I will use this argument in my final refutation of the film’s premise, but Berkeley’s idea is certainly more believable than the idea that a robot is real because of its emotional outbursts.
As for solipsism, Francis acknowledges that the idea is difficult to refute, but he also points out the weakest aspect of the theory’s claim: “The difference with someone claiming to be a solipsist, unlike God, is that he/she has limited knowledge and power in the inner universe he/she experiences.” This was the point behind my remark earlier.
If solipsism is true, where is my mansion? And how does solipsism interact with the human conscience? Why is there this aggravating conflict between what is right and wrong? Why do I feel guilty every time I insult an obnoxious YouTuber in the comments section? And why would I make up such obnoxious rules like gravity only to learn about them later?
And what if I happen to think a flat earth would be cooler than a round earth? If solipsism is true, then why does the universe not reflect the reality I want in any way, shape, or form? To suggest that solipsism is true would be to suggest that my mind is so schizophrenic that I can’t trust it anyway, which, to me, seems to defeat the only consolation solipsism can provide, trust in one’s own mind.
Kenneth Francis is the Editor of Mind Matters and author of theological books published by En Route and New English Review Press. His latest book certainly raises fascinating questions, so, if you’d like to take a deeper dive into the theological implications of science and technology, I would highly recommend Theology in Science. It will be worth your time. (NOTE: On the Amazon page in the link above on the first paragraph, the profile (‘Follow the Author’; ‘About the Author’, is not Mind Matters Editor Kenneth Francis, but some other man with the same name. This error has been brought to Amazon’s attention and Mr Francis is awaiting for it to be rectified. The En Route Books link profile with Mr Francis’s books is accurate.)