Final answer:
Locke and Berkeley agreed on the importance of God in their philosophical views. Locke's empiricism posits knowledge comes from sensory experience and humans are born as a blank slate; Berkeley's idealism suggests the only thing that exists are minds and ideas, and matter exists only when perceived. They diverged on the nature of material existence and the role of natural rights in the social contract.
Step-by-step explanation:
John Locke and George Berkeley had both convergent and divergent views in the realm of philosophy. Where Berkeley agreed with Locke was in the fundamental belief in the existence of God, which both philosophers upheld. Locke, being a religious individual, considered the concept of God as essential in his political and philosophical discourse.
Similarly, Berkeley, being a bishop and a proponent of idealism, posited that God is the almighty mind that perceives all, persisting the existence of the universe by his perception.
Where Berkeley disagreed with Locke was on the matter of material existence. While Locke's empiricism suggested that knowledge comes from experience and that human minds at birth are a blank slate or tabula rasa, receptive to knowledge gained through sensory experience, Berkeley took empiricism to a more radical level.
He argued that material objects exist only as perceptions in the minds of those who perceive them, and hence, without perception, matter does not exist. This contrasts with Locke's view that material objects exist independently of whether they are being perceived.
Locke's perspective on natural rights and the social contract as means to protect life, liberty, and property was another cornerstone of his philosophy. In contrast, Berkeley's focus was less politically oriented and more concerned with the epistemological and metaphysical status of existence.