Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sculptor1]

Spinoza on God, Nature


Spinoza wrote:

Man can, indeed, act contrarily to the decrees of God, as far as they have been written like laws in the minds of ourselves or the prophets, but against that eternal decree of God, which is written in universal nature, and has regard to the course of nature as a whole, he can do nothing.

In the state of nature, wrong-doing is impossible ; or, if anyone does wrong, it is to himself, not to another. For no one by the law of nature is bound to please another, unless he chooses, nor to hold anything to be good or evil, but what he himself, according to his own temperament, pronounces to be so ; and, to speak generally, nothing is forbidden by the law of nature, except what is beyond everyone's power.

There is a simple and clear cut reason for this statement. Spinoza was a hard determinist. And "god" whatever that might be, is the infinite and eternal expression of a deterministic universe. God does not have wants, or needs, does not judge, or tinker. The universe is unfolding thought the necessity of cause and effect; that is god.

[JackDaydream]

Spinoza on God, Nature


Spinoza wrote:

Man can, indeed, act contrarily to the decrees of God, as far as they have been written like laws in the minds of ourselves or the prophets, but against that eternal decree of God, which is written in universal nature, and has regard to the course of nature as a whole, he can do nothing.

In the state of nature, wrong-doing is impossible ; or, if anyone does wrong, it is to himself, not to another. For no one by the law of nature is bound to please another, unless he chooses, nor to hold anything to be good or evil, but what he himself, according to his own temperament, pronounces to be so ; and, to speak generally, nothing is forbidden by the law of nature, except what is beyond everyone's power.

There is a simple and clear cut reason for this statement. Spinoza was a hard determinist. And "god" whatever that might be, is the infinite and eternal expression of a deterministic universe. God does not have wants, or needs, does not judge, or tinker. The universe is unfolding thought the necessity of cause and effect; that is god.

I have dipped into Spinoza's writing but have found it difficult to read. I do plan to get through his writing at some point. It seems important for understanding issues of dualism and the whole spectrum of the interface between the dichotomy of mind/matter and body/spirit.

As far as the issue of God is concerned from what I have read about his philosophy he embraces pantheism, which is different from theism or atheism. He was not accepted within the Christian tradition because he did not accept the idea of God as a transcendent being. He saw God as imminent in creation.

This idea of enfoldment is also present in the thinking of Schopenhauer, who sees Kant's idea of the transcendent as being realised in human consciousness itself. Schopenhauer doesn't actually call this 'God'. However, it is about the entire realm of numinousity, as states of consciousness, which writers like Jung and William James saw as the most possible source of knowledge of 'God'.

So, my own personal viewpoint is that some may dismiss the concept of God, especially on the basis of the problems of anthromorphism. Others, including the mystics, may speak of God, as the underlying source of experience, or the lifeforce. The pantheism of Spinoza may be an important bridge for thinking about the whole concept of God, with theism projecting too much onto an 'unknowable' or supernatural being and atheism being too extreme in dismissing any source underlying consciousness and the evolution of life.

[Sculptor1]

Spinoza on God, Nature


Spinoza wrote:

Man can, indeed, act contrarily to the decrees of God, as far as they have been written like laws in the minds of ourselves or the prophets, but against that eternal decree of God, which is written in universal nature, and has regard to the course of nature as a whole, he can do nothing.

In the state of nature, wrong-doing is impossible ; or, if anyone does wrong, it is to himself, not to another. For no one by the law of nature is bound to please another, unless he chooses, nor to hold anything to be good or evil, but what he himself, according to his own temperament, pronounces to be so ; and, to speak generally, nothing is forbidden by the law of nature, except what is beyond everyone's power.

There is a simple and clear cut reason for this statement. Spinoza was a hard determinist. And "god" whatever that might be, is the infinite and eternal expression of a deterministic universe. God does not have wants, or needs, does not judge, or tinker. The universe is unfolding thought the necessity of cause and effect; that is god.

I have dipped into Spinoza's writing but have found it difficult to read. I do plan to get through his writing at some point. It seems important for understanding issues of dualism and the whole spectrum of the interface between the dichotomy of mind/matter and body/spirit.

What you need to know about S is that he was fram a Jewish family that had to fee Portugal because of religious/racial persecution. He treated Judaism with the same skepticism he treated CHristianity (though had high regard for acts of Jesus)
The world in which he lived was highly hostile to "atheists".
So he had to chose his words and methods carefully, so despite not sharing a common belief in God, when he set out to express his views he did so carefully.
Inspired by Descartes he then wrote to "prove" the existence of god through the "geometrical method". In other words he set out to describe the character of god through reason alone. So through this smoke screen he basically described an unthinking, but evolving nature and called that god.
With this method he describes an existence which solves Epicurus' dilemma.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
God is neither willing or able; not evil nor good, in the ordinary sense. God is everything, and that includes what we like to call good and evil.

I think any atheist of the time would see through that, many theists would be puzzled.
The Jewish authorities were not fooled and placed cherem on him which was equvalent to excommunication.

As far as the issue of God is concerned from what I have read about his philosophy he embraces pantheism, which is different from theism or atheism. He was not accepted within the Christian tradition because he did not accept the idea of God as a transcendent being. He saw God as imminent in creation.

This idea of enfoldment is also present in the thinking of Schopenhauer, who sees Kant's idea of the transcendent as being realised in human consciousness itself. Schopenhauer doesn't actually call this 'God'. However, it is about the entire realm of numinousity, as states of consciousness, which writers like Jung and William James saw as the most possible source of knowledge of 'God'.

So, my own personal viewpoint is that some may dismiss the concept of God, especially on the basis of the problems of anthromorphism. Others, including the mystics, may speak of God, as the underlying source of experience, or the lifeforce. The pantheism of Spinoza may be an important bridge for thinking about the whole concept of God, with theism projecting too much onto an 'unknowable' or supernatural being and atheism being too extreme in dismissing any source underlying consciousness and the evolution of life.

It would be a mistake to label him as Pantheist, since that phrase may still imply consciousness. I think "god" can only be conscious in the atomic examples of where it happens to occur in nature. In other words worms and apes might be conscious in their own rights, but that does not make "god" or "nature" a conscious entity. There is no ghost in the machine.

I can find no problem with Spinoza's "proof of God", and that is exactly why I am an atheist.