|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 866 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Spinoza Pantheism Defined | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 866 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
There has been a lot of misinformation concerning Pantheism on the forum lately, particularly in regard to attempts to conflate Spinoza Pantheism with various New Age belief systems. Although the primary perpetrator of this misinformation has retracted, I believe it is important to state exactly what Spinoza Pantheism means.
For this reason, I am going to define Spinoza Pantheism as best I understand it and ask other members of this forum if they agree with such a definition. This definition will include what Spinoza Pantheism is, and what it is not. Spinoza is notoriously difficult to quote from in any more than one sentence to convey a complex idea, so I will rely on some commentary as necessary. First, I would like to define what is meant by God under Spinoza Pantheism, which is more complex than commonly thought, and is a difficult task at best. God is the essential nature/essence that underlies all of reality observed and unobserved. Therefore God is within all of reality and all reality is a part, albeit a minute part, of God. This is what is meant by the term substance as used by Spinoza. Substance is not merely matter, as commonly understood according to our most popular definition but rather means the underlying essence in this sense of the word. From Wikipedia at Baruch Spinoza - Wikipedia
quote: To elaborate further, from page 409 of Constantine’s Sword by James Carroll:
quote: This definition does not mean that everyone is God, or that God is simply the sum of all observable parts of the universe. It also is not equivalent to Deism, which as best I understand implies a God that is separate from creation and which initially creates the universe and then does not personally interfere with its workings. There are several implications to any religion that considers an impersonal God the underlying essence or ”substance’ of the universe. Such a belief does not allow for an anthropomorphic image of an all-powerful male God with white skin and flowing beard such as in Michelangelo’s paintings or the concept of Santa Claus. Concepts such as gender, race, even emotion, do not apply to a supreme being that is obviously far greater than a mere projection of the believer. Often, pantheists are accused of atheism because the definition of religion, among both the majority of believers and atheists, demands an anthropomorphic deity. This is a clear misrepresentation of not only Pantheism, but also Taoism and Buddhism. God is impersonal and therefore not the source of good and evil as is commonly understood in Western religion. Good and evil are subjective terms that are real only in relation to the observer. Therefore there is no such thing as an absolute morality. To illustrate this Spinoza states:
quote: Spinoza Pantheism is deterministic, which means that even God did not have free will in creating the universe, rather the creation is a necessary action of God by definition. It also means the individual does not have free will but only the illusion of choice. The business of free-will vs. determinism is one of the few areas where I am not in complete agreement with Spinoza. However, Spinoza was obviously unaware of quantum mechanics and while he may have been wrong in this particular case under each and every scenario, I do believe that most of what we call free-will is an illusion. Because all people are in essence, a part of God, all people are equal. As mentioned before, such a belief has political significance. From page 102 of the Courtier and the Heretic by Matthew Stewart
quote: Spinoza was the first person to my knowledge to criticize the common interpretation of the Bible and actually die of something other than at a burning stake. He insisted that one must think when reading the Bible and not simply act as a fundamentalist dullard who shuts off their mind to all but the authority of temporal rulers. From Chapter VII of the Theological-Political Treatise by Spinoza himself:
quote: And further on:
quote: How many self described Christians refuse to understand the above 350 years later. While Spinoza strove to understand the Bible, his conclusions concerning religion are not normally associated with Christianity. He held God is worshiped best by using one’s intelligence to understand God, which is basically equivalent to understanding nature. Therefore, of all religions, Spinoza Pantheism holds science in the greatest respect because the act of doing science is holy. To put it simply God is best revealed through the study of the works of God (nature) rather than the words of men (Bible, Quran, etc.). Spinoza also holds that there is no personal immortality but rather only the impersonal immortality of the truth. The more truth on holds, the more knowledge of nature, the more parts of that person are immortal. To learn more about Spinoza Pantheism (and there is much, much more), I find one of the best concise sources is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy at
Baruch Spinoza (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
. Here is a quote from that source to help whet your appetite:
quote: Of course all of Spinoza’s works are directly available full text online so one can learn what he was talking about from the source if one so chooses. I find it interesting that Spinoza through intense study of the Bible and Judaism independently came to similar conclusions concerning the nature of God and reality as Lao Tse and Taoism did some 2000 years earlier. To emphasize why Spinoza is relevant today, please allow me to provide some fulfilled prophecy from his pen. From The Courtier and the Heretic, page 181:
quote: It is for these reasons I consider Spinoza the true prophet of God in a similar manner in which one considers Mohammed the true prophet of God in Islam. Therefore I consider my belief a religion. What I seek to debate includes the question is the above a reasonable definition of Spinoza Pantheism and if so, do these beliefs qualify as a religion as opposed to a clever form of atheism? Faith and Belief I would think.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 866 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
What I wanted to address is the both-and argument. This is the inclusive element that does have a connection to the points I was making in the other thread minus the egotheism. I am unclear about what you mean by the argument of either-or vs. both-and. For example, it is clear in modern psychology that the mind-body dichotomy is false. The mind requires the body and the body requires the mind in order for both to exist. One could say that the mind and the body are different attributes of the same being. Therefore the individual is both-and body and mind rather than either-or body or mind. How does: "Not only does it emerge, but let me give you some shocking news... even in India, we look both ways before crossing the street. It is either the bus, or me. Not both of us!" refute the concept of body-mind interdependence? For that matter how does the parable of the bus refute all examples of the concept of interdependence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 866 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Anastasia writes: This is not a preaching mission, but that is pretty close to how I have come to understand the Trinity. Add in the third element of actions flowing from the body and mind, and you have the Holy Spirit. Evidently, when one considers the Trinity, Christianity has it's own element of both-and as opposed to either-or.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 866 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Anastasia writes: Ok, anglagard, I am going to try to get on topic and specifically address your post and defintions. Some things are to me, unclear, but hopefully they will be uncovered. Thank you. I will address your questions soon. At the moment am a bit busy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 866 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Rob, please feel free to actually address the OP. In the meantime, I want you to know that I did not create this topic in order to provide you with an avenue for your personal vendettas or to read the Bible in bits and pieces according to your whim.
Edited by anglagard, : gramer
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 866 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Yes
IMO, the Tao represents the beautiful poetry, while Spinoza represents the cold logic, of the same truth. To me, the three most beautiful works on religion I have read are the Tao, the Bhagavad Gita, and the New Testament. Each speaks eternal truths to an identical need but different culture. It is the exclusionary nature of some Christians (among other religions) and some denominations, sects, or cults which by their very actions and statements alone disprove any claim to love or knowledge of God. Edited by anglagard, : clean up
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 866 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Anastasia writes: Would it be correct to say that everything is a part of God? And if so, are there different concentrates of God in different things? Can God be seperated into small pieces and still be totally the same, or are there different 'aspects' of God showing up in different places? Do the mountains show one thing, the trees another? If that is true, I would not understand how the sum of all visible and invisible things would not equal God, unless you say God does not rely on these things for existance. If he doesn't, I would think He must have created them, or they must be seperate from God, and not relying on Him for existance, but on some other force. Try looking at it this way. All material things are made of atoms, or even more specifically, subatomic particles/waves, yet each category of things, such as mountains, trees, and people are distinct entities. This is roughly similar to saying there is an underlying substance (atoms) and different entities that emanate from that substance (attributes). The analogy is not perfect as substance and attributes in this case means more than just the material, but it may help to explain what Spinoza means by one substance underlying all attributes.
Obviously, but just to be fair, christianity does not presume to say that God has looks or gender, it is just a traditional pictorial image. If you HAD to draw a picture of God in Spinoza's terms, what would it look like? I see the point, though, that having God look like a human would be a non sequitar, while in christianity having a seperate God who 'speaks' thru things in human terms would lend itself to a 'personal' image. The fact that some people must anthropomorphize their deities tends to diminish both them and their religion IMO. Some people prefer their deities to be more than just human, considering all the anger, violence, and petty jealousies such a false and pathetic caricature of God allows. In Spinoza’s terms there could be no drawing because one can’t draw everything that is both observed and unobserved.
See, I don't view God as a source of good amd evil. Good is when all things work together in harmony, evil is when they clash, and the only way that evil itself exists is because of free-will. I don't want to get all biblical about it; this is my understanding. If God just winds an eternally running clock, all things which he has made will run smoothly forever, because all things He made were good. Give men a tiny bit of freedom, and some things might not go as smoothly. Since we are not God, we have to learn the hard way what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'. Give us the intelligence to gain technological advance, and things can go even more hay-wire without the knowledge of right and wrong. So, as I see it, God gave us free-will, and then, conscience...a little nagging that says something doesn't feel right, even if we cover it or don't understand exactly WHAT is wrong. Therefore obeying your conscience in any religion = good. Free-will...brings evil. Knowledge of good and evil, helps temper it. This of course only works if we are SEPERATE from God in essence, or I would think that we would do good by default. I hold with Spinoza that good and evil are subjective terms. This forum is riddled with threads trying to assert that good and evil are somehow absolute concepts that exist independent of the observer. So far as I know, not once has anyone come close to rationally making a decent case for morality to be anything but subjective. Also, how could a supposedly all-powerful God permit evil to exist if it is “out there?” There is only one choice if good and evil are objective realities independent of the observer, god created evil and god allows evil to persist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 866 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
quote: and;
quote: Anastasia writes: This is like saying I believe Jesus was a prophet of God, and I am a Christian, but I don't agree with everything Jesus said. It would tell me at first glance that Spinoza is not a prophet but a theologian or theoreticist. He has attempted to explain God, Jesus has said He IS God. There's a paradox...in pantheism we are all part of God, and in christinaity, we are all trying to understand the seperate God. Yet, when it comes to prophets, Spinoza makes a valiant attempt to explain God, and Jesus claims to BE God. Well, I am not a Christian because I don’t believe Jesus is God, and the son of God, in a literal sense. Spinoza refers to Jesus as “first among men.” I believe that God is the underlying substance of the universe observed and unobservable. I do not believe that Jesus is the underlying substance of the universe observed and unobservable because when Jesus walked among the people as a person, he became at best, less than all. How could Jesus be Jesus, and Pilate, and Tiberius Caesar and Alpha Centauri? This is the difference between monism and dualism inherent in the difference between Spinoza Pantheism and Christianity. Just to clarify, one could be a Christian and still have much of their “soul” reunited with God under a pantheistic model. The opposite is not usually considered true, although a few members of this forum have a different and IMO amazingly more tolerant interpretation. Also, when I use the term prophet, I mean a human and therefore fallible person, not a deity. I am using the term prophet because Spinoza has a far better track record than pretty much anyone else in history at actually predicting the future before such events took place. Also, his “prophecies” were a lot more specific and a lot less horrific.
Of course, Spinoza has proof of existance, and we can't argue that years of tradition have put words into his mouth. but, I can argue that in pantheism, we are ALL prophets, as none of us is empowered by the 'substance' of an Impersonal Nature to 'understand' or proclaim Itself. In this light, we ARE God, in the way Jesus is, as we ALL can personally, perfectly, proclaim God's existance. Well, scratch the perfectly part. But we all would proclaim God if we were part of Him/It/She and yet in theism we do proclaim God indirectly as a creation or a painting. Spinoza clearly states that there are three levels of knowledge present in humans and that few make it a common practice to reach the third level. Therefore all people are not equal in the understanding or love of God. From The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy at Spinoza, Benedict De | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
quote: Sorry, I keep thinking about this and editing. It is really neither here nor there that you think Spinoza is a prophet. If that is your opinion only, then that can not detract from the over-all value of the philosophy. I am sure folks have not all agreed with Jesus, maybe doctored things up, or just become so programmed to understanding what He said. Add to that the fact of His divinity, and it would be hard to argue with Him. I think jar and to some extent you and Phat are doing a decent job of presenting your case for your beliefs, so please keep up the good work. Rest assured I do read and consider your points.
Still, I am curious; could a star be a prophet? If so, to whom? other stars, or people as well? Would it have to deviate from normal star behavior to send the message, and would that be like God interfering in a personal way? Also, do you think that only humans would have prophets, if all things are equal? Or do humans have a special role in the universe wherein prophecy is more relevent? Don’t get too hung up on my terminology as I am speaking somewhat symbolically in terms that are commonly bandied about on this forum. To me, if a person predicts a lot of what the modern world is like over 300 years before it happens, they must have some insight and should at least be taken seriously.
Btw...christianity is deterministic as well. Is it as deterministic? Seems like just a bit ago you were illustrating that free will in humans was needed for evil to exist independent of God. Edited by anglagard, : add subtitle
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 866 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
jar writes: I would like to ask a few questions about "Evil". When a lion kills a zebra is it being Evil? When lightning starts a forest fire that burns down homes is it Evil? When a mosquito bites someone and they get Malaria, is it Evil? Let's see how it works under the good/bad/indifferent test? Case 1: Good for the lion, bad for the zebra, and indifferent to the termite. Case 2: Good for any plants that need fire and/or room to germinate, bad for the homeowner, indifferent to the geese flying nearby. Case 3: Good for the parasite, bad for the person, and indifferent to the ant. If course even these determinations are snap judgments based upon assumptions and may lack all the pertinent facts to determine if they are good, bad, or indifferent. For example what if the zebra had rabies, the houses were meth labs, or Mao got the malaria? Could throw the calculations off quite a bit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 866 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
jar writes: But those are good/bad/indifferent tests. How about Evil? Is Evil simply "Bad"? OK lets see if we can define our terms like all good (not evil) philosophers. First hit in Google is Wikipedia:
quote: Looks like in religion and ethics, evil requires a human agent to initiate, therefore the actions of lions, fire, and mosquitos can't be considered evil.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 866 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
jar writes: Does the latter part of that imply intent? Yes, intent is implied. Isn't intent a subjective human action?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 866 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
jar writes: I am not sure intent is an action. The behavior is the action, but is intent? Intent is an action of the mind but it is not an action of behavior. Using the term action in regard to intent is confusing however, so it would have been better to use something like "a subjective human motivation."
Going back to your definition, so you can help me work this through, it contained: It's actually Wikipedia's definition used for convenience to illustrate the difference between evil and bad to answer your question if they are synonomous. I do not claim personal ownership of the entire definition nor do I necessarily agree with all parts of said definition.
Often someone who does Evil may not Intend to do Evil. To use the old and worn example of Hitler, "Did Hitler intend Evil in the Final Solution?" He and his supporters probably didn't view it as evil as they personally benefitted. Somehow I don't believe Nazi's were global utilitarians, nor would the greater part of the world population. In fact, subjective or not, the term 'evil' would probably be a common descriptor among most people.
How does one qualify "Deliberately" "void" "of conscience" or "wanton" "penchant" "for destruction"? You got me, maybe we should ask the author. Apparently, the Wiki definition is not real useful beyond showing that evil requires a human agent. My original 'intent' is that terms such as bad, evil, good, etc. are subjective. I don't see anything yet disputing this point. Now if we need to find a good or even perfect definition of good, evil, bad, etc. to continue, we may be here a long time. Perhaps we could find a better definition of the terms that we may mutually agree on just for the sake of discussion as opposed to finding the 'ideal' definitions. Do you have any suggestions? Or would the task prove too difficult, thereby confirming their subjective nature?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 866 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
RAZD writes: You say lions can't be evil, but we don't know how they see it. If the definition of evil requires a human agent, then lions can't be evil. If the definition is extended beyond just applying to humans, than perhaps lions could be called evil according to lion standards, but it would stil be subjective. Who could divine what the absolute standards are for good or bad lion behavior, or for that matter even primate behavior, when we can't even agree on standard definitions of good, bad, or evil human behavior that work across all cultures and all times under all circumstances? Sociability and cooperation are usually considered good traits but is their opposite bad? Are hermits bad or to the extreme, evil? Still seems subjective to me. Just because moral judgments are subjective does not provide an excuse for making no moral judgments. We all have to do it to the best of our understanding to live as social beings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 866 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
jar writes: Folk, you for example, say stuff like "God would not allow Evil." Logically, if God is separate from creation, and God is all-powerful, and God is intimately involved with human affairs, and God is against all evil even if it is a subjectively-derived human idea, then by definition evil should not exist. Now if God has nothing to do with any subjectively-derived human idea of evil, and such an idea is entirely a human construct, then what any given human may call evil could exist. This may also apply to any deity that simply created and is not further concerned with human actions. Therin lies the rub. When some members call evil an objective reality that exists outside of human judgment, some theological problems concerning an all-good, all-powerful, hands-on managment deity begin to appear. That is my point, I hope this helps to clarify what I said, which was evidently not well-defined and lent itself to some misunderstanding.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 866 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Archer Opterix writes: Have you posted a faith statement here? I would welcome a chance to read one from you. Not yet, but here is as close as I have come to the traditional EvC faith statement.
Message 129
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024