Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

The God of Spinoza

Axon85
Posts: 137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 7:55:38 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
The God of Spinoza - the same God that Albert Einstein claimed to believe in. What did Spinoza actually mean by God?

We know what he didn"t mean by God. He certainty did not accept the traditional notions of a theistic God that meddles in human affairs. In fact, he was very critical of religion and got excommunicated from the Jewish community into which he was born.

Spinoza is largely regarded as being a pantheist. In other words, Spinoza rejects any distinction between God & nature and instead equates the one to the other. It seems this pantheism can be understood in 2 ways.

1. God = Nature. God is simply the totality of matter, energy and whatever laws govern the former. In this case, I think Spinoza can be regarded as a romantic atheist. Several scholars will make the case that there is really no discernable difference between the God of Spinoza and the natural universe described by modern science.

2. God = Nature, but Nature is imbued with some emergent properties. For example, a mind (perhaps the implies a panpsychism of a sort).

Conversely, some scholars would argue that Spinoza was actually a panenthesit, meaning God = Nature, but God also extends beyond nature.

Thoughts?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 9:17:09 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 7:55:38 PM, Axon85 wrote:
The God of Spinoza - the same God that Albert Einstein claimed to believe in. What did Spinoza actually mean by God?

We know what he didn"t mean by God. He certainty did not accept the traditional notions of a theistic God that meddles in human affairs. In fact, he was very critical of religion and got excommunicated from the Jewish community into which he was born.

Spinoza is largely regarded as being a pantheist. In other words, Spinoza rejects any distinction between God & nature and instead equates the one to the other. It seems this pantheism can be understood in 2 ways.

1. God = Nature. God is simply the totality of matter, energy and whatever laws govern the former. In this case, I think Spinoza can be regarded as a romantic atheist. Several scholars will make the case that there is really no discernable difference between the God of Spinoza and the natural universe described by modern science.

2. God = Nature, but Nature is imbued with some emergent properties. For example, a mind (perhaps the implies a panpsychism of a sort).

Conversely, some scholars would argue that Spinoza was actually a panenthesit, meaning God = Nature, but God also extends beyond nature.

Thoughts?

Why believe the mind is emergent?
Axon85
Posts: 137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 9:20:28 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 9:17:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/4/2016 7:55:38 PM, Axon85 wrote:
The God of Spinoza - the same God that Albert Einstein claimed to believe in. What did Spinoza actually mean by God?

We know what he didn"t mean by God. He certainty did not accept the traditional notions of a theistic God that meddles in human affairs. In fact, he was very critical of religion and got excommunicated from the Jewish community into which he was born.

Spinoza is largely regarded as being a pantheist. In other words, Spinoza rejects any distinction between God & nature and instead equates the one to the other. It seems this pantheism can be understood in 2 ways.

1. God = Nature. God is simply the totality of matter, energy and whatever laws govern the former. In this case, I think Spinoza can be regarded as a romantic atheist. Several scholars will make the case that there is really no discernable difference between the God of Spinoza and the natural universe described by modern science.

2. God = Nature, but Nature is imbued with some emergent properties. For example, a mind (perhaps the implies a panpsychism of a sort).

Conversely, some scholars would argue that Spinoza was actually a panenthesit, meaning God = Nature, but God also extends beyond nature.

Thoughts?

Why believe the mind is emergent?

Fair enough. It need not be.
Axon85
Posts: 137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 10:51:50 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 10:28:08 PM, keithprosser wrote:
Can we infer that hardly anybody actually reads Spinoza?

We can probably infer that hardly anybody actually reads any philosophy...
Axon85
Posts: 137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 11:20:02 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 11:03:23 PM, keithprosser wrote:
I generally prefer to wait for the movie.

Perhaps something akin to the Avengers. Continental Rationalists vs. British Empiricists.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 7:29:57 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 10:28:08 PM, keithprosser wrote:
Can we infer that hardly anybody actually reads Spinoza?

Perhaps. But I do.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 7:36:50 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 7:55:38 PM, Axon85 wrote:
Thoughts?

As an atheist, pantheism and pananetheism have been enticing to me in the past... especially after I took mushrooms in college and got on this whole "I'm one with nature" kick. While I have questioned the logical premises over the years, I do like that panentheism accounts for the divine both including and also extending beyond the universe.

If the universe is a mixture of good and evil, then God (being within the universe) must also be a mixture of good and evil. However most theists cannot accept God as anything but the absolute good.
President of DDO
Axon85
Posts: 137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 3:13:58 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 8:32:31 AM, keithprosser wrote:
The Empiricists Strike Back, you mean?

I suppose that does have a better ring to it...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 3:30:25 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 7:36:50 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 7/4/2016 7:55:38 PM, Axon85 wrote:
Thoughts?

As an atheist, pantheism and pananetheism have been enticing to me in the past... especially after I took mushrooms in college and got on this whole "I'm one with nature" kick. While I have questioned the logical premises over the years, I do like that panentheism accounts for the divine both including and also extending beyond the universe.

If the universe is a mixture of good and evil, then God (being within the universe) must also be a mixture of good and evil. However most theists cannot accept God as anything but the absolute good.

Well I believe in a Deity but feel this Deity is morally indifferent, and this Deity's purpose of creation was to experience itself in a different way. So, the Deity segregated bits of its consciousness internally to form distinct sub-personalities (us). So we look out and learn, because we are part of this Deity, it learns too.

I'm definitely not religious, but I don't believe that conscousness is merely emergent either. God is nature, but in my view nature is spiritual and that material/ non-mental reality is just a fiction.
Axon85
Posts: 137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 3:34:27 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 7:36:50 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 7/4/2016 7:55:38 PM, Axon85 wrote:
Thoughts?

As an atheist, pantheism and pananetheism have been enticing to me in the past... especially after I took mushrooms in college and got on this whole "I'm one with nature" kick.

Been there :)


If the universe is a mixture of good and evil, then God (being within the universe) must also be a mixture of good and evil. However most theists cannot accept God as anything but the absolute good.

Though I am not sure if the proposed god of Spinoza is either good or evil... if would seem to me that it would have to be something amoral. To describe someone/thing as good implies that the entity behaves according to some standards of goodness. I'm not sure how this would apply to the concept of a deity...
Axon85
Posts: 137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 3:48:53 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
in my view nature is spiritual and that material/ non-mental reality is just a fiction.

I knew that profile pic looked familiar... :)
keithprosser
Posts: 2,004
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 5:57:48 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/6/2016 3:30:25 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
....in my view nature is spiritual and that material/ non-mental reality is just a fiction.

Interesting idea.... you should start a thread on it.</irony>
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 2:31:17 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/6/2016 5:57:48 AM, keithprosser wrote:
At 7/6/2016 3:30:25 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
....in my view nature is spiritual and that material/ non-mental reality is just a fiction.

Interesting idea.... you should start a thread on it.</irony>

I have already, but I don't think I have enough of them yet ;)
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 4:20:14 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/6/2016 3:30:25 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Well I believe in a Deity but feel this Deity is morally indifferent, and this Deity's purpose of creation was to experience itself in a different way. So, the Deity segregated bits of its consciousness internally to form distinct sub-personalities (us). So we look out and learn, because we are part of this Deity, it learns too.

Interesting.

I'm definitely not religious, but I don't believe that conscousness is merely emergent either. God is nature, but in my view nature is spiritual and that material/ non-mental reality is just a fiction.

Do you think God is conscious? As in a singular consciousness or combination of other consciousnesses?
President of DDO
Hiu
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 5:33:01 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 7:55:38 PM, Axon85 wrote:
The God of Spinoza - the same God that Albert Einstein claimed to believe in. What did Spinoza actually mean by God?

We know what he didn"t mean by God. He certainty did not accept the traditional notions of a theistic God that meddles in human affairs. In fact, he was very critical of religion and got excommunicated from the Jewish community into which he was born.

Spinoza is largely regarded as being a pantheist. In other words, Spinoza rejects any distinction between God & nature and instead equates the one to the other. It seems this pantheism can be understood in 2 ways.

1. God = Nature. God is simply the totality of matter, energy and whatever laws govern the former. In this case, I think Spinoza can be regarded as a romantic atheist. Several scholars will make the case that there is really no discernable difference between the God of Spinoza and the natural universe described by modern science.

2. God = Nature, but Nature is imbued with some emergent properties. For example, a mind (perhaps the implies a panpsychism of a sort).

Conversely, some scholars would argue that Spinoza was actually a panenthesit, meaning God = Nature, but God also extends beyond nature.

Thoughts?

There was no proof of any metaphysical intercession in Spinoza's mind, only the natural:

"That eternal and infinite being we call God, or Nature, acts from the same necessity from which he exists."
Axon85
Posts: 137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 5:48:09 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/6/2016 5:33:01 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 7/4/2016 7:55:38 PM, Axon85 wrote:
The God of Spinoza - the same God that Albert Einstein claimed to believe in. What did Spinoza actually mean by God?

We know what he didn"t mean by God. He certainty did not accept the traditional notions of a theistic God that meddles in human affairs. In fact, he was very critical of religion and got excommunicated from the Jewish community into which he was born.

Spinoza is largely regarded as being a pantheist. In other words, Spinoza rejects any distinction between God & nature and instead equates the one to the other. It seems this pantheism can be understood in 2 ways.

1. God = Nature. God is simply the totality of matter, energy and whatever laws govern the former. In this case, I think Spinoza can be regarded as a romantic atheist. Several scholars will make the case that there is really no discernable difference between the God of Spinoza and the natural universe described by modern science.

2. God = Nature, but Nature is imbued with some emergent properties. For example, a mind (perhaps the implies a panpsychism of a sort).

Conversely, some scholars would argue that Spinoza was actually a panenthesit, meaning God = Nature, but God also extends beyond nature.

Thoughts?

There was no proof of any metaphysical intercession in Spinoza's mind, only the natural:


"That eternal and infinite being we call God, or Nature, acts from the same necessity from which he exists."

That's the view I tend to side with as well.
Hiu
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2016 12:31:35 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/6/2016 5:48:09 PM, Axon85 wrote:
At 7/6/2016 5:33:01 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 7/4/2016 7:55:38 PM, Axon85 wrote:
The God of Spinoza - the same God that Albert Einstein claimed to believe in. What did Spinoza actually mean by God?

We know what he didn"t mean by God. He certainty did not accept the traditional notions of a theistic God that meddles in human affairs. In fact, he was very critical of religion and got excommunicated from the Jewish community into which he was born.

Spinoza is largely regarded as being a pantheist. In other words, Spinoza rejects any distinction between God & nature and instead equates the one to the other. It seems this pantheism can be understood in 2 ways.

1. God = Nature. God is simply the totality of matter, energy and whatever laws govern the former. In this case, I think Spinoza can be regarded as a romantic atheist. Several scholars will make the case that there is really no discernable difference between the God of Spinoza and the natural universe described by modern science.

2. God = Nature, but Nature is imbued with some emergent properties. For example, a mind (perhaps the implies a panpsychism of a sort).

Conversely, some scholars would argue that Spinoza was actually a panenthesit, meaning God = Nature, but God also extends beyond nature.

Thoughts?

There was no proof of any metaphysical intercession in Spinoza's mind, only the natural:


"That eternal and infinite being we call God, or Nature, acts from the same necessity from which he exists."

That's the view I tend to side with as well.

Indeed
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,866
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2016 5:40:02 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/5/2016 7:36:50 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 7/4/2016 7:55:38 PM, Axon85 wrote:
Thoughts?

As an atheist, pantheism and pananetheism have been enticing to me in the past... especially after I took mushrooms in college and got on this whole "I'm one with nature" kick. While I have questioned the logical premises over the years, I do like that panentheism accounts for the divine both including and also extending beyond the universe.

If the universe is a mixture of good and evil, then God (being within the universe) must also be a mixture of good and evil. However most theists cannot accept God as anything but the absolute good.
A meteor is in the universe, is it a mixture of good and evil?
Water is in the universe, same question?
God does not succumb to that which is a result of a lack of wisdom. Evil is such a thing,..I.E. evil exists as a result of a lack of wisdom, therefore God can be within the universe and be absolute good.