|
Einstein's God Albert Einstein was asked if he believed in God; his reply, I believe in Spinoza's God. Many theologians, to support their theology, often state that Einstein believed in God. By stating support from our generations belief that Albert Einstein was the apogee of intelligence, they think this is verification of their beliefs. This does beg the question - Who is Spinoza's God? I will borrow from the words and ideas of Matthew Stewart's The Courtier and the Heretic to define Spinoza's God. I will plagiarize much without adding parentheses because I will change wording and thoughts to fit my understanding. Although I suspect most of you will not, I encourage you to buy Stewart's book to get a more correct view of Spinoza's God. He in turn quotes this definition of God from Spinoza's seminal work - Ethics. The short answer to the question - God is Nature. Don't stop here, it's not that simple. By using a capital N, Spinoza is speaking of immanent Nature(God) and not a transitive nature(God). A common description of God used by fundamentalist today is that of a watchmaker. A watchmaker is the transitive cause of this watch; as they accept this God, he is the transitive cause of the creation. A transitive God lies outside its effect. Spinoza sees God as immanent, as in the sense inside or together with that which he causes. The nature of a circle, for example, is the immanent cause of its roundness. Spinoza's claim is that God exists in the world and subsists together with what it creates. Spinoza uses a very simple example to explain this hard to conceive concept. If a triangle could speak, it would say that God is eminently triangular. Of course a triangle does not think and this is an example of man's logic to make God a man. Spinoza's rather unsettling message is that everything in the world - every human being, every thought or idea, every historical event, the planet earth, the stars, the galaxies, and everything in between are in some sense just another word for God. Hence, things could not have been produced by God in any manner or in any order different from that which in fact exists. From a human point of view, everything must always seem contingent; even though from a divine or philosophical point of view, everything is nonetheless necessary. From the philosophical point of view, the distinction between possibility and actuality vanishes: if anything may be, it is; if it may not be , it is not. Does this mean that God is not free? Spinoza takes pains to show that his determinism does not restrict God's freedom. To be free, as he defines it, is to be able to act in accordance with one's own nature, In other words, Spinoza believes that the opposite of freedom is not necessity, but compulsion or constraint. Since God - and God alone - acts purely from the necessity of its own Nature, God is absolutely free. God alone is free! If this explanation of God leaves you feeling confused, maybe an explanation of what God is not will clear your mind. Spinoza's God is not the God of Sunday school or Bible readings. In fact, God has no personality at all: it isn't male or female, it has no likes or dislikes, it does not love or hate, decide, or judge, it has no will or intellect. It makes no sense to say that God is good. Inasmuch as everything in the world follows of necessity from God's eternal essence, then we must infer that all those things we call evil are in God just as much as that which we call good. Good and evil are our relative notions. Spinoza's God does not intervene in the course of events - for that would be to countermand itself - nor does it produce miracles - for that would be to contradict itself. God gives not laws to mankind so as to reward them when they fulfill them and to punish them when they transgress them; God's laws are not of such a nature that they could be transgressed. Because of shallow minds, we humans often attribute to God whatever is desirable in a man. Spinoza believed that the orthodox idea of God is the way theologians control the masses and is a form of tyranny. The theologians promote the belief in a fearsome, judgmental, and punishing God in order to extract obedience from the superstitious masses. A people living under Spinoza's God, on the other hand, could easily dispense with theocratic oppression. Spinoza says that any reasonable, thoughtful person will come to see the same God. Think about it.
|
comments
This makes so much sense to me. I have long thought that we live on in the genes of our progeny, rather than in heaven or hell. How many times have I heard Tom say that his daughter Elissa is just like me. How many times have I said the same thing to one of my other grandchildren. 'You are just like me!' (or 'like Grandpa or your mother or your dad...') I look at Laura and see my mother, even though most people think she looks like Clif. I look at Kate and see my Grandmother, even if she has Daniels' eyes. Yes everything about this creation is truly amazing, but we cannot comprehend the amount of time that it took for things to become as they now are. Even the old adage about where did God come from is unanswerable, so what is the difference? Posted by Elissa Daniels, on Saturday, 27 January 2007 at 10:08
I think the difference is that just because it is unanswerable does not mean that it should be unthought. Posted by cd, on Sunday, 28 January 2007 at 00:22
Spinoza's god is probably the closest you can get to atheism if your people (Jews) are banished from Spain to Portugal in 1492 and instructed to join Christianity or be banished once again. No doubt Spinoza was a rational thinker but what a fascinating philosophy --so influenced by religion.
It sounds like a fancy way of calling yourself an atheist without being killed by all the theists. Posted by Ben, on Monday, 29 January 2007 at 04:29
I went in and out of understanding Spinoza's God. One minute I would think that I grasped the idea and then the next I would think not. Posted by Laura Daniels Krey, on Monday, 29 January 2007 at 07:30
I agree with Ben that “Spinoza was a rational thinker with a very fascinating philosophy - so influenced by religionâ€. I am just not sure he was an atheist in the narrow sense of the word. Yes, he was an atheist if you include in the definition - “particularly with regard to theistic formulationsâ€.
He appears to me to be a deist - one who believes in a rational scientific god or maybe more correctly stated a god that defies definition outside the creation.
I believe that Spinoza was on a mission to destroy the false god of theism. As Ben states in his comment, this undertaking was very dangerous during the 17th century. Many thinkers were toasted for less serious crimes against the church.
I guess it would be helpful to try to understand why he would embark on such an onerous task.
At the age of seven, he was enrolled in the local Jewish school in Amsterdam. The school day consisted of 6 hours of instruction in memorizing the bible, studying the Hebrew language and learning Jewish customs - a typical rabbinical school. Three hours daily were devoted to the classics and mathematics; which instruction was provided by tutors hired by parents. This rabbinical schooling was narrow , but deep. It appears that the rabbis would later regret having “Bentoâ€(Spinoza) memorize the bible. It was his critiques of the scriptures that led him to perplex his teachers with questions they could not answer. The dichotomy of the scriptures led him to reject first Judaism’s, and later Christianity’s version of god. The concept that God created all things, but not evil, was paramount to his rejection.
To understand Spinoza’s God requires one to seek God in all that is know and unknown. Spinoza’s logic is that if God is infinite, then there is no finite God. Another key in understanding this God is the concept that ‘Virtue is its own rewardâ€.
Theism, even today, teaches us to love and worship God because he loves us. Spinoza loves and worships God because he is God. Posted by cd, on Monday, 29 January 2007 at 09:19
I agree that it is more accurate to refer to Spinoza as a deist over an atheist. I still maintain that for his time that his philosophy is about as close as you could come to being atheist. I think the world could use many more Spinoza's, but alas, he has no literal ancestors. Funny how Darwinism sometimes means survival of stupidity, hehe.
Do you think that Spinoza's version of determinism would lead him to say, 'Whatever happens was supposed to happen?' and where do you think he would stand on the subject of personal responsibility? Posted by Ben, on Tuesday, 30 January 2007 at 07:40
Ah, now I understand what you are saying about him being as near an atheist as possible during his time. I think you are right, he was considered as 'that atheist Jew'.
It seems to me that Darwinism is only skewed to stupidity in the human species. I can't think of any stupid 'lower' animals; well maybe with the exception of our president.
Wait a minute! I am going to have to think about those two questions. Both seem to make my brain hurt. Posted by cd, on Tuesday, 30 January 2007 at 10:09
Ben, I guess this is a cop-out, but I am not sure I understand Spinoza well enough to state his inner philosophy.
The first question - whatever happens was suppose to happen - I feel a little insight. As I understand Spinoza’s God, he is a god of physical laws and I would take this to mean that it is not a matter of “what†but of “isâ€. Boy that statement made me feel like a Spinozist!
The second question - his stand on personal responsibility- seems much more difficult , for me personally, to reach a conclusion. Spinoza’s determinism is linked to his doctrine of parallelism. The mind and body are on parallel paths because they are the same thing, just seen from different sides and/or speeds of the parallelogram.
His idea that all we do is related to self-interest is difficult for me to understand, especially if viewed from the perspective of his frugal and simple life. Is this an example of an exoteric and esoteric philosophy?
So, I return the question. What do you think his stand on personal responsibility? Posted by cd, on Wednesday, 31 January 2007 at 00:10
...and it all depends on what your definition of is is.
I don't have answers for either of those questions, but my deduction is that Spinoza purposefully stayed neutral on moral absolutes. He held that there is no good and no bad, but only our subjective interpretations of such. He seemed more concerned with what he felt motivated people (their instinctual will to survive).
The whole 'conatus' concept is a bit foreign to me but it is how Spinoza described God's (Nature's) will.
I did get the feeling that much of his philosophy was in fact exoteric and designed to shift the focus away from religious ideology.
For Einstein, the philosophy was perhaps more of a way of disagreeing with theists without them even realizing it. Posted by Ben, on Wednesday, 31 January 2007 at 03:50
That brings me down to earth.
I fell all the way from Bento to Bill. Posted by cd, on Wednesday, 31 January 2007 at 16:07
Whether God is defined by a set of rules of nature, or a cognizant and intervening being is academic compared to the real question. When we die, does our cognizance continue on? If not, I don’t care what God is. If we do “live on†then does this God effect our after life? I am skeptical of man’s understanding of God because of the many motives to make the masses jump through the religious hoops of life. I have also seen people’s intense desire for those hoops to be real despite what should be a conflict with common sense. Whenever there are hardships in life, people will often make up their own religious beliefs to relieve their own anxieties. Most people only want the truth when it makes them feel warm inside. 'Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.'
-- Albert Einstein Posted by Paulk, on Thursday, 01 February 2007 at 03:32
Boy Paul, you cut right to the meat of the subject. Posted by cd, on Thursday, 01 February 2007 at 03:44
As Ben suggested “conatus†is a basic ingredient in understanding Spinoza’s concept of God. I also found this concept foreign, so let’s take a look at it. [my thoughts in brackets]
Definition: A term used by Spinoza for the striving of all living things towards self-affirmation and self-preservation. [I think, in fact, Spinoza applied this to all things; not just those we would consider living.]
The following is from Conatus and Motion by Juhani Pietarinen of the University of Turku, Finland.
Philosophers in the 17th century [Descartes, Spinoza] made hard efforts to explain the beginnings and continuation of the motion of bodies. [This includes both physical and mental bodies in Spinoza‘s mind.] [This was an attempt to unify all knowledge.] [Edward O. Wilson has written a book on the same concept - Consilience. I highly recommend it.]
The notion of conatus (striving or endeavoring) was commonly used in the explanations. It refers to the power with which the motion of a body begins and is kept on. [Remember that English is Pietarinen’s second or third language.]
(CP) The conatus principle: a body endeavors to preserve its state and resist the causal power of other bodies.
(CP1) Sensations endeavor to preserve their state and resist the power of external causes.
(CP2) The will, i.e. the last desire or aversion in the deliberation, endeavors to preserve its state and resist the power of cause external to it.
(CP3) The reason endeavors to preserve the truths it has conceived, and since nothing resist it, the truths are preserved forever. [This is important in the consideration of Spinoza’s god.]
(CP4) A living being endeavors to preserve its life and resist anything contrary to it. [Here again I think Spinoza includes all things in the definition. At one point he speaks of the earth and rocks as living things]
(CP5) We endeavor to seek peace in order to preserve our life. [Is he here saying, this mind concept, peace, is a living thing or is he saying peace is a part of living nature?]
(CP6) We endeavor to unify our wills and actions by making contracts in order to promote peace. [Contracts with God, nature, individuals???]
(CP7) We endeavor to keep our contracts and resist any passions tempting us to break them.
(CP8) When there are many who do not follow contracts, we rationally endeavor by all our power to preserve our life. [Spinoza’s law of self-interest]
(CP9) The sovereign [God , nature, realpolitik] endeavors to preserve the life of citizens by the joint conatus-power of rational individuals. [You can see this thinking in the writings of the Constitution of the United States]
(CP10) The sovereign endeavors to preserve its status and resist all attempts to forfeit it. [I think this is more than just the concept of an omnipotent god but deals with the idea that what happens is what happens. Not just what should be but what is. Oh my, the definition that Clinton made famous. Maybe he was a student of Spinoza and none of us were smart enough to recognize it.] Posted by cd, on Friday, 02 February 2007 at 04:25
I apologize if I’m being the simpleton in processing this esoteric philosophy. I may very well be missing the point. I think a lot of the confusion is a result of semantics, but here I go anyway. Is “will†is being injected into Spinoza’s philosophy that he didn’t intend? From what little I understand, Spinoza was a “cause and effect†purist. Ultimately, all things happen because they have a nature that reacts to affects placed on them. If you understand the nature or laws and what influences are placed on them, you would know what any person or object will do. Only the complexity of nature and causes stops us from knowing the results 100% of the time. I question the portrayal of the conatus principle. I don’t think a body “endeavors†to preserve its state. I think that it either preserves its state, or it does not—in which case it changes its state. This turns into survival of the fittest. If we seek peace in order to preserve our life, we are more likely to survive. But not all seek peace, and therefore, not all survive. Ultimately we are left with survivors, which will tend to breed similar attributes—which is still just a result of cause and effect. An asteroid is an asteroid, unless it becomes a creator on some planet, or is swallowed up by a sun. To me Spinoza had a fancy way of saying, there is no “godâ€, but there are an unchanging set of laws that encompass everything. The use of the word god is only used to make Spinoza’s philosophy more palatable to the theistic majority. This apparently was not lost on Einstein. Posted by Paulk, on Saturday, 03 February 2007 at 01:37
I agree with Paul. It seems that Spinoza is speaking in 'parables' so that the 'pharisees' won't understand him. If you don't want someone to know what you're saying, what do you do? You speak a different language or use a code. His code is science. Posted by John, on Saturday, 03 February 2007 at 02:05
I am having a problem getting past Paul’s two questions.
1. After death does cognizance continue?
2. If cognizance continues does God effect our after life?
I don’t think that philosophy has answered those questions. Neither has science.
Is there an acceptable solution to the God question?
“But in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.†(Benjamin Franklin Nov. 13, 1789)
Today I am working on the certain things and will come back to the more important questions if the former doesn’t intervene. Posted by cd, on Monday, 05 February 2007 at 19:24
Ah, to hell with taxes, I couldn’t leave it alone, so here goes.
Do qualifications eliminate God?
If God is not seen, heard, smelt, if he is invisible, intangible, unimaginable, eternally elusive; how is he different from an imaginary god or no god at all? Must we then have to contend with going in a circle? If that is the case, then all that is left is tautologizing.
That is not to say there is no god - just that there is no confirming evidence.
Can God be killed by a thousand qualifications? Yet, what if there is still a God; would that not be important for us to determine?
For the majority of religions, God must be anthropomorphic to be properly orthodox or practically effective. But if that be the case, it appears to severely limit God to the understanding of man.
If the scriptures are the word of God, they appear to give us a method of observing God.
Ask and you shall receive.
See: Matthew 7:7-11; D&C 4:7; Mosiah 4:21; 3 Nephi 27:28-29
Let’s use a simple formula to try to understand this principle.
A + B = C
If A is the love of God and B is us asking for that love, then C should be God answering our payers, giving his love.
Within the last ten years, I believed that this promise was unerring. On two very special occasions I put God to the test. Much to my dismay, A+B did not equal C.
One explanation of theological doctrine is that there are qualifications for God to answer prayers. Examples are: having faith; is it right; is it God’s will. Of course, the scriptures as listed above have no such qualifications. If God answering our prayers is inscrutable, what have we gained? What father would not respond in a positive manner to a pleading son when only good is requested?
We don’t understand the ways of God is often offered as a reason that righteous prayers are not answered. That leaves God as incomprehensible and how does that make him better than an imaginary God or no God at all?
Back to that circle again. Posted by cd, on Tuesday, 06 February 2007 at 00:18
"Every philosophy is the philosophy of some stage in life."
Nietzsche Could this indicate that static minds do not grow? Posted by cd, on Saturday, 23 February 2008 at 03:54
Right on, Paul. A common idea in scholarly Judaism is that 'G-d' is unknowable. How reflective this is of the epistemologized universe! Even among the most knowledgeable physicists, it's impossible to comprehend the universe as a whole. We have no real connection between relativity and quantum mechanics. To average folks, like us, we can see the incomprehensibility just thinking of our own world, the development of life, the development of human knowledge. Incomprehensibility is the root of religion. Even among those who reject mythologies, it's easy to respect and revere that which we cannot yet understand. Posted by Megan, on Saturday, 23 February 2008 at 14:12 |
1 Page 1 of 1 ( 19 comments )
You are not authorized to leave comments - please login. |
|
Who's Online
We have 7 guests online
|
