Was Spinoza Actually An Atheist?

[attofishpi]

I think that's what non personal means in the context of theism. Maybe I'm incorrect about that, but I can think of examples of people described as pantheists whose "god's" do not think...

I've got one in mind - SPINOZA!!

[Flannel Jesus]

I've got a second- Einstein.

I'm not the only person interpreting "non personal" this way either.

https://www.philosophytalk.org/blog/pan ... %20atheism.

After all, pantheism denies the existence of a transcendent, personal God, which is the God of traditional theism. So, in that sense, pantheism seems to be a form of atheism. It’s not clear what exactly pantheists are talking about when they talk of “God.” If pantheists just consider God to be the totality of all existence, then why talk of “God” at all? Moreover, if that’s what “God” means to the pantheist, then the slogan “God is everything and everything is God” now seems circular and redundant.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/#Pers

It is important to distinguish between the specific question of whether God is literally a ‘person’ and the more general question whether God is ‘person-like’; the issue of whether notions such as intellect, thought, consciousness, intent, etc. have any application to the divine, even if analogical or metaphorical.

... These points made, while it is true that traditional theism has regularly opposed pantheism on the grounds that it tends to be impersonal, and true also that many pantheists would deny that God is personal, it is nonetheless the case that many other pantheists have thought mind-like attribution of some form or other to the cosmos absolutely central to their position.

Your interpretation of the word, while it makes sense, isn't the only and obvious way to interpret it.

[Skepdick]

Your interpretation of the word, while it makes sense, isn't the only and obvious way to interpret it.

So back to the question then...

Whose definition/interpretation should Einstein or Spinoza's use of the term "god" be measured up against?

Your definition or their definition?

[attofishpi]

I've got a second- Einstein.

I know pantheism has been ascribed to Einstein but from an interview I am aware only of him stating when quizzed about whether he believes in God, that he would agree with Spinoza's "God" - that is, he is akin to atheist.

I'm not the only person interpreting "non personal" this way either.

https://www.philosophytalk.org/blog/pan ... %20atheism.

After all, pantheism denies the existence of a transcendent, personal God, which is the God of traditional theism. So, in that sense, pantheism seems to be a form of atheism. It’s not clear what exactly pantheists are talking about when they talk of “God.” If pantheists just consider God to be the totality of all existence, then why talk of “God” at all? Moreover, if that’s what “God” means to the pantheist, then the slogan “God is everything and everything is God” now seems circular and redundant.

Absolutely, (note the WIKI quote below) then it also follows that IF this pantheist God having CREATED at least our existence is not able to also be a personable God, then why define it had the ability to create anything!!?

Pantheism is the philosophical religious belief that reality,[1] the universe and the cosmos are identical to divinity and a supreme being or entity. The physical universe is thus understood as an immanent creator deity, still expanding and creating, which has existed since the beginning of time.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pant ... s[quote]It is important to distinguish between the specific question of whether God is literally a ‘person’ and the more general question whether God is ‘person-like’; the issue of whether notions such as intellect, thought, consciousness, intent, etc. have any application to the divine, even if analogical or metaphorical.

... These points made, while it is true that traditional theism has regularly opposed pantheism on the grounds that it tends to be impersonal, and true also that many pantheists would deny that God is personal, it is nonetheless the case that many other pantheists have thought mind-like attribution of some form or other to the cosmos absolutely central to their position.

Your interpretation of the word, while it makes sense, isn't the only and obvious way to interpret it.

Mr Jesus. There is a huge leap between considering the entity that pervades ALL of existence, GOD, to that of a human, a man.

Stating that God is not a person is easy...stating that God is not personable such that it can interact with what it created - a man - is quite a different conception.

Of course God is not a man, in pantheism it would be akin to stating that the universe is a man. HOWEVER, I do not concede to this ridiculous notion of pantheism that God is not personable to man - that is to say that it is not capable of being personable to a man.

[Flannel Jesus]

I don't know what "personable" means. All I know is, you said I was misrepresenting pantheism and had a short sighted view of what the term "non personal" meant, but what I'm finding is that it (a) accurately represents the views of at least some self described pantheists, though certainly not all, and (b) my short sighted interpretation of the word is shared by many, including some pantheists themselves.

I do not believe I am misrepresenting anything, and I believe my more open ended interpretation of the term is categorically less short sighted than a closed interpretation.

[attofishpi]

I don't know what "personable" means. All I know is, you said I was misrepresenting pantheism and had a short sighted view of what the term "non personal" meant, but what I'm finding is that it (a) accurately represents the views of at least some self described pantheists, though certainly not all, and (b) my short sighted interpretation of the word is shared by many, including some pantheists themselves.

I do not believe I am misrepresenting anything, and I believe my more open ended interpretation of the term is categorically less short sighted than a closed interpretation.

Comprehend the term pantheism from the top down then. *apply some logic

It talks about a creator God - continuously creating. TAKE IT FROM THERE. - would such an entity not be capable of being personable to an individual?

[Flannel Jesus]

I don't know what that means. Can you rephrase the last sentence without using the word "personable"?

[attofishpi]

wot

[attofishpi]

I don't know what "personable" means. All I know is, you said I was misrepresenting pantheism and had a short sighted view of what the term "non personal" meant, but what I'm finding is that it (a) accurately represents the views of at least some self described pantheists, though certainly not all, and (b) my short sighted interpretation of the word is shared by many, including some pantheists themselves.

I do not believe I am misrepresenting anything, and I believe my more open ended interpretation of the term is categorically less short sighted than a closed interpretation.

Comprehend the term pantheism from the top down then. *apply some logic

It talks about a creator God - continuously creating. TAKE IT FROM THERE. - would such an entity not be capable of being personable to an individual?

I don't know what that means. Can you rephrase the last sentence without using the word "personable"?

Such that God can make itself aware in a way, talk to etc to a human in a personable way. (does that help?)

[Flannel Jesus]

I don't know what you're trying to achieve here anymore. I've demonstrated I believe sufficiently that many pantheists believe in a sort of non thinking god, and that that's apparently a widely held and valid interpretation of what the text "non personal" means - it means not like a person, not a mind, not thinking, not feeling.

What do you want to happen? What goal are you working towards? I assume there's some particular definition you want me to agree with or conclusion you want me to draw, what is it? That pantheists who don't believe in a thinking god shouldn't be called pantheists at all? Or something else?

[Flannel Jesus]

Such that God can make itself aware in a way, talk to etc to a human in a personable way. (does that help?)

Based on the definitions we've both seen of pantheism, I do not believe that a pantheist necessarily thinks of god in such a way. Some pantheists might, but clearly not all.

[attofishpi]

I don't know what you're trying to achieve here anymore. I've demonstrated I believe sufficiently that many pantheists believe in a sort of non thinking god, and that that's apparently a widely held and valid interpretation of what the text "non personal" means - it means not like a person, not a mind, not thinking, not feeling.

What do you want to happen? What goal are you working towards? I assume there's some particular definition you want me to agree with or conclusion you want me to draw, what is it? That pantheists who don't believe in a thinking god shouldn't be called pantheists at all? Or something else?

Pantheism is the philosophical religious belief that reality,[1] the universe and the cosmos are identical to divinity and a supreme being or entity. The physical universe is thus understood as an immanent creator deity, still expanding and creating, which has existed since the beginning of time.

Just not sure how 'not thinking' in creating things of intelligence plays out.

AI doesn't 'think'.

SINAI

[Flannel Jesus]

Just not sure how 'not thinking' in creating things of intelligence plays out.

If you're not sure of how that plays out, and you would like to find out, I'm not the right person to ask. I'm not a pantheist, so I can't tell you how that plays out for pantheists. If you find a pantheist who is of the Einstein/Spinoza variety, you could ask them.

[Flannel Jesus]

My intuition was that they might disagree with some of all of the "an immanent creator deity, still expanding and creating" part of the wiki definition. That does seem to be the case for Spinoza:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -god-world

Spinoza's most famous and provocative idea is that God is not the creator of the world, but that the world is part of God.

How other pantheists discuss that is surely very varied.

I would hazard a guess that, to those types of pantheists, the "creator / creating" part of the definition is not to be understood as a deliberate act of a thinking thing.

[Sculptor]

My intuition was that they might disagree with some of all of the "an immanent creator deity, still expanding and creating" part of the wiki definition. That does seem to be the case for Spinoza:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -god-world

Spinoza's most famous and provocative idea is that God is not the creator of the world, but that the world is part of God.

How other pantheists discuss that is surely very varied.

Pantheists tend to posit a conscious intentional deity, and that is where Spinoza departs from the idea. Spinoza does not dismiss consciousness as part of god, because it is present in humans.