That's confused.Belinda wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 9:07 pmBy " does not believe in a priori order in nature " I mean empirical attitude towards nature(note the small case initial). Spinoza deduced that God-or-Nature is necessary being: Spinoza was not an empiricist , he was a rationalist.Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 12:46 pmWhat on earth do you mean by "does not believe in a prori in nature"? A priori in nature does not imply any "god".Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 12:35 pm
That's pretty much my definition of Atheism as well. Unfortunately, the Church of the Desert seems to view anything short of personal allegiance as heretical. Therefore the highest aspiration they seem to be able to aspire to is the idea that everyone else is going to "hell" or something to that effect.
I'm perfectly happy with what Spinoza is saying, and am also perfectly happy to call myself an atheist.
Theism does not rise and fall on this issue.
1 . Being a "rationalist" does not deny empirical evidence, or the use of the empirical.
2. You seem to imply Atheists can't use a priori statements. This is not true. You can even rationalise the non existence of god.
3. Even a Rationalist looks at the evidence of his own eyes. Spinoza did.
4. Even Theists can be Empiricisists and some even deduce god a posteriori, from the "book of Nature" as it were.
I think it is useful to think about what "atheist" might mean. There is no doubt that when his community pronouced the cherem upon his arse he was defined by them as an atheist.
As well as being attacked on the steps of the synagogue the pronouncement was a serious condemnation:
We order that no one should communicate with him orally or in writing, or show him any favor, or stay with him under the same roof, or within four ells of him, or read anything composed or written by him.
Thus it was the judgement of the court that Spinoza's works denied the existence of what they saw as God, in their eyes.