Was Spinoza Actually An Atheist?

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8536
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Was Spinoza Actually An Atheist?

Post by Sculptor »

Belinda wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 9:07 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 12:46 pm
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.
What on earth do you mean by "does not believe in a prori in nature"? A priori in nature does not imply any "god".
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.
By " 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.
That's confused.
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.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8536
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Was Spinoza Actually An Atheist?

Post by Sculptor »

Belinda wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 10:05 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 12:46 pm
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.
What on earth do you mean by "does not believe in a prori in nature"? A priori in nature does not imply any "god".
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.
I said "a priori order in nature". Spinoza said God-or-Nature is necessary being as there must be something that is cause of itself.
Can you cite that?
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Was Spinoza Actually An Atheist?

Post by promethean75 »

in so many words Spinz does kinda say that, Sculp. that self cause belinda is sayin he's sayin can have no other cause but itself, is that substance bit he's on about in the opening of the Ethics. U know the thing about how if u have two or more substances u have a conflict.

think of simple things and their causes like this. an object in the world, which is a sum of physical properties, is not the cause of itself and could even be removed from the universe. it exists and is ordered causally, or 'determined' (that's really the wrong word tho), but it isn't necessary. a physical contingency that is produced and brought into being by causal forces other than itself.

but for being itself - the 'anything at all rather than nothing' - there is nothing preceding it that could cause it to exist, and yet it exists and must exist.

say u sucked all the energy out of the universe with a giant black hole vacuum cleaner. would u create an empty space, a genuine 'nothingness'? where does the energy go? I dunno, but whatever essentially exists that prevents a genuine nothingness is that substance that has to exist and can have no cause other than itself.

now if we say this substance must necessarily exist (that there can't be nothing), it means little to say it caused itself.... becuz to cause itself it has to exist before it exists to be the cause of itself... to bring itself into being. this is semantics. all it means is that since there can't be 'nothing', and, u could remove any object from the universe without compromising its existence, u run into a logical problem that forces u to posit a Spinozean substance as irreducible, timeless and existing necessarily (u can't remove it like u can a can of ravioli or a supernova).

the concept of this substance is pure a priori and Spinz really didn't mean it as a kind of material or energy. its a conceptual object that proper reasoning leads to. plenty of em got there from Aristotle to Aquinas but most of em committed the 'feuerbach fumble' and personalized this substance into some kind of perverted paternal father figure who's stalking us.

I think perhaps our understanding of entropy is what leads to the metaphysical difficulties in most origin theories. The data shows that everything's gonna keep going and eventually freeze or swing a 180 and meet up at the middle again in a big crunch.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Was Spinoza Actually An Atheist?

Post by attofishpi »

Sculptor wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 10:56 pm
Belinda wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 10:05 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 12:46 pm

What on earth do you mean by "does not believe in a prori in nature"? A priori in nature does not imply any "god".
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.
I said "a priori order in nature". Spinoza said God-or-Nature is necessary being as there must be something that is cause of itself.
Can you cite that?
This might be what Belinda is referring to..
"God is the immanent, not the transitive, cause of all things." (Ethics, Part I, Proposition 18)
"God is the indwelling and not the transient cause of all things." (Ethics, Part I, Proposition 25)

Immanent "cause" makes no sense to me.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Was Spinoza Actually An Atheist?

Post by Belinda »

Sculptor wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 10:56 pm
Belinda wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 10:05 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 12:46 pm

What on earth do you mean by "does not believe in a prori in nature"? A priori in nature does not imply any "god".
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.
I said "a priori order in nature". Spinoza said God-or-Nature is necessary being as there must be something that is cause of itself.
Can you cite that?
In propositions one through fifteen of Part One, Spinoza presents the basic elements of his picture of God. God is the infinite, necessarily existing (that is, self-caused), unique substance of the universe. There is only one substance in the universe; it is God; and everything else that is, is in God.

Proposition 1: A substance is prior in nature to its affections.

Proposition 2: Two substances having different attributes have nothing in common with one another. (In other words, if two substances differ in nature, then they have nothing in common).

Proposition 3: If things have nothing in common with one another, one of them cannot be the cause of the other.

Proposition 4: Two or more distinct things are distinguished from one another, either by a difference in the attributes [i.e., the natures or essences] of the substances or by a difference in their affections [i.e., their accidental properties].

Proposition 5: In nature, there cannot be two or more substances of the same nature or attribute.

Proposition 6: One substance cannot be produced by another substance.

Proposition 7: It pertains to the nature of a substance to exist.

Proposition 8: Every substance is necessarily infinite.

Proposition 9: The more reality or being each thing has, the more attributes belong to it.

Proposition 10: Each attribute of a substance must be conceived through itself.

Proposition 11: God, or a substance consisting of infinite attributes, each of which expresses eternal and infinite essence, necessarily exists. (The proof of this proposition consists simply in the classic “ontological proof for God’s existence”. Spinoza writes that “if you deny this, conceive, if you can, that God does not exist. Therefore, by axiom 7 [‘If a thing can be conceived as not existing, its essence does not involve existence’], his essence does not involve existence. But this, by proposition 7, is absurd. Therefore, God necessarily exists, q.e.d.”)

Stanford, quoting Ethicsby Spinoza

There are also respectable secondary sources that are easier to read.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8536
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Was Spinoza Actually An Atheist?

Post by Sculptor »

attofishpi wrote: Thu May 18, 2023 3:52 am
Sculptor wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 10:56 pm
Belinda wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 10:05 pm

I said "a priori order in nature". Spinoza said God-or-Nature is necessary being as there must be something that is cause of itself.
Can you cite that?
This might be what Belinda is referring to..
"God is the immanent, not the transitive, cause of all things." (Ethics, Part I, Proposition 18)
"God is the indwelling and not the transient cause of all things." (Ethics, Part I, Proposition 25)

Immanent "cause" makes no sense to me.
Thanks. That is not the same thing as saying "cause of itself". SInce "self" is a thing defined in respect to something else not the self.
And self might include personhood which Spinoza rejects.
When I read these propositions I see the deliberate ambiguity. Spinoza might be saying God made everything OR all that is cased I shall call "god"
I think what is at stake here is SPinozas is saying that god is not other that what is caused. "He" does not come along and cause something to happen (transitive); no , god is the cause, the effect and everything else.
God is not a thing that does something TO nature, but is nature.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8536
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Was Spinoza Actually An Atheist?

Post by Sculptor »

Belinda wrote: Thu May 18, 2023 9:32 am
Sculptor wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 10:56 pm
Belinda wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 10:05 pm

I said "a priori order in nature". Spinoza said God-or-Nature is necessary being as there must be something that is cause of itself.
Can you cite that?
In propositions one through fifteen of Part One, Spinoza presents the basic elements of his picture of God. God is the infinite, necessarily existing (that is, self-caused), unique substance of the universe. There is only one substance in the universe; it is God; and everything else that is, is in God.

Proposition 1: A substance is prior in nature to its affections.

Proposition 2: Two substances having different attributes have nothing in common with one another. (In other words, if two substances differ in nature, then they have nothing in common).

Proposition 3: If things have nothing in common with one another, one of them cannot be the cause of the other.

Proposition 4: Two or more distinct things are distinguished from one another, either by a difference in the attributes [i.e., the natures or essences] of the substances or by a difference in their affections [i.e., their accidental properties].

Proposition 5: In nature, there cannot be two or more substances of the same nature or attribute.

Proposition 6: One substance cannot be produced by another substance.

Proposition 7: It pertains to the nature of a substance to exist.

Proposition 8: Every substance is necessarily infinite.

Proposition 9: The more reality or being each thing has, the more attributes belong to it.

Proposition 10: Each attribute of a substance must be conceived through itself.

Proposition 11: God, or a substance consisting of infinite attributes, each of which expresses eternal and infinite essence, necessarily exists. (The proof of this proposition consists simply in the classic “ontological proof for God’s existence”. Spinoza writes that “if you deny this, conceive, if you can, that God does not exist. Therefore, by axiom 7 [‘If a thing can be conceived as not existing, its essence does not involve existence’], his essence does not involve existence. But this, by proposition 7, is absurd. Therefore, God necessarily exists, q.e.d.”)

Stanford, quoting Ethicsby Spinoza

There are also respectable secondary sources that are easier to read.
Thanks.
Here's my reaction to atophishpie. Which takes on the statement "cause of himself"

Thanks. That is not the same thing as saying "cause of itself". SInce "self" is a thing defined in respect to something else not the self.
And self might include personhood which Spinoza rejects. That would be transitive, expressed in that way.
When I read these propositions I see the deliberate ambiguity. Spinoza might be saying God made everything OR all that is cased I shall call "god"
I think what is at stake here is SPinozas is saying that god is not other that what is caused. "He" does not come along and cause something to happen (transitive); no , god is the cause, the effect and everything else.
God is not a thing that does something TO nature, but is nature.
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Was Spinoza Actually An Atheist?

Post by promethean75 »

yeah the concept 'self cause' is kinda sketchy anyway becuz if u are the cause of yourself, u have to exist to cause yourself, so you have to exist before u exist in order to make yourself happen. I'm like wuh.

nothing to see here but paradoxes and antinomies. fortunately there wuz no beginning of nature so we can avoid these brain bombs.  u have an uncaused process during which little causes and effects happen, little beginnings and endings, etc.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Was Spinoza Actually An Atheist?

Post by Belinda »

promethean75 wrote: Sat May 20, 2023 7:20 pm yeah the concept 'self cause' is kinda sketchy anyway becuz if u are the cause of yourself, u have to exist to cause yourself, so you have to exist before u exist in order to make yourself happen. I'm like wuh.

nothing to see here but paradoxes and antinomies. fortunately there wuz no beginning of nature so we can avoid these brain bombs.  u have an uncaused process during which little causes and effects happen, little beginnings and endings, etc.
But God-or-Nature is not a self.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Was Spinoza Actually An Atheist?

Post by popeye1945 »

Belinda wrote: Sat May 20, 2023 10:28 pm
promethean75 wrote: Sat May 20, 2023 7:20 pm yeah the concept 'self cause' is kinda sketchy anyway becuz if u are the cause of yourself, u have to exist to cause yourself, so you have to exist before u exist in order to make yourself happen. I'm like wuh.

nothing to see here but paradoxes and antinomies. fortunately there wuz no beginning of nature so we can avoid these brain bombs.  u have an uncaused process during which little causes and effects happen, little beginnings and endings, etc.
But God-or-Nature is not a self.
A self would be a self-contained unit, an independent existence, which is quite impossible.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Was Spinoza Actually An Atheist?

Post by Belinda »

popeye1945 wrote: Sat May 20, 2023 10:48 pm
Belinda wrote: Sat May 20, 2023 10:28 pm
promethean75 wrote: Sat May 20, 2023 7:20 pm yeah the concept 'self cause' is kinda sketchy anyway becuz if u are the cause of yourself, u have to exist to cause yourself, so you have to exist before u exist in order to make yourself happen. I'm like wuh.

nothing to see here but paradoxes and antinomies. fortunately there wuz no beginning of nature so we can avoid these brain bombs.  u have an uncaused process during which little causes and effects happen, little beginnings and endings, etc.
But God-or-Nature is not a self.

A self would be a self-contained unit, an independent existence, which is quite impossible.
Yet each of us experiences selfhood and most take it for granted.

Spinoza concluded that Nature is both the things of nature such as selves (Natura Naturata) and the workings of Nature (Natura Naturans)

This resembles the theists' stance that God is both immanent and transcendent.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Was Spinoza Actually An Atheist?

Post by popeye1945 »

Belinda wrote: Sun May 21, 2023 11:04 am
popeye1945 wrote: Sat May 20, 2023 10:48 pm
Belinda wrote: Sat May 20, 2023 10:28 pm

But God-or-Nature is not a self.

A self would be a self-contained unit, an independent existence, which is quite impossible.
Yet each of us experiences selfhood and most take it for granted.
Spinoza concluded that Nature is both the things of nature such as selves (Natura Naturata) and the workings of Nature (Natura Naturans)
This resembles the theists' stance that God is both immanent and transcendent.
The selfhood you speak of is a highly functional illusion, and perhaps necessary, but the evolution of human mentality would do well to understand the expanded concept of the self. Only with this expanded concept of the self does compassion arises for others, and extended to the very world we live in would be a tremendous evolutionary advancement.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Was Spinoza Actually An Atheist?

Post by Belinda »

popeye1945 wrote: Sun May 21, 2023 12:54 pm
Belinda wrote: Sun May 21, 2023 11:04 am
popeye1945 wrote: Sat May 20, 2023 10:48 pm


A self would be a self-contained unit, an independent existence, which is quite impossible.
Yet each of us experiences selfhood and most take it for granted.
Spinoza concluded that Nature is both the things of nature such as selves (Natura Naturata) and the workings of Nature (Natura Naturans)
This resembles the theists' stance that God is both immanent and transcendent.
The selfhood you speak of is a highly functional illusion, and perhaps necessary, but the evolution of human mentality would do well to understand the expanded concept of the self. Only with this expanded concept of the self does compassion arises for others, and extended to the very world we live in would be a tremendous evolutionary advancement.
Yes. What you describe is the problem I have with Spinoza, that Deus sive Natura is understood by means of reason not sympathy. Sympathy and reason however are not mutually exclusive.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Was Spinoza Actually An Atheist?

Post by popeye1945 »

Belinda wrote: Sun May 21, 2023 6:56 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Sun May 21, 2023 12:54 pm
Belinda wrote: Sun May 21, 2023 11:04 am

Yet each of us experiences selfhood and most take it for granted.
Spinoza concluded that Nature is both the things of nature such as selves (Natura Naturata) and the workings of Nature (Natura Naturans)
This resembles the theists' stance that God is both immanent and transcendent.
The selfhood you speak of is a highly functional illusion, and perhaps necessary, but the evolution of human mentality would do well to understand the expanded concept of the self. Only with this expanded concept of the self does compassion arises for others, and extended to the very world we live in would be a tremendous evolutionary advancement.
Yes. What you describe is the problem I have with Spinoza, that Deus sive Natura is understood by means of reason not sympathy. Sympathy and reason however are not mutually exclusive.
Interesting, no they certainly are not mutually exclusive. The reasoning of self-interest in identifying the self with other selves, leads to compassion, sympathy, and I believe love is perfect sympathy. The fact that all organisms are open systems should make the extended concept of the self, self- evident, and like the Buddha, we are then born at the level of the heart.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Was Spinoza Actually An Atheist?

Post by Belinda »

popeye1945 wrote: Sun May 21, 2023 7:20 pm
Belinda wrote: Sun May 21, 2023 6:56 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Sun May 21, 2023 12:54 pm

The selfhood you speak of is a highly functional illusion, and perhaps necessary, but the evolution of human mentality would do well to understand the expanded concept of the self. Only with this expanded concept of the self does compassion arises for others, and extended to the very world we live in would be a tremendous evolutionary advancement.
Yes. What you describe is the problem I have with Spinoza, that Deus sive Natura is understood by means of reason not sympathy. Sympathy and reason however are not mutually exclusive.
Interesting, no they certainly are not mutually exclusive. The reasoning of self-interest in identifying the self with other selves, leads to compassion, sympathy, and I believe love is perfect sympathy. The fact that all organisms are open systems should make the extended concept of the self, self- evident, and like the Buddha, we are then born at the level of the heart.
"The extended concept of the self" and "all organisms are open systems" do correlate both scientifically and psychologically. Can this be taught? Which religious sects teach it and which don't?

The Synagogue that could not tolerate Spinoza was not universalistic as compared with the sort of Christians who welcomed Spinoza after the Synagogue threw him out.
Post Reply