Spinoza believes that human beings are extensions of God, thus we exist in God (SR 92). He ascertains that "Whatever is, is in God, and nothing can be or be conceived without God" (SR 94). By his words, human beings are extensions of substance, or modes of the extension of God. As human beings, we are effects and the knowledge we have of ourselves depends upon the knowledge we have of our cause (SR 86). As God is the only substance, its cause is its self (SR 85,94). Therefore, the more we understand God as this cause, the more we can ultimately understand ourselves.
Spinoza also asserts that the existence of a substance is an eternal truth, and an eternal truth cannot be explained by a time interval, even if that interval has no point of ending or beginning (SR 86, 89). By these statements, one can deduce that a greater understanding of eternity will also lead to a greater understanding of human beings. Because there is nothing except for substances and modes, and substance is an eternal truth, Spinoza declares that corporeal or extended substance is itself of the divine nature (SR 89, 94). He addresses people's ignorance in declaring that extended substance, or human beings, are created by God, while removing corporeal substance from the divine nature, with the axiom that "one substance cannot be produce by another substance" (SR 87, 94). As human beings are the created, not the creator, it follows we are extensions of God.
Spinoza states that human beings either wield power by way of our existence as finite beings that are more powerful that an infinite being, or that we exist in something else, which necessarily exists, which is God (SR 92). For God not to exist, then nothing would exist. But alas we do exist, therefore God does exist and we are extended substance within God (SR 92). Spinoza addresses that opponents argue that because corporeal substance consists of parts, it cannot be infinite, or be of God (SR 94). But they mistakenly conceive corporeal substance to be finite because they believe it to be made of finite parts (SR 96). Ultimately Spinoza believes that human beings are extensions of God, that God is absolutely infinite, extended substance is one one of God's infinite attributes, and that corporeal substance is infinite (SR 94, 96).
I think that this is a good explanation of the way that Spinoza acknowledges the existence of God. I don't know what it is exactly but I always find it interesting when someone believes in God but not in religion, even though I can somewhat understand where they are coming from. I wonder if Spinoza would have been religious if he didn't seek out religious flaws such as the ones that he found in scripture and its relation to true religion.
ReplyDeleteWhat I wonder about the most in this situation though is why believe in God, believe all humans to be extensions of God and still not believe in religion? I get the fact that he found so many flaws in religion but why not seek out a more perfected way of realizing God besides mere acknowledgement? After all he did cite himself as a very part of God. Did he not want to gain a better grasp of himself and nature? Is it possible that Spinoza did try to seek God and end up moving further and further away because of the rejection of religion? Or is it possible that Spinoza simply had no grasp of himself? God's abilities such as this infinite extension are consistently acknowledged by Spinoza but yet there seems to be a lack of Spinoza seeking a better understanding. Maybe I just haven't read of enough about why he doesn't choose to believe in religion.
I guess in a way, I am saying that I think one can never understand God properly if one does not seek out religious means of doing so.
DeleteYour opinion is interesting, but it has a built in premise that religion(s) have a monopoly on God, which they do not. Religions are merely religion, and God is God. These are two completely different components of religious ideological systems. One rooted in reality, one rooted in decree. The majority of religions claim to be the accurate religion, and thus have a superior understanding of God. This is common amongst religions. Some religions even claim they are the only correct religion and other religions do not lead to God. (In the language of Spinoza) This is absurd. Religions do not contain God, God contains religions. For a religion to claim that it contains God, then it is also claiming that it is greater than God, because a religion that contains God would have to be greater than God, which is absurd. All religions are contained within God, because everything exists within God. Religions are finite, they depend upon time to exist, thus they are not eternal. Every religion has a starting point, and every religion will have an ending point. This does not reflect eternity and human history is littered with dead religions. Religions also bend, change, and adapt to humanity in order to stay alive. During Spinoza’s time Judaism hadn’t even undergone a reformation yet, and in today’s world the majority of Jewish people are Reform Jews and would agree with Spinoza on his approach to understanding levitical law (I did not say his entire philosophy, I said his understanding of levitcal law). However during that time, to be a religious Jew meant you followed levitical law. Same thing with Christianity… Before Martin Luther almost all Christians were Catholics. My point is that religions mold, shift, and evolve much like human understanding. Some orthodox Christians still believe that when the take the eucharist that the wine is turning into Jesus’ blood. Spinoza’s Ethics represents a shift in human consciousness towards understanding God in a much more sophisticated way. Religion do not teach devotees the true essence of God like Spinoza’s Ethics, they only teach devotee’s how to be more religious. There are eternal truth’s embedded in all religions, yet religions do not have a monopoly on God. Spinoza takes delicate care to no belittle religion or disrespect devotees, but I think he is very clear about what the difference between religion and God is. Religions are finite, mold and shift, and teach lessons on morality. Philosophy investigates the true nature of God, life, etc. I honestly believe no one can ever understand God properly as long as they are limited by the finite lens of religion. Viewing God through the lens of religion, parallels looking into the night sky covering one eye and looking into space through a tube. A viewee will see a few stars and think they are seeing the Universe, when in fact their vision is limited, condensed, and robs them of the true essence of God, which is everything.
DeletePlease do not misunderstand me, as I am not anti-religion. I think religions do provide a necessary platform for human beings to develop by providing community, morality, and values. Einstein once said that he believed that Buddhism was the only religion fit for the 21st century, I’d have to disagree. Reform and reconstructionist Judaism, the Unity movement in Christianity, Religious Scientists, Buddhism, and I would also say Episcopalians, Methodists, and Lutherans, except anthropomorphizing God is a deal-breaker for me and these sects of Christianity think that Jesus is literally God. If they could evolve and modernize on this belief then they too would be great religions fit for the 21st century as they too are modern. Whereas sects of Christianity like Unity believe Jesus is a teacher and not God, and this is much more aligned with reality. Anyways, my point is that I’m not anti-religion. I think religions can provide beautiful platforms for human beings to grow and develop. As the western world becomes increasingly less & less religious, we are facing a big problem. For centuries our morals and values have been taught by religion and now that religion is not playing the role in society that it once did, many young people are not getting taught morals and values. This is a huge problem. I study Mandarin, Chinese culture and history, and I can tell you that Chinese society always received its morals and values from Confucian philosophy (which except for a brief window of time during the Han dynasty is not a religion). My point is that religions serve important roles in society and we are facing big social problems due to an increasingly less religious society. Either religion needs to become more relevant to society’s needs, or we need to begin teaching morality to young people in a new way. But back to your initial point, though I do believe religions have an important role in society, that role is not teaching people the true essence of God. That is something one needs to turn to philosophy and mine all religions for their kernels of eternal truths to grasps a thorough understanding. Anyways, that’s my 2 cents. Thanks for the post, it got me thinking.
DeleteI didn't misunderstand you at all, and I do agree with what you are saying! The problem here isn't with what you have replied but with me and my choice of words. I was definitely not trying to say that religion is monopolizing God. I think the problem with what I said is in the way I utilized the word "religion". I am now thinking that maybe I should have used "theology" instead as the base premise of what I was going at. However I do think that for one to have a proper understanding of God, one does have to understand what religions and those who follow various religions are seeking, along with various non-religious aspects of who/what God is. I am also not trying to say that one religion is right and another is wrong. Growing up with religion does imbed certain ideas in people, and they tend to arise in various thoughts and I may have improperly recited some ideas. I used to go to church every single week, and sometimes even multiple times a week as I was growing up. A few years ago, I started to question why I was even in church and as I was attending and growing as a person I started to notice that so many people in my church who called themselves "believers" had absolutely no idea what was going on for real. No conception of the world as it is, and it's relation to their views of the world as it "should be". People were there seeking God, and for what? Because their parents have done it before them? And their parents' parents? They were just continuing it as a sort of family tradition with no real idea of God for themselves, and yet they would stake their lives on God's existence and what God represents. This is one of the reasons why I chose so much to focus on learning from various philosophies pertaining to religion and God. I have not renounced God or religion but I merely seek to understand both of them, as separate entities and as a whole paired together. Thank you for your reply to my comment, you are very right in a lot of the things that you mentioned, and you have clearly given more effort into what Spinoza was actually saying than I have and I did learn something from what you said! Your reply got me thinking as well!
DeleteI can't understand why you would say that religion and God are completely seperate things. If anything they have everything to do with the other. Yes, I agree that a true understanding of God's essence can only be reached through philosophy, and I also agree that religion is a set of rules and guidelines that help mold people into different beliefs and morals and a ways of praising God, but I feel there is a bit more to religion than just that. Because athough religion does not teach us about the essence of God, it does teach us that there is a God, and that it created us, and is within us. I know it's not the whole truth according to Spinoza, ie. it does not tell us about God as an infinite substance or about its nature, but it puts ideas in your head.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think religion and philosophy combined is the right way to truly understand God. I was also a devoted member of a church for most of my life, and left for the same reasons David said in his reply. Other members of church just did not have a clue as to what God is and how it relates to the rest of the world, and neither did I. Only after leaving religion, and after learning philosophy, I think I truly started understanding what God is and how do I and the rest of the word relate to that idea. But religion planted that seed, it made me want to know the whole truth, the missing part.
Spinoza talks about this on page 88 on the Curley book, that it will be difficult to understand that it pertains to the nature of a substance to exist, especialy those "who judge things confusely, and have not been accustomed to know things through their first causes".
Religion gets put on a pedestal as though it’s the closest thing to God on Earth, and that’s absurd. Religion isn’t any closer to God than science, nature, great art, or just the fact that we’re alive. Religion serves its purpose and it has its role in society, and I personally enjoy attending services in all sects simply for the experience and to gain a better understanding of people and life. But I’m also wise enough to know that stories are stories, and they have value as they communicate morals and faith, but they are not reality.
DeleteMy point is that religions do not contain God. God is (much-much) greater than religion, and religions spring up around human beings trying to understand, love, and worship God. However, God is greater than religions and this is my essential point. They are separate insomuch as religions do not contain or limit God, simply because God is infinite. God is the creator of all, thus religions are within God. Religion is presented to society as containing God, but this is a fallacy. I am not saying that there are not eternal truths captured within the worlds religious paths, however, this is equivalent to comparing a glass of water (religions) and the ocean (God). I am not saying that mystics from all religious paths have not reached the ocean through religion; of course, every religion is full of amazing people who have reached truth/God solely following a religious path. And these are the only relevant people worth remembering in theology, and often the whole religion itself is built around someone of this type. But for most, being religious only makes one religious, absent and distinct from knowing God. So yes, there is an overlap between a true idea of God and religion, but its rare, and its usually the authors of religion and a handful of mystics or theologians thereafter.
That being said, there are many paths to God. Religion may be the most common, but is not the only route. Many people come to know God through great suffering, child-birth, death, when being faced with their mortality, art (read some great poets or essayist like Whitman, Oliver, or Emerson and tell me these people were not communing with God?), nature, etc. etc. Actually the relationship between nature and religions is fascinating in the sense that early man was captivated with nature. We see so many common nature-based themes in the religious ideology of early man, that one cannot ignore the reoccurrence. For example, the role mountains played in early mans understanding of God. Early Jews believed God literally handed Moses the Torah on Mount Sinai. (Fundamentalist/orthodox Jews still believe this). Jesus went on top of mountains to consult God or his disciples. Greeks even placed the home of the Gods on Mt. Olympus. And Buddhism has a beautiful tradition of placing temples on top of mountains http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Emei . So this is interesting in the sense that when we are in a moment of turning to God for prayer, comfort, or affirmation, we often look up! This does not mean that God is longitudinal or “up”, we simply have inherited this quality of Gods placement through our ancestors. God is actually neither up, nor down, solely, but early mans limited understanding of God still influences us today. So yes, a deeper understanding of religions (& their respective histories), and the impression that it has made upon our collective unconscious certainly helps in coming to know a true idea God for one’s self.
Some take a more intellectual path to God, as philosophy (a la Spinoza), or science (a la Einstein-isn’t seeking truth the same as seeking God? Isn’t God truth?) In that regards, what’s the difference between learning differential calculus, listening to a service themed on Jonah and the big fish, practicing transcendental meditation to reach blissful states, staring out unto a pasture and writing a poem about love moving through one’s body in the form of the sun, or falling in love with your soul mate? My point, essentially nothing. God is greater than religion, thus all of life is holy. Learning about plant reproduction or African art will bring one just as close to understanding God as reading a book (a la scripture). Trying to capture God in a religion is like trying to catch a butterfly. You might be able to do it, but the butterfly won’t live very long. Its better to plant a beautiful garden, and the butterflies will keep coming to you. Thus, religions need to keep themselves fluid, able to adapt to humanities needs, and relevant.
DeleteSo is religion completely separate from God? No, in the sense that in can plant the seeds of questioning, and offer an introduction, and there are certainly sects that get right to the point. But you, just like Spinoza, ultimately had to leave religion to gain a deeper understanding of God. Religion can only do so much for a true seeker (I should say most, For example Mother Theresa certainly knew God & was a devout Catholic, but even she questioned tenets of Catholicism). For most people, religion is enough. But its only the people who dare to step out into the wilderness of the unknown who history ultimately remembers. We don’t even know the name of the rabbi(s) who kicked Spinoza out of the orthodox community, the other community members, or their children, or their children’s children. There’s no reason to, they are the common people. But Spinoza’s work will be read for centuries and continue to influence the greatest minds of humanity.
Of course, religions are much more forgiving today than Spinoza’s time. He probably would have been well received in some sects of Judaism today. But Judaism hadn’t begun to modernize yet, and Christianity had only started. And there are many modern sects that don’t require you to believe everything verbatim…. So there’s much more room for intellectual discourse today (in some sects).
But only people who dare to step outside of what they’ve been told ever make a lasting impression upon society. Martin Luther had the courage to say, you know what… I don’t actually think that the wine literally turns into Jesus’ blood…. And why are we giving all this money to the Catholic church…. He questioned, and now his legacy is introducing sects of Christianity that are much larger (in America) and relevant than their ancestral Catholicism.
There are many people sitting in your old church, and churches/synagogues/mosques/temples all over the world who are asking the same questions you asked. But they do not have the courage to step outside of their inherited beliefs and do some true evaluation. Its easy to believe what we’ve been told, it requires absolutely no work, and in fact it’s a form of intellectual laziness. A tenet of fundamentalist/evangelical Christianity actually proclaims “blind faith” as a superior quality to intellectual understanding!
Isn’t it ironic the world’s 3 largest sects of monotheism (if in fact Christianity can truly be considered monotheist because of the Jesus being God factor), argue over the details of this “one” God?
DeleteBut beliefs are beliefs, and not all beliefs are true. (But interestingly enough, what makes a belief true? Our belief in it? William James explores this in Varieties of Religious Experience…) Books are books, and not all books are based on facts (tradition, yes). Religions are religions, and not all religions (or sects rather) are concerned with the truth. And many of them get caught up in rigidity and irrelevant details that mean nothing and waste time. Its like arguing over different corners of the same square. Put me in the forest with a collection of Oliver or Rilke’s poetry and I’d be much closer to God than a baptism, an observant Shabbat, or a day full of Salah prayers. Although, I might give up the Oliver and forest, if I could do the Salah prayers in Cairo or Petra… that might rival the forest… But then again, it depends on which forest….. The Redwoods? Petra or Redwoods?.... hmmmm… I’ll take the Salah prayers and Petra
But back to your point… You may have initially been exposed to God through a religious setting; this is the most common conscious-introduction to God. But I suggest it is not the only way, nor is religion essential.