The only thing that Spinoza is trying to prove, is that there is no God. At least not how we perceive him to be. For Spinoza, God is not an entity that one can bound or give some sort of quality to; He is not some vending machine we can ask favors from. God is no divine being, God is everywhere and everything. Spinoza’s basic mistake stems from his definition of God (D6 pg 85). He is trying to approach a psychological idea with metaphysical tools. He chooses a battlefield that he automatically wins in; he gives a clear cut definition of what he thinks God is, and then bases all of his knowledge about God on this very definition. Never has God been based on a mathematical proof, or logical deduction, it was always an idea that was based on the fact that people did not know anything for sure. Spinoza is attacking all those that ever tried to attach any quality or trait to God. They tried to separate God (who is divine and infinite) from the corporeal (finite) world, which is very easy to describe and explain to a common person (P15 pg 94). Spinoza is proving that this separation is not possible, for even the corporeal is infinite (IV pg 95). By doing this, he is ruining the common notion of God, as He is portrayed in religion. Spinoza is being diplomatic in that he is not outright stating that God does not exist. What he is doing is completely morphing, or dissolving God into a metaphysical idea of the eternity of the universe.
By stating that “whatever is, is in God, and nothing can be or be conceived without God,” Spinoza is showing us how God and nature are one in the same. (Nature being everything.) If we take into account that every effect has a cause, (except for God, or substance, that is a cause of itself), Spinoza is basically saying that there is no beginning. Everything has a cause, except for God; he has always been and will be. However everything else is based on determinism and not some guiding hand of God, because that will give God purpose. Spinoza still fails to address the issue of God as we know Him. Just because my idea of a cat is the same as of a four dimensional machine, (or something else that the human mind is unable to perceive) and I can set up a fancy definition and proof to prove my point, it doesn’t mean that because a four dimensional machine is not a living thing, a cat is therefore not a living thing.
God is that which is absolute, infinite and eternal (Ethics 85). Spinoza is trying to break the idea that self-called religious individuals may have of God by challenging any anthropomorphic views of God. This is along the lines of what I attempted to highlight in my post "On Scripture" from the TTP. God has been reduced from the infinite and absolute substance that he should be to a creation of "pious" men, but what they have come to represent is not actually what God is. That which is absolute cannot be like that which is relative. Making God relative to man is worshiping an image or a set of ideas and not worshiping God. This is the common misconception Spinoza sees in Judeo-Christian theology. I don’t think Spinoza is “dissolving” God by saying this but rather showing his absoluteness and not his relativeness.
ReplyDeleteYou are absolutely right. Judeo-Christian mythology is littered with fallacies. Anthropomorphizing God is one of them. God isn’t a “man” floating on a magic carpet in outer space, who is going to scoop us up and take us to a magical place called heaven one day. Jesus certainly isn’t God. Imagine if you died. Then in 50-120 years after your death people starting writing books about you. A few of these people knew you, and the others were people who knew people who knew you. They also wrote in German (but you spoke English), and they had to elaborate many of the stories because they were competing with other religions that had really amazing stories. (Actually virgin births and rising from the dead are common themes in early religion) They had to borrow the devil from Zoroastrianism, add a little hell, add some letters, through it on the back of the Jewish bible, and now we got Christianity. Jesus never claimed to be God; he was just a spiritual teacher who had some great things to say about loving your neighbor and being good to each other. They’re really good teachings, but he isn’t God. There’s no such thing as “3 kings”, actually the Greek word was “magi”, and they were magicians or star-reading Zoroaster’s, and there certainly isn’t any mention of 3 of them. There’s no “original sin”. Why? Because a mythological woman ate an apple after listening to a talking snake? There’s no hell, or heaven. There’s no savior that’s coming or came. God never reached through the sky and handed Moses a book on a mountain. Jonah didn’t ride in the belly of a whale. Noah didn’t build an arc and put a male and female of every species on it? (how does asexual reproduction fit into this story? Like, did Noah only take one komodo dragon?) The Sea’s never parted. Mohammed didn’t fly all over the world. If Jews are God’s “chosen” people, then I’m a banana. And God is not anthropomorphic. If God is anthropomorphic, then does he live on top of mount Olympus? Or outer space? Or does he just float around with a cane or lightening rod and we can’t see him? Does he wear clothes? I know I sound condescending, I don’t mean to, but fantastical stories have been presented to people as though they are true and people actually think these things are true, when they’re just stories. People need to be challenged on these beliefs because they are not logical. They are just stories. We don’t pick up Homers Iliad and actually believe these things…. Early man told stories…. If we were Lakota people we would’ve inherited a creation story about a spider spinning the earth. If we would have been born in certain parts of the world, we’d think God was blue, or orange. And to nod to what Spinoza said about language and translation, Michelangelo sculpted Moses with horns (quit dainty and rather cute, I might add ) after a mistranslation from the Greek bible to the Latin Bible that mistaken “glowing” for horns after Moses came down the mountain.
DeleteEarly man told stories, and religion still teaches these stories. Don’t get me wrong, the stories are good and there are lots of moral lessons imbedded in them, but the fantastical ones certainly aren’t true, but they are all a good read! But ultimately teaching people that God is a human or human form, or anthropomorphic is very limiting and can hinder one’s coming to a true understanding of God. This is all Spinoza is trying to point out to people.
DeleteSpinoza is trying to explain to people what God actually is; everything. God literally is the Universe. What happens when we reach the edges of the Universe? We find out it is expanding…. I.e.: infinite. What happens when we try to study the fundamental particles of matter? They disappear. Because God is infinite in all directions. There will never be an end to anything, because we are actually in God. Spinoza is trying to cure people of magical thinking with a dose of reality. We are in God right now and for this reason your life is holy. But people can’t handle the truth. It’s very shattering when one’s ideas are challenged because they are faced with the possibility that their beliefs are not actually true. This is scary for some, because they feel as though, “If I’m not my beliefs, then what am I?” And because we develop so much of our identities with our beliefs, our identity becomes challenged as well. This is very scary for some people to give up these inherited beliefs. But we are living in the age of rational enlightenment and it is just limiting for humanity to keep believing in early mans primitive explanations of God as though they are relevant today. Do we use the technology of this era? No, we’ve modernized and use much more sophisticated technology in the 21st century. Our understanding of God is subject to modernizing as well. This doesn’t mean that you can’t love God, or feel close to God, have a spiritual practice, or even attend services or participate in religion. He’s just trying to explain to people what God actually is. One has to be willing to give up the stories if they are ever going to be able to move into truth.
I think the point you are making is dead on. Spinoza is redefining God to meet his own ends, which I don’t think he is justified in doing. Furthermore, he defines God into existence, which I am not sure it is possible to do. I am not sure that you can ever define something into existence. Spinoza’s proof is perfect for his definition, but I am not sure that the existence of God is necessarily true. I think he proves that the existence of God is true, according to his definition. But I think that is a long shot from saying that he exists necessarily. For example, I can define a wormhole, that doesn’t mean it necessarily exits. While I know that this example is not the same as Spinoza’s definition of God, the point remains true. God’s existence is not necessary, it is possible, but you can think of a scenario where God doesn’t. I think that is the major flaw of the argument.
ReplyDelete