Einstein's God--Prof Nadler on Spinoza, pt 1

[TaoPiet]

Spinoza seems to be a kind of Western Taoist.

[arpee9216]

"There is no supernatural, there is only nature and God is identical with this nature..." This sounds like the very definition of pantheism. Panentheism would mean that not only is there nature but there is the supernatural (God) and it's also flowing through and is a part of nature.

[imRyRy]

What I don't understand is the speakers and Spinoza's criticism of Pantheism. Pantheists state 'All that is' is equivalent to god. I don't understand how Spinoza can believe "All" is only a portion of God. What else is there beyond everything? Also, how does Pantheist's use of the word 'God' as a term of admiration differ from the use of the word by Spinoza?

Thanks.

[Entertainment3210]

interesting im very delighted by this but I want to know is what if how God brought this into being as the very essence of it what if he makes a new type of island is the essence of that and a new type of human that knows how to use its brain to the max. I would also like to know if God can be the essence of positive can he be the essence of negative

[paginipro]

fuck religion ,logic is the answer , theoreticalphysics.webs.com

[uninoculated]

Spinoza: God is nature

Pantheism:  God is nature.

"God is within nature" is panentheism.

[imRyRy]

@uninoculated But Spinoza has stated that his views differ from Pantheism. I see his views as more panentheistic.

[tatsumakisempyukaku]

the word nature has changed in meaning since spinoza. for example i don't think spinoza would have considered a particle of matter as point of mass energy as is conceived today.

[flockofseagulls87]

This is a misrepresentation of spinoza. His beliefs are quite different from today's naturalistic atheists. Read the man's actual works.

[alifeofreason]

moral fundamentalism can also be called the divine command theory.

[uninoculated]

nope. the first example of pantheism he gave was panentheism. The second example demonstrated spinoza was a pantheist. Pantheist "worship" nature. They feel their connection with nature and treat the nature as sacred or holy.

Here is the Stanford Encyclopedia definition of pantheism that will clear up the debate: plato.stanford.edu/entries/pan­theism/

[ogirv101]

@uninoculated:

Spinoza himself denied being a Pantheist. and declared himself a Panentheist.

[marsCubed]

What gets me is that we have this debate in the comments, and yet Spinoza's 'the Ethics' is freely available on project Gutenberg. Find it on Google and read it. it is out of copyright. It is a very moving book, it is clear that Spinoza's God is the logical consequence of defining God as infinite and perfect. If God is infinite then God is everything or God would not be infinite. God would have to be Nature or we could not know it. it could not be measured or have meaning for us otherwise.

[ogirv101]

'I am not an Atheist, I don't think I can consider myself a Pantheist'

This is an inkling of what Einstein's beliefs were, Einstein later described finetuning through an anaogy. Einstein believed in a non-personal God but not neccesarily Pantheism. Einstein probably believed in a spirit or being that gave 'life' tot he Universe by setting the laws of Physics. I think the dispute should end though, appeal to authority fallacies are laughable.

[uninoculated]

@ogirv101 That is quote mining. Its 1 quote from an interview with Einstein.

[ogirv101]

@uninoculated:

That's not what quotemining is. Quotemining is when you take an excerpt from a quote in an attempt to create a dishonest statement or misnomer. It could be that I made a bare assertion fallacy by relying on one quote, but it's obvious that I can back it up with many more quotes. Was there a purpose to this comment?

[alcore3]

i m sorry but it right: God has no will for Spinoza if u mean something different from understanding; reason and strenghgt is the same in God, there s nothing like a will

[catchaheadache]

I think Spinoza is a pantheist. but it is his own brand of logical pantheism. pantheism is not necessarily a bad thing.

[inkonwater]

Thanks for uploading these!

[inkonwater]

As if Freud and Jung were good Christians...:)

[eatenmyeyes]

I believe they are referring here to what might be called an 'active will', as opposed to the singular will described in the Ethics. Hope this helps.

[tom1600x1050]

I read Nadler's "Spinoza's Ethics An Introduction". I highly recommend it. Nadler's book is the clearest, cleanest, best exposition of Spinoza that I've come across. And studying Spinoza is an excellent path to wisdom & power & happiness. Read Spinoza's Ethics and Nadler's interpretation at the same time otherwise Spinoza's difficult simplicity can overwhelm you. It's well worth it.

[uvbraze]

Just a side tracked comment,....

The credit that stay up in front of the speaker could be omited. After all we all come to this form of communication to SEE and be heard.

[slovakmath]

yes he helped push open the gates leading to reason

[oegaziz43]

Thanks. Spinoza is my favorite.

[Rhonda9]

Wonderful video. Thank you for uploading this.

[Yldii]

Its funny to me how you can state ideas as though they were fact. You say we invented a moral God to influence behaver through the idea of reward or punishment. Could it not be that some picture God as unconscious or nonexistent, to relieve them of moral obligations without fear of punishment?

If you think God does not know you, you don't know God.

[elgranto7]

i personnaly think evolution is correct,,, ask your evolution questions after 25 years of education in biology,,, most people have no idea how complex we are. NO i do not believe in god stupid piece of wrighting spin but i will say one thing i have thought sometimes that we are toooooooo complex to have evolved in the small time we had to a million years is nothing...

[nadiaTeeze]

I argue this every week with my friend. I don't like calling nature god. I feel it is hijacking a word (god) and applying it something different. If I call the bar church, is it church? Or am I lying to someone to comfort them. (sorry for the muddled thinking)

[dfarmer1584]

It's not muddled thinking at all! I think you are absolutely correct. Invoking a nebulous, undefined god concept merely leads to religious obscurantism.

Nature is wondrous; it is powerful in its way; it is glorious; it should be respected, and so forth; BUT, nature is not conscious. Nature is neither God, nor god.

The only problem I have with deism and pantheism is that theist use those concepts to cloak there deity from scrutiny.

[Facade19]

@dfarmer1584 "BUT, nature is not conscious." Just out of curiosity, how do we know that nature is not conscious? Are humans not part of nature? I am late to the party, but your comments sparked interest in me.

[Facade19]

@dfarmer1584 "BUT, nature is not conscious." Just out of curiosity, how do we know that nature is not conscious? Are humans not part of nature? I am late to the party, but your comments sparked interest in me.

[dfarmer1584]

Yes he does my theist correspondent. Dr. Nadler believes in the facts of science.

It is good to see you here. This is an enlightenment video. I really hope that you actually watched Dr. Nadler's talk.

BTW, Were you the one who sicked that bible banging freak on me? You know what I'm talking about right?!?

[thequestionmarkofGod]

I am definately of the latter form, to me the only true form, because if all is one then there can be NO separate "supernatural" or "essence" within, it simply just IS...

And cool, we owe him a lot for the bravery to say the bible is fictional.

[civisromae]

Suchness is such that the natural and supernatural are equally void. If you are going to say that God IS nature, then I don't see any reason to distinguish between the natural and supernatural.