Einstein's God--Prof. Nadler on Spinoza, pt 2

[uninoculated]

Your explantion for why Spinoza was not a pantheist supports the argument that Einstein was, in fact, a Pantheist.

You must be an atheist, because you pose two common atheist arguments: that pantheists are really atheists or pantheists are pagans/wiccans.

I'm happy to hear you describe Spinoza as what I call pure atheists: completely apathetic to nature.

This is why there are pantheists. We consider nature "us" "home" "connected."

Atheist have no emotional connection, no purpose

[alifeofreason]

2:22 Michael Shermer :)

[TheCrackbinge]

Spinoza is way better than this guy.

[omnissient]

Einstein claimed that eh was not an atheist. But he was. He denied the certainty of atheists and claimed that humans cant possibly know. He called himself an agnostic and didnt like being labeled an atheist. But in fact what he describes there is atheism and most atheists are agnostic. Einstein mixed up those words (due to christians twisting them around). He calls himself agnostic, but in fact he is an atheist.

[Spoonwood]

As an introduction this might do. But, it does mislead people in certain respects. Spinoza's Proposition 15 reads "Quicquid est in Deo est, et nihil sine Deo esse neque concipi potest." Which one might translate as "Whatever is in God is, and nothing can be conceived to be without God." On one reading that makes him a panentheist. Though, he might mean everything depends on the power of God. For Spinoza, from God infinitely things follow in infinite ways, and NO ONE can hate God=Nature.

[honjo294]

hes not an atheist if he believes in any type of god

[mollie2810]

I never understand why people even try to claim that there would be no morality without religion when morality was already there long before Christianity. The great thinkers of the antiquity weren't Christians and in parts not even religious in any way.

[birlisa1]

Spinoza never had any sense of history or moral development... He had a static worldview tipical for the 17 th century. Now today most people see the development of ethics within the individual, in the society and also in religious thought... There exist a MORAL EVOLUTION towards something better in the world and inside the Godhead. This can clearly be seen in the bible, God is learning to act as a moral beeing, he IMPROVES himself...

[flubno]

I'm atheist & i just heard of this Spinoza person. I agree with most of the stuff. God is nature and their nothing special about it. In matter of fact Nature is terrably cruel ! As humans , we have this one life, we have to learn to be nice to each other or we can spend this one life drowning in violence. I prefer niceness.

[Kirkoification]

Niceness is reasom within Spioza

[buddybleau]

I have come to the conclusion that with some people, the more education they acquire, the more ignorant they become.

[buddybleau]

God is not good or evil? I beg to differ! Only an evil god would drown every living thing on this planet save one family just because he was pissed off at a few! Where in the world did your ability to reason go to? And if you can pick and choose what you want to believe in the bible, then the bible is "BULLSHIT"!!

[Patriknark]

Well, not if one's view of the Bible is that it's just a book written by humans for encouraging thoughts about the meaning and purpose of life. A literal translation of the Bible is bullshit, but the Bible by itself is not necessarily bullshit. It's just a book. So the very best thing to do IS actually to pick and choose from it. And this counts for all holy religious books, or other great books on morality. They're merely accounts, not literally factual rulebooks.

[JesuitFarmer]

The bible is a work of literature. Fiction. Fiction is powerful because it's the only art form where you can actually live inside someone else's head. Also, fiction presents a conflict and then the resolve of the conflict, with battles in between. The bible is probably the most powerful work of fiction there has ever been.

[tatsumakisempyukaku]

@JesuitFarmer to be fair, science is a methodogy that gathers reoccuring data and tries to find the law that may be at work so as to describe and predict said occurrence. Ironically, if we apply this same method onto the conclusions of science we find that every scientific claim in the past has been wrong. So being good scientist we infer that every future scientific claim will also be wrong. if a claim of science "works" in practice, this does not make it true. plus functional descriptions

[tatsumakisempyukaku]

@JesuitFarmer plus, functional descriptions do not equate to ontology. Science, as a method "works" irrespective of the ontological context of the conscious observer doing the science. that is, if we lived in a platonic world where a field or dimension of pure abstract forms exist or if we live in a materialistic universe, science works either way. a scientific description of our conscious experience does not tell us what the substance or isness of our reality.

[snagsnapper]

What I find facinating is that Spinoza is actually being embraced by "New thought"religion ,specifically that evil does not exist,and that God exists in all things,as all things; especially oneself.Rational religion and rational science have never been closer,thanks to Spinoza.

[LifeIsABigPuzzle]

The right thing to do is that which is beneficial to the survival, prosperity, and advancement of humanity and yourself. Even though you have to be careful that you don't step on someone while you are trying to get to the top. Because if you do that, you might make an enemy. And that enemy might make your life miserable if he or she can. So sometimes, it is beneficial to think about other people.

[ProfMTH]

I love Steven Nadler. Brilliant and engaging. Thanks for posting this, DFarmer.

[dfarmer1584]

Hey Prof!

I was thinking about attaching these two videos to your latest Einstein video, but I decided against it because 1) most people wouldn't be interested in 20 mins on Spinoza, 2) many others may not understand the connection between Einstein and Spinoza, and 3) that video converter ad is very annoying--I don't feel like reconverting it.

I am happy you enjoyed Nadler's talk!

[ProfMTH]

Thanks. Listen, if you want to attach them, I'd be happy to have them there. I happened to catch the link to them in the related box on my Einstein video and was so glad I did. I'd love to have them as video responses. Nadler is great. Thanks again.

[2bsirius]

He has an extreme, flawed and limited view of Spionoza's philosophy. He must have needed to publish very badly to hawk this swill.

[dfarmer1584]

I see. Well 2bsirius, perhaps you'll consider enlightening us. Perhaps you'll point out the Professor's errors. Perhaps, then, you'll publish a scholarly text the explains the TRUE nature of Spinoza.

I'd like to hear (read) your contribution. Perhaps you've published already? No?

I'd suspect not. After all, I did see your enlightening video on YT drama (scoff).

[2bsirius]

Sorry! Look, it was a throw away line which expressed my STRONG conviction that Professor Nadler missed the subtle points of Spinoza's metaphysics. I should have been more tactful and given my comment more thought. I do still think the professor is mistaken. I have never published an article on Spinoza but have published in some philosophy journals, especially when I was after tenure. Sorry about the wording of my comment. The drama video?

[2bsirius]

Oh, I just thought what video my drama video was. OK...I made that when I was feeling sad. I'm not sure it's EVER a good idea. I was trying to get the guy who uses the shooters' name at Virginia Tech to take down a video he made. I don't know why, but he did take it down. I over reacted to a bad situation. Should think before I act. Will try!

[dfarmer1584]

2bsirius,

I am very sorry for responding so harshly to your comment. I guess I was in a poor mood at that moment.

I have checked out some of your videos and looked at your channel, and to me you seem to be a very sharp, likable and somewhat like-minded individual--which makes me regret my previous snooty tone all the more.

BTW: I noticed your vlog of Bobby Fischer memorial videos. I am a fan of the game, and also an addicted (but very bad) player. Do you play?

[2bsirius]

Thanks so much! I was beginning to think it was international make 2bsirius feel like a loser week, and no-one had bothered to tell me! Again, thanks!

[joshjosephs]

This is far, far from just acting in your own self-interest, rather it is learning to expand the horizons of one's understanding to incorporate a universal mindset within one's own actions. With all due respect, Prof. Nadler should have inserted the name Hobbes instead of Spinoza, it would have made more sense.

[joshjosephs]

The original philosopher is much more profound and subtle than this. Spinoza talks in terms of God all the time and therefore to label him an atheist is a bit of a stretch. Most importantly, he had an idea of Substance which is the 'universal good' (which what Spinoza calls God). A person can be moral and live in harmony with the universe to the extent that he can identify his own interest with the universal good or Substance.

[joshjosephs]

This is quite a distortion of Spinoza. I feel sorry for anybody who tries to understand Spinoza from this presentation. This is like a recapitulation of our current utilitarian 'selfishness is best' and sticking on the label of Spinoza.

[13thDimension]

thanks for sharing

[NearVSMello]

So therefore in this way and in this manner I hold that worshipful awe is natural and necessary.

PS. Sry for flooding. I had a lot to say <:-/

[NearVSMello]

That is to say in so far as we cannot be gods; that we can never become a Substance, we are hence obliged to accept that the one "Substance" which we may perhaps call God, will always be 'master' of a sort for us, and that as modes we are necessarily subject to its nature. It is for this reason I hold that our greatest peace; our "highest blessedness" is to respect our place or our form as modes and God's form as Substance.

[NearVSMello]

But in a very different away from the phrase's typical interpretation! Truly my notion of worshipful awe is quite different from the one Spinoza likely had in mind. When I say the Universe is worshipfully awesome, I mean that it is necessarily deserving of our respect.

[NearVSMello]

One of the few angles in Spinoza's thought where I disagree or I do not relate is on whether God, or Nature, is deserving of worshipful awe. That is, more or less, holding veneration or a feeling of deep esteem and amazement for the Universe or Mother Nature. Spinoza compared holding God as such to gaping at Him like a fool. But as I mentioned in my post about my beliefs, I say the Universe is indeed deserving of worshipful awe.

[loregazer]

The problem is that he is affirming only one half of the truth, the immanence of God. But then what to do with the empirical evidence of thousands of saints and mystics who experience a unity that transcends any parts or sum of parts? The transcendence is what gives us something Other and hence something for the finite ego to revere.

[xxxl222]

This means there is no God and man does need God, man does need God's mercy to do well, therefore we live as we want, even if we live in a bad way. We are Gods you want to say? May God have mercy over you. I hope this is not your personal conviction only bringing the ideas of Spinosa, isn't it?

[dfarmer1584]

I think he (Spinoza) pretty much nailed it. We need not submit to delusional fantasies in order to be moral. Morality is inherent in us and also in our best interest.

Observe that your comment show the religious bigotry of a bygone era. If you choose to live in fantasy, that is your choice, however your kind can no longer force that on the rest of humanity. Those days have ended. Good day.

[thequestionmarkofGod]

AAAAAAA

that didn't work

sorry for the spam

you know I love you

and simply seek to understand you

[thequestionmarkofGod]

Hey I'm going to spam it up here so it will give the see all comments option and we can sort this silly mess up.

[dfarmer1584]

Why did that happen? I responded individually to your comments QMOG, but my responses are all jumbled together on the page, so they make no sense. LOL. That stinks, but it's funny. ;)

[thequestionmarkofGod]

well, you could also say I am not by any means a pantheist, but rather just an atheist, but the word the term, infers to my beliefs the real beauty of my view, that the real is not supernatural but rather superbly natural. But I fully refuse to term that with G O D because by definition it just isn't. Just as I stated in my refutation of the ontological proofs.

[thequestionmarkofGod]

I would add that I think that a scientific view is a means of reverence, to see it IN TRUTH for what it IS. So in that I disagree with his statement that reverence and science are separate views.

[civisromae]

I have to agree that reverence vs science is a false dichotomy. I can revere nature, be awed by it, but I don't fear it or hope for anything from it. I just see it as it is. I also don't see any reason why it shouldn't be called God, but I don't see any reason why it should either.

[thequestionmarkofGod]

I won't use the word god because, it is too attatched to the religious and personal definitions which completely destroy the beauty of its truth, to my mind, I think that in todays society we are at liberty to dispense with such a disfunctional word and move on.

[thequestionmarkofGod]

as to fear and hope stemming from the observation of nature I think that this is natural and really disagree that they are not. Fear upon seeing a volcanoe erupt or feeling an earthquake shake the ground beneath us is not only natural but a force of evolution, fear of the power of nature teaches us to safeguard ourselves against the harm that could come to us through it.

[thequestionmarkofGod]

thus we should fear it, in the sense that we take care of what is around us, don't pollute etc, and have fear of the results of failing to.

[thequestionmarkofGod]

Likewise feeling hopeful when we observe its perfection and beauty will drive us to maintain it as we maintain ourselves, to recognize a role in ensuring its well being in the hope that our species and all things around us may continue to exist in the future. Its how you look at it I suppose. Fear and hope are not irrational emotions, but part and parcel of self respect and self care because caring for nature is caring for the self.

[dfarmer1584]

I think that is exactly what Spinoza seems to have argued; Socrates as well, much much earlier. "What is good for me, is also good for Humanity and Nature. My best interests are intertwined with the the well being of everything else." And THAT is the foundation of our morality.

[dfarmer1584]

I'm with you.

Thank for watching and commenting, BTW ;)

[dfarmer1584]

Yes. But I think the point is that it is problematic to anthropomorphize the natural fear causing event. I think that, according to Nadler, the Spinozian view is that assigning agency to nature is the mistake, not just exactly "fearing" nature. Of course we had better "fear" nature: watch out for that lion. And we can enjoy nature immensely: what a glorious sunset. But we don't need to attribute agency, personality to nature.

[thequestionmarkofGod]

I can agree with that, just don't make it sound like we should check our appreciation and awe of such beauty. No we aren't worshipping it, but we are honoring it through pleasure and respect.

[dfarmer1584]

I agree. It is a language issue.

[dfarmer1584]

I think the problem with the word "god" used in a deist or pantheist respect, is that is opens the door for theist obscurantism. I see this all the time. In fact, this kind of obscurantism has been used in theology since theologists first found that they could get work from pretending to employ logic. I truly have no problems with deism or pantheism, but for this fact.

[thequestionmarkofGod]

Earlier in stickam a guy tried to claim deism as a religion, with dogma, and a moral imposition that certain things including homosexuality and polyandry are unnatural and should be forbidden, I was very upset by this assertion as to what is and is not natural and the notion that even a deistic god has a law... I told him off of course.

[oegaziz43]

I agree; hence I guess I am a pantheist and not an atheist.

[civisromae]

Actually in "The God Delusion," Dawkins refers to pantheism as "sexed-up atheism." And deism as "watered-down theism." His point was that when a pantheist such as Einstein talks about God, he's really speaking poeticly about the universe. "God does not play dice with the universe" really means "randomness is not at the heart of things." Make of that what you will. I recomend the book.

[fc007]

What exactly is a pantheist? fill me in.

[adamscott]

I think what he trys to put across is although Spinozism and Pantheism seem similar to the naked eye, the difference is that Spinozism grants nature to be a completely amoral unconciousness whilst pantheism perhaps gives the idea of a higher benevolence/altruism through God in nature.

[fc007]

Thanks for your input. I beleive in Spinoza's God too. Who knew?