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

This is part one of Prof. Steven Nadler speaking on Spinoza at the Beyond Belief '06 conference.

Please pardon the text across the screen. This is my first attempt at this. I quickly downloaded a free format converter and video editor so I could upload this. I'll get better stuff in the near future.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Einstein
• God
• religion
• atheism
• deism
• pantheism
• nadler
• beyond
• belief

[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.

[samuraizkd]

does nadler believe in evolution? can anybody tell 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?!?

[SIP100]

Spinoza, seriously is the greatest.

[oegaziz43]

Thanks.  Spinoza is my favorite.

[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.

[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.

[imRyRy]

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

[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.

[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.

[ogirv101]

@uninoculated:

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

[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?

[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]

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

[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/

[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.

[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...:)

[axiomizer]

jrigeli said: "In other words, ten half-hour sessions on a psychoanalyst's couch would do a lot of atheists a whole lot of good."

and obviously 20 or more for the religionists if atheists suffer pain to liberate themselves!

[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.

[TheDevilsAdvocate55]

the only problem i have with this is that this guy says spinoza believed God has no will, he's wrong, spinoza ascribed will to God many times in "the ethics".