 Among the great philosophers of history, Spinoza is perhaps the most lovable, this because not only was he a gifted philosopher, but also a saint who thoroughly lived the ethics that he wrote. However, in the year following his death, he was spoken about as if he were a dead dog, said the German philosopher Lessing. His works were promptly banned throughout Holland, and to the Jewish community of which he formerly belonged, he was considered by most a traitor, while the Christians saw him as a devil bent on destroying all hope held by their people. Erkley dubbed him the great leader of our modern infidels, while Sir John Evelyn called the theological political treatise that infamous book which served as a wretched obstacle to the searchers of holy truth. Even other heretics, while enjoying his biblical criticism, could not understand the apparent religious terminology which saturated his work. This all begs the question, why was he so reviled this century following his death? Well, predominantly, as seen in the aforementioned comments, the hostility occurred as a result of his views on the Bible, prophecy, and miracles. An attack against any of these things threatened the social and political power granted to the state through certain established ceremonial laws. To maintain the rights afforded them by these superstitions, the state and its proponents would entertain whatever means necessary against whomever necessary. So let us examine the views which may have at any time cost our philosopher his life. Outside of his excommunication from the synagogue, Spinoza's troubles began following the publication of his work, The Tractatus Theological Politicus, or otherwise known as the Theological Political Treatise. In it, he wished to demonstrate that the freedom to philosophize cannot only be granted without injury to piety and the peace of the commonwealth, but that the peace of the commonwealth and piety are endangered by the suppression of this freedom. The backlash to such an aim was such that it prevented him from publishing any further during his lifetime. It was his thought that in order to produce any valid argument for the freedom of philosophizing, you must first conceive of the Bible in a way different than that which was commonly taught. He begins by attempting to demonstrate that what scripture is is not natural truth, but instead simply the means by which to convey a simple moral message, this being to love thy neighbor. The Bible in and of itself is but another document crafted by the hand of man. If he were born elsewhere, then he would maintain the same sentiment about any of the other religious texts throughout history. The purpose that it served was again not to convey natural truth, but instead to establish certain ceremonial laws which would aid in the preservation of the state by controlling an individual's behavior. He thought that it was written in such a way as to capture the imagination of a particular group of people, and thus was not eternal, but destined to rise and fall with the group they're directed toward. Miracle stories were formed for much of the same reasons. It was a necessary adaptation to the public mind. Scripture being a creation of man is subject to the same corruption and mutilation as any other document. This being the case, Spinoza believed that much of the Old Testament is in fact corrupt, altered to fit the needs of a particular kingdom in which they were being taught. Outside of the questionable authorship of Scripture, Spinoza became greatly troubled by how religious texts were worshiped. Let him speak. It will be said that although God's law is inscribed on our hearts, Scripture is nevertheless the word of God, and it is no more permissible to say of Scripture that it is mutilated and contaminated than to say this of God's word. In reply, I have to say that such objectors are carrying their piety too far and are turning religion into superstition. Indeed, instead of God's word, they are beginning to worship likenesses and images, that is, paper and ink. To know and love God and to love one's neighbor as one's self is what should be taken from Scripture. In this way, there can be no room for human corruption and manipulation. Every semblance of superstition could be rooted out. In his view, a Catholic faith should therefore contain only those dogmas which obedience to God absolutely demands, and without which, such obedience is absolutely impossible. These must all be directed to this one end, that there is a supreme being who loves justice and charity, whom all must obey in order to be saved, and must worship by practicing justice and charity to their neighbor. Outside of these necessary basic principles, each individual is duty bound to adapt these religious dogmas to his own understanding and to interpret them for himself in whatever way makes him feel that he can the more readily accept them with full confidence and conviction. By simplifying the message of Scripture to a single moral message and giving to each the power to interpret religion in his or her own way, he is able to show that the freedom to philosophize because it no longer interferes with any superstitious law can be given without detriment to true religion. Around the beginning of the Romantic Movement, the image of Spinoza would once again be conceived in a favorable light. Great men such as Friedrich Jacobi would come to his defense. Even Goethe confessed that he had been converted upon his first reading of the Ethics. Novalis named him the God intoxicated man, while Herter found within his work that final reconciliation of philosophy in religion. Even England would come to know him for more than just his heresies. The discussion on state religion and their efficacy seems to us now only a passing thought, but for Spinoza each line very well could have cost him, at the very least his freedom, perhaps even his life. If the battles he fought seemed to us distant and small, it can only be because he has lifted us on his shoulders. If this video has inspired you to seek more on who I consider to be the greatest philosopher of modern times, then this video here may be of value. As always, thank you for talking philosophy with me. Until next time.