LH
- Do you agree that God and Nature are two ways of describing a single thing? 76
- Should pantheists be considered heretics or atheists? Freethinkers? (Is there anything wrong with that?)
- If god is infinite and all-inclusive, doesn't that imply that god includes many things and events that we consider ungodly (bad people, tragedies, disease, poverty...)? 78
- Is anthropomorphism (projecting human qualities onto what is not human) a mistake?
- Do you agree with Xenophanes? “The Ethiops say that their gods are flat-nosed and black, While the Thracians say that theirs have blue eyes and red hair. Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw, And could sculpt like men, then the horses would draw their gods Like horses, and cattle like cattle; and each they would shape Bodies of gods in the likeness, each kind, of their own.”
- If god is impersonal and indifferent to human beings, should you still love and/or worship god? 79
- Spinoza says free will is an illusion, but freedom from bondage to the emotions is possible. Agree?
- Do you agree with Locke that life, freedom, happiness, and property are god-given rights? 82 If so, whence derive the rights of people who don't believe in god (or in Locke's god)?
- What do you think of Locke's "blank slate" idea? 82
- What establishes the continuity of your identity over a lifetime? What makes (and will make) you the same person you were at 8, 18, and 80? 83
- Are Thomas Reid's ideas about identity better than Locke's? 85
FL
- Do you share the American pastoral fantasy, the romantic ideal of sublime green open spaces and "the dream of a retreat to an oasis of harmony and joy"? 99
- What do you think of Emerson and Thoreau, and their transcendentalism/naturalism? 102
- Would you have believed the New York Sun in 1835? 105
- What do you think of P.T. Barnum's "mindset"? 107
- Would you have enjoyed visiting the White City? 111
- Are we still "selling ourselves dreamy fabrications"? 113
HWT
- "The ultimate goal [of Vedic philosophies] is the dissolution of the ego." 176 What would remain of you, minus your ego?
- John Locke defined a person as the same thinking intelligent being in different times and places, with a continuity of memories, personality, desires, beliefs. The universal self of Indian philosophy, though, the atman, is depersonalized. 177 Do you think westerners misunderstand this when talking about reincarnation and "rebirth"?
- Do you understand the Buddhist "no-self" concept, that "there is something which is myself, but there is no such discrete entity as my self?" 179
- Does it surprise you that the Dalai Lama said "a person's personality is important" (181) or that Buddhists "glorify individuals"? 183
- Does David Hume's position on the self sound Buddhist? Or Lockean? 185
- Do you "not want to be 'pigeonholed with any sexual orientation'? 188
- Are Japanese conformist, or pro-social? 191
- What do you think of the Monty Python "you are all individuals" scene? 196
- Is the western relational identity "lopsided"? 200
Highly recommended (at audible.com and hoopla, via the library):
New Jerusalem
- The Interrogation of Baruch de Spinoza at Talmud Torah Congregation: Amsterdam, July 27, 1656
- Narrated by: Edward Asner, Richard Easton, Andrea Gabriel, Arye Gross, Amy Pietz, James Wagner, Matthew Wolf
- Length: 1 hr and 40 mins
- Release date: 11-22-11
- Language: English
Also highly recommended, on Spinoza and everything else ("Grandfather Philosophy" is a wise and mature MTSU student):
Why Spinoza still matters
At a time of religious zealotry, Spinoza’s fearless defence of intellectual freedom is more timely than ever
In July 1656, the 23-year-old Bento de Spinoza was excommunicated from the Portuguese-Jewish congregation of Amsterdam. It was the harshest punishment of herem (ban) ever issued by that community. The extant document, a lengthy and vitriolic diatribe, refers to the young man’s ‘abominable heresies’ and ‘monstrous deeds’. The leaders of the community, having consulted with the rabbis and using Spinoza’s Hebrew name, proclaim that they hereby ‘expel, excommunicate, curse, and damn Baruch de Spinoza’. He is to be ‘cast out from all the tribes of Israel’ and his name is to be ‘blotted out from under heaven’.
Over the centuries, there have been periodic calls for the herem against Spinoza to be lifted. Even David Ben-Gurion, when he was prime minister of Israel, issued a public plea for ‘amending the injustice’ done to Spinoza by the Amsterdam Portuguese community. It was not until early 2012, however, that the Amsterdam congregation, at the insistence of one of its members, formally took up the question of whether it was time to rehabilitate Spinoza and welcome him back into the congregation that had expelled him with such prejudice. There was, though, one thing that they needed to know: should we still regard Spinoza as a heretic?
Unfortunately, the herem document fails to mention specifically what Spinoza’s offences were – at the time he had not yet written anything – and so there is a mystery surrounding this seminal event in the future philosopher’s life. And yet, for anyone who is familiar with Spinoza’s mature philosophical ideas, which he began putting in writing a few years after the excommunication, there really is no such mystery. By the standards of early modern rabbinic Judaism – and especially among the Sephardic Jews of Amsterdam, many of whom were descendants of converso refugees from the Iberian Inquisitions and who were still struggling to build a proper Jewish community on the banks of the Amstel River – Spinoza was a heretic, and a dangerous one at that... (continues)
==
At a time of religious zealotry, Spinoza’s fearless defence of intellectual freedom is more timely than ever
In July 1656, the 23-year-old Bento de Spinoza was excommunicated from the Portuguese-Jewish congregation of Amsterdam. It was the harshest punishment of herem (ban) ever issued by that community. The extant document, a lengthy and vitriolic diatribe, refers to the young man’s ‘abominable heresies’ and ‘monstrous deeds’. The leaders of the community, having consulted with the rabbis and using Spinoza’s Hebrew name, proclaim that they hereby ‘expel, excommunicate, curse, and damn Baruch de Spinoza’. He is to be ‘cast out from all the tribes of Israel’ and his name is to be ‘blotted out from under heaven’.
Over the centuries, there have been periodic calls for the herem against Spinoza to be lifted. Even David Ben-Gurion, when he was prime minister of Israel, issued a public plea for ‘amending the injustice’ done to Spinoza by the Amsterdam Portuguese community. It was not until early 2012, however, that the Amsterdam congregation, at the insistence of one of its members, formally took up the question of whether it was time to rehabilitate Spinoza and welcome him back into the congregation that had expelled him with such prejudice. There was, though, one thing that they needed to know: should we still regard Spinoza as a heretic?
Unfortunately, the herem document fails to mention specifically what Spinoza’s offences were – at the time he had not yet written anything – and so there is a mystery surrounding this seminal event in the future philosopher’s life. And yet, for anyone who is familiar with Spinoza’s mature philosophical ideas, which he began putting in writing a few years after the excommunication, there really is no such mystery. By the standards of early modern rabbinic Judaism – and especially among the Sephardic Jews of Amsterdam, many of whom were descendants of converso refugees from the Iberian Inquisitions and who were still struggling to build a proper Jewish community on the banks of the Amstel River – Spinoza was a heretic, and a dangerous one at that... (continues)
Betraying Spinoza (Goldstein, Damasio on Open Source radio)... Spinoza's Mind (Goldstein at Stanford)...
==
In January of 1936, a school girl named Phyllis wrote to Einstein to ask whether you could believe in science and religion. He was quick to reply.
My dear Dr. Einstein,
We have brought up the question: 'Do scientists pray?' in our Sunday school class. It began by asking whether we could believe in both science and religion. We are writing to scientists and other important men, to try and have our own question answered.
We will feel greatly honored if you will answer our question: Do scientists pray, and what do they pray for?
We are in the sixth grade, Miss Ellis's class.
Respectfully yours,
Phyllis
He replied a few days later:
Dear Phyllis,
I will attempt to reply to your question as simply as I can. Here is my answer:
Scientists believe that every occurrence, including the affairs of human beings, is due to the laws of nature. Therefore a scientist cannot be inclined to believe that the course of events can be influenced by prayer, that is, by a supernaturally manifested wish.
However, we must concede that our actual knowledge of these forces is imperfect, so that in the end the belief in the existence of a final, ultimate spirit rests on a kind of faith. Such belief remains widespread even with the current achievements in science.
But also, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is surely quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.
With cordial greetings,
your A. Einstein
In his reply to Phyllis, Einstein hints at his pantheism; the idea that “God is everything". Several times he expressed this view explicitly, telling the Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein, “I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." He went further in telling an interviewer that he was, “fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism." This pantheism would form the basis of his worldview, and even influence his ideas in physics.
Ok, but what is pantheism exactly?
Pantheism can be defined as a few similar ideas. In the simplest form, it is the belief that everything is identical to God. Holders of this view will often say that God is the universe, nature, the cosmos, or that everything is “one" with God. However, some holders of the view argue that it can also mean that the essence of the divine is in everything without everything “being part" of God... (continues)
==
A handwritten missive by Albert Einstein known as the “God letter” fetched almost $3m at auction on Tuesday.
Christie’s auction house in New York stated on Tuesday afternoon that the letter, including the buyer’s premium, fetched $2.89m under the hammer. That was almost twice the expected amount.
The one-and-a-half-page letter, written in 1954 in German and addressed to the philosopher Eric Gutkind, contains reflections on God, the Bible and Judaism.
Einstein says: “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.” (continues)
==
Pantheism and Spinoza's God
Einstein had explored the idea that humans could not understand the nature of God. In an interview published in George Sylvester Viereck's book Glimpses of the Great (1930), Einstein responded to a question about whether or not he defined himself as a pantheist. He explained:
Einstein stated, "My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems."[23]
On 24 April 1929, Einstein cabled Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein in German: "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."[24] He expanded on this in answers he gave to the Japanese magazine Kaizō in 1923:
Wiki ==
Religion and Science
By Albert Einstein
(The following article by Albert Einstein appeared in the New York Times Magazine on November 9, 1930 pp 1-4. It has been reprinted in Ideas and Opinions, Crown Publishers, Inc. 1954, pp 36 - 40. It also appears in Einstein's book The World as I See It, Philosophical Library, New York, 1949, pp. 24 - 28.)
Everything that the human race has done and thought is concerned with the satisfaction of deeply felt needs and the assuagement of pain. One has to keep this constantly in mind if one wishes to understand spiritual movements and their development. Feeling and longing are the motive force behind all human endeavor and human creation, in however exalted a guise the latter may present themselves to us. Now what are the feelings and needs that have led men to religious thought and belief in the widest sense of the words? A little consideration will suffice to show us that the most varying emotions preside over the birth of religious thought and experience. With primitive man it is above all fear that evokes religious notions - fear of hunger, wild beasts, sickness, death. Since at this stage of existence understanding of causal connections is usually poorly developed, the human mind creates illusory beings more or less analogous to itself on whose wills and actions these fearful happenings depend. Thus one tries to secure the favor of these beings by carrying out actions and offering sacrifices which, according to the tradition handed down from generation to generation, propitiate them or make them well disposed toward a mortal. In this sense I am speaking of a religion of fear. This, though not created, is in an important degree stabilized by the formation of a special priestly caste which sets itself up as a mediator between the people and the beings they fear, and erects a hegemony on this basis. In many cases a leader or ruler or a privileged class whose position rests on other factors combines priestly functions with its secular authority in order to make the latter more secure; or the political rulers and the priestly caste make common cause in their own interests.
The social impulses are another source of the crystallization of religion. Fathers and mothers and the leaders of larger human communities are mortal and fallible. The desire for guidance, love, and support prompts men to form the social or moral conception of God. This is the God of Providence, who protects, disposes, rewards, and punishes; the God who, according to the limits of the believer's outlook, loves and cherishes the life of the tribe or of the human race, or even or life itself; the comforter in sorrow and unsatisfied longing; he who preserves the souls of the dead. This is the social or moral conception of God.
The Jewish scriptures admirably illustrate the development from the religion of fear to moral religion, a development continued in the New Testament. The religions of all civilized peoples, especially the peoples of the Orient, are primarily moral religions. The development from a religion of fear to moral religion is a great step in peoples' lives. And yet, that primitive religions are based entirely on fear and the religions of civilized peoples purely on morality is a prejudice against which we must be on our guard. The truth is that all religions are a varying blend of both types, with this differentiation: that on the higher levels of social life the religion of morality predominates.
Common to all these types is the anthropomorphic character of their conception of God. In general, only individuals of exceptional endowments, and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to any considerable extent above this level. But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it.
The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole. The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear at an early stage of development, e.g., in many of the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learned especially from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer, contains a much stronger element of this.
The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another.
How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it.
We thus arrive at a conception of the relation of science to religion very different from the usual one. When one views the matter historically, one is inclined to look upon science and religion as irreconcilable antagonists, and for a very obvious reason. The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events - provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion. A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it undergoes. Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death.
It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees.On the other hand, I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research. Only those who realize the immense efforts and, above all, the devotion without which pioneer work in theoretical science cannot be achieved are able to grasp the strength of the emotion out of which alone such work, remote as it is from the immediate realities of life, can issue. What a deep conviction of the rationality of the universe and what a yearning to understand, were it but a feeble reflection of the mind revealed in this world, Kepler and Newton must have had to enable them to spend years of solitary labor in disentangling the principles of celestial mechanics! Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of the men who, surrounded by a skeptical world, have shown the way to kindred spirits scattered wide through the world and through the centuries. Only one who has devoted his life to similar ends can have a vivid realization of what has inspired these men and given them the strength to remain true to their purpose in spite of countless failures. It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man such strength. A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people.
Everything that the human race has done and thought is concerned with the satisfaction of deeply felt needs and the assuagement of pain. One has to keep this constantly in mind if one wishes to understand spiritual movements and their development. Feeling and longing are the motive force behind all human endeavor and human creation, in however exalted a guise the latter may present themselves to us. Now what are the feelings and needs that have led men to religious thought and belief in the widest sense of the words? A little consideration will suffice to show us that the most varying emotions preside over the birth of religious thought and experience. With primitive man it is above all fear that evokes religious notions - fear of hunger, wild beasts, sickness, death. Since at this stage of existence understanding of causal connections is usually poorly developed, the human mind creates illusory beings more or less analogous to itself on whose wills and actions these fearful happenings depend. Thus one tries to secure the favor of these beings by carrying out actions and offering sacrifices which, according to the tradition handed down from generation to generation, propitiate them or make them well disposed toward a mortal. In this sense I am speaking of a religion of fear. This, though not created, is in an important degree stabilized by the formation of a special priestly caste which sets itself up as a mediator between the people and the beings they fear, and erects a hegemony on this basis. In many cases a leader or ruler or a privileged class whose position rests on other factors combines priestly functions with its secular authority in order to make the latter more secure; or the political rulers and the priestly caste make common cause in their own interests.
The social impulses are another source of the crystallization of religion. Fathers and mothers and the leaders of larger human communities are mortal and fallible. The desire for guidance, love, and support prompts men to form the social or moral conception of God. This is the God of Providence, who protects, disposes, rewards, and punishes; the God who, according to the limits of the believer's outlook, loves and cherishes the life of the tribe or of the human race, or even or life itself; the comforter in sorrow and unsatisfied longing; he who preserves the souls of the dead. This is the social or moral conception of God.
The Jewish scriptures admirably illustrate the development from the religion of fear to moral religion, a development continued in the New Testament. The religions of all civilized peoples, especially the peoples of the Orient, are primarily moral religions. The development from a religion of fear to moral religion is a great step in peoples' lives. And yet, that primitive religions are based entirely on fear and the religions of civilized peoples purely on morality is a prejudice against which we must be on our guard. The truth is that all religions are a varying blend of both types, with this differentiation: that on the higher levels of social life the religion of morality predominates.
Common to all these types is the anthropomorphic character of their conception of God. In general, only individuals of exceptional endowments, and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to any considerable extent above this level. But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it.
The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole. The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear at an early stage of development, e.g., in many of the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learned especially from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer, contains a much stronger element of this.
The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another.
How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it.
We thus arrive at a conception of the relation of science to religion very different from the usual one. When one views the matter historically, one is inclined to look upon science and religion as irreconcilable antagonists, and for a very obvious reason. The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events - provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion. A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it undergoes. Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death.
It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees.On the other hand, I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research. Only those who realize the immense efforts and, above all, the devotion without which pioneer work in theoretical science cannot be achieved are able to grasp the strength of the emotion out of which alone such work, remote as it is from the immediate realities of life, can issue. What a deep conviction of the rationality of the universe and what a yearning to understand, were it but a feeble reflection of the mind revealed in this world, Kepler and Newton must have had to enable them to spend years of solitary labor in disentangling the principles of celestial mechanics! Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of the men who, surrounded by a skeptical world, have shown the way to kindred spirits scattered wide through the world and through the centuries. Only one who has devoted his life to similar ends can have a vivid realization of what has inspired these men and given them the strength to remain true to their purpose in spite of countless failures. It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man such strength. A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people.
"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms." (Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955)
Arts & Letters Daily search results for “spinoza” (10)
2013-09-10 | In 1656, a dried-fruit importer named Spinoza was exiled from Amsterdam for ?evil opinions.' His response: ?All the better? more »
2015-10-19 | Philosophy and poetry. Inspired by Santayana and Spinoza, Wallace Stevens addressed poetically the search for truth more »
2016-04-29 | Why is a 17th-century Portuguese-Jewish philosopher, a writer of dense and opaque prose, so popular? Spinoza is a heretic for our times more »
2013-06-22 | A secret network of Spinoza-influenced scholars was responsible for spreading the Enlightenment: Jonathan Israel's 3,000-page opus makes the case more »
2014-05-09 | Steven Pinker learned early that every intellectual needs an affectation. So he's left his Spinoza-like hairdo ? long, curly ? unchanged since the 70s more »
2017-08-30 | How did religious freedom come to the West? Spinoza and Locke are often invoked, but in reality, persecution simply became too expensive more »
2011-01-01 | In the market for a new philosophy? Rebecca Goldstein has a tip: Postmodernists are out; rationalists are in; short-sell Heidegger because the smart money is on Spinoza more »
2016-06-02 | The most influential Jewish philosopher is the one Jewish philosopher to have been excommunicated. Spinoza paved the way for modern Judaism. It’s time to rethink his ban more »
2018-05-12 | “The evil opinions and acts of Baruch de Spinoza.” At the age of 23, the future philosopher was expelled from his Jewish community. What had he done? more »
2015-12-25 | Chimen Abramsky made room in his London home for 20,000 volumes, including first editions by Spinoza and Marx. Meet one of the 20th
century’s great bibliophiles more »
century’s great bibliophiles more »
Do you agree that God and Nature are two ways of describing a single thing? I have pondered this issue myself off and on a few times. To see god as nature and vice versa is a interesting concept to say the least. I agree that nature is a creation of god such as everything else, Just as myself and the sun are. However to say that nature is god manifested is not something id say I subscribe to. God does use nature to represent gods will or to send messages but god does not directly live within in that sense. So id say I agree and disagree, nature is a representation of gods work but is not god itself manifested.
ReplyDeleteAre Japanese conformist, or pro-social? Per the book I understand why the author see them as more pro-social compared to the typical conformist stereotype. It did give me a different view about daily activities in japan and remove some of my own stereotypes I harbored. I however still believe that Japanese society is practiced on the old idea of conformity. Even though in stances like this it may show pro-social activity the overall society still shuns those who stray off the path. These beliefs go back hundreds of years in Japanese society and what the author may have saw was a incident of these old beliefs changing to something more accepting or how he said pro-social.
In Spinoza's way of thinking, god is not an agent who does things or possesses a will to do things. God is not the creator or "user" of nature, god just IS nature or the universe. And we, and everything else, are part or "aspects" of the whole. Notice that, on this view, there's no Cartesian mind-body problem because there's no dualism. Mind and body are also just aspects of the singular god/nature universe.
DeleteSection 8
ReplyDeleteIf god is impersonal and indifferent to human beings, should you still love and/or worship god? 79
The God of the Bible is a very personal God. The notion that God is impersonal or indifferent to human beings is not true. If you believe in an impersonal "god" than you do not believe in the God of the Bible. So, no I do not believe one should believe in a god that is impersonal or does not care about human beings. The God of the Bible and the One I believe to be the one and only true God, is described as a Heavenly Father. Scripture tells us to cast our anxieties on God for He cares about us (1 Peter 5:7). The God of the Bible is one that is relational. He cares about us, protects us, and desires a relationship with us. The beautiful thing about God is that He loves all of His creation. Even those people who do not believe in Him, God still loves them. He still ready to hold them with open arms. God is love. God could not be love if He did not care about people. Spinoza's god was not the God of the Bible.
Do you understand the Buddhist "no-self" concept, that "there is something which is myself, but there is no such discrete entity as my self?" 179
I do not understand this concept. I am a real living being. I am myself. Maybe this concept is trying to get at the idea that we have physical bodies which are tangible and we can see, touch, and identify. The physical body would "myself." But we also have souls. Maybe this is the "self" he was talking about that is not a discrete entity. We can't see our soul or touch our souls, but it exists. I don't know, that's my best guess at what that concept may be trying to explain.
Response Log:
Replied to a comment for Jan 28
Responded to questions for Jan 28
Responded to questions for Feb 2nd
Responded to questions for Feb 4th
Responded to questions for Feb 9th
Responded to questions for Feb 11th
Responded to questions for Feb 16th
Responded to questions for Feb 18th
"The notion that God is impersonal or indifferent to human beings is not true" -- that begs the question against Spinoza. He's offering his reasons for contending that what he calls god IS impersonal. What you can say, if you wish to disagree without begging the question, is: I don't agree, and here's why...
DeleteSpinoza, like all circumspect philosophers, will reject appeals to scripture insofar as they are proposed as conclusively authoritative and independent of our rational judgment, illicit as all "appeals to authority" are. If the scriptures can be shown to make rational appeal, and to offer compelling reasons why we should accept their assertions, though, it's a different story.
"God still loves them. He still ready to hold them with open arms. God is love" -- again, on Spinoza's view god is not a person capable of loving, with arms either literal or metaphorical. We can love god, on his view, but we cannot reasonably expect reciprocity.
Section 7
ReplyDelete1. Do you agree that God and Nature are two ways of describing a single thing? 76
a. I agree with Spinoza and that God is nature and nature is God, and that God is everything (or within everything). That is a concept I was raised on. Created all things, therefore he is within them. Now do I believe that God is within every single object on earth today (i.e. paperclip), no I do not.
2. Should pantheists be considered heretics or atheists? Freethinkers? (Is there anything wrong with that?)
a. I would consider Pantheists to be freethinkers, and I do not see anything wrong with that. You should be allowed to believe and think however you’d like. Now is that a way I could go through life living like, no I could not. God (or the belief in God) has got me through a lot of dark times.
3. If god is infinite and all-inclusive, doesn't that imply that god includes many things and events that we consider ungodly (bad people, tragedies, disease, poverty...)? 78
a. This has been something I have gone back and forth with for as long as I can remember. How could God allow such evil, horrible things to happen on this earth? I think that there are many reasons behind this, one being for us to learn and grow from it. The other could be to appreciate the life you have, and to be thankful.
4. If god is impersonal and indifferent to human beings, should you still love and/or worship god? 79
a. If this is truly how God is, I have no idea. How sad and lonely would it be to love and worship a God who is indifferent to human beings as well as impersonal. This is not the God I was raised to love and worship though. The God I know cares deeply about how we (humans) are and our emotions. He cares about what happens to us as well as the choices we make.
It is an odd thing, to love something -- let alone someone -- incapable of loving you back. But I suspect that what Spinoza really meant was that a pantheistic worldview gives us reason to love life, to love being alive and a part of all that is. That doesn't strike me as sad. He said it actually filled him with a sense of bliss.
Delete1.If god is impersonal and indifferent to human beings, should you still love and/or worship god?
ReplyDeleteA. I'd say yes. Even If god was indifferent to human beings, we should still be grateful for the opportunity to exist. Although god may not care what we do as humans we wouldn't exist without him in this question. I believe we should not worship such a god but still have love for the creator.
2.Spinoza says free will is an illusion, but freedom from bondage to the emotions is possible?
A. If you consider his view that any feeling or emotion is the result of a external cause then no I wouldn't agree. That you can not have freedom from bondage of emotions because at some point an external cause will trigger you to think or react, because of this using his words, it is not "free" choice.
3. What do you think of Emerson and Thoreau, and their transcendentalism/naturalism?
A. I really like the idea of transcendentalism, that humans are natural good until corrupted by society or agenda. I like to believe it's true. But if we consider that any society that could potential influence someone negatively we must also consider that the society is made up of humans that were natural good until society happened. So at what point did society have a negative influence on the natural good of people if all people were naturally good before society? It's almost as if which came first the chicken or the egg. However I am still a fan of the transcendentalism idea as it was progressive in movements such as women's suffrage, abolishment of slavery, and labor movement.
Section 8
ReplyDeleteDo you agree with Xenophanes? "the Ethiops say that their gods are flat-nosed and black, while the Thracians say that theirs have blue eyes and red hair. Yet cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw, and could sculpt like men, then the horses would draw their gods like horses, and cattle like cattle, and each they would shape bodies of gods in the likeness, each kind, of their own."
I agree with Xenophanes. We give our gods a look that is most appealing to us because they are suppose to our gods and we want resonate with them in any way we can. We just don't know what God (or gods) truly look like because God is not something in the physical world. We can only imagine what God looks like and naturally it would make sense that we all would make our own version of God appeal to us.
Do you share the American pastoral fantasy, the romantic ideal of sublime green open spaces and "the dream of a retreat to an oasis of harmony and joy?"
To a degree, I do. It always sounds appealing to me to be able to live out far and free, providing for myself and potentially gaining a more fulfilling life. Living in a lush forest with some body of water close by to enjoy. At the same time though, I really do enjoy the modern amenities that we have today and people interaction (even if currently there's very little of that going around).
Are Japanese conformist, or pro-social?
I'd say they are pro-social. Seems to me that what comes off as being isolating because you don't care for the company of others is actually because you care too much for others. You don't want to nuisance people and leave a potentially bad mark in their life. Reserve yourself so that you are not affecting somebody out of worry that your little interaction with said person could be a bad one.
Keylee Crutcher Section 8
ReplyDeleteIs anthropomorphism (projecting human qualities onto what is not human) a mistake?
-I wouldn't call it a mistake but it's wrong for us to assume other things have the conscious and moral ability that humans do. We don't call a dog immoral or evil if it kills a baby, because they don't have the ability to think about things the way humans do. They only have natural, primal desires and motives.
What establishes the continuity of your identity over a lifetime? What makes (and will make) you the same person you were at 8, 18, and 80? 83
-This makes me thing of 'The Ship of Theseus'. I remember first reading that and immediately relating it to humans. Our cells die and make new ones to replace them all the time (most people say 7-10 years and were basically a new body again) then again we stop producing new brain cells around age 13. So besides our brain cells, we completely become a new person. I guess that begs the question if our brain cells are what make us stay the same person because of memory and things like that. So I feel like my answer would be that, if our brain cells haven't died off rapidly or anything, that's what makes us the "same person"
Renee Hooper
ReplyDeleteSection 7
Do you agree that God and Nature are two ways of describing a single thing? 76
God is the creator of all and therefore Nature is part of God’s creation. However, God is Almighty and Omnipotent. Rene Descartes believed that trying to develop a theory to explain, assign or reject His Omnipotence on grounds of logic has little merit because an Omnipotent being is above logic. I also believe this; we are not meant to understand His power. Although Nature is God’s creation I cannot explain if Nature describes God.
If god is infinite and all-inclusive, doesn't that imply that god includes many things and events that we consider ungodly (bad people, tragedies, disease, poverty...)? 78
God has a purpose for everything which is also something that we are not meant to understand.
If god is impersonal and indifferent to human beings, should you still love and/or worship god? 79
I believe the Bible as it is presented to me and know that is impossible to maintain ‘a lie’ for this many years. The Bible verse John 3:16, “God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believe in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.”
Spinoza says free will is an illusion, but freedom from bondage to the emotions is possible. Agree?
The love God desires from must be a choice or it is not love. Free will then a choice not an illusion. Freedom from bondage to the emotions would be freeing to one's soul however difficult to achieve. I for one am a work in process of this freedom.
Vernon Cooper
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think of Locke's "blank slate" idea? 82
I think that the theory he has created isn’t completely incorrect but it is flawed. Babies are not born with knowledge but they are born with instinct. They still posses basic means for survival in their early stages. Are they like other mammals who adapt and grow to learn quickly, no. Human babies though do have very advanced learning patterns and behavior that arguably we loose the older we get unless that gift is nurtured and encouraged from birth. The part of his theory that is true, in my opinion, are that infants learn by observation through trial and error. Overall the “Blank Slate” term would indicate the description quite literally. If in reality we were born with a blank slate of knowing nothing then we would have a really have a hard time learning anything.
Section 7
ReplyDeleteI can see why people would think an omnipotent and all-knowing god would also be everything in existence. It's a reasonable assumption, but I feel that God and nature/existence are two separate things. I also believe that happiness, property, freedom, and life are God given rights. If you don't believe in God, you're still a creation of His therefore they are your rights too.
Heck yeah I share the American fantasy. It sounds like paradise, and living it out would make me feel "more" American. When I think of America, that's what I think of. Indeed, I would've believed the NY Sun. I wouldn't have known better in 1835.
I don't mind being pigeonholed into any certain category, as long as it makes sense. You can't control what you can't control, and some things can't change.
I agree that happiness, property, freedom, and life are God given rights. We are born into certain families, conditions, environment, etc. that control all of our qualities of life and I do not believe that it was by luck, but by the hands of god.
DeleteIf god is infinite and all-inclusive, doesn't that imply that god includes many things and events that we consider ungodly (bad people, tragedies, disease, poverty...)? 78
ReplyDelete-I think if God is all inclusive then I think technically it would have to include all of these things. But maybe there is less of God in these things.
Is anthropomorphism (projecting human qualities onto what is not human) a mistake?
-I think it’s definitely a mistake. It shows how biased and limited human thinking is. We can only see from our own perspective.
Spinoza says free will is an illusion, but freedom from bondage to the emotions is possible. Agree?
-I think I get what he’s thinking, but if we don’t have free will, what makes him think that we can control our emotions? Wouldn’t not having free will mean that someone is making you have certain emotions too?
Do you share the American pastoral fantasy, the romantic ideal of sublime green open spaces and "the dream of a retreat to an oasis of harmony and joy"? 99
-I do have the American pastoral fantasy, but not how it’s shown in the book. The author writes it as pretending to be like cowboys and pioneers. I want to live in nature, but in a more modern way.
Is the western relational identity "lopsided"? 200
-The book mentioned how when a family member does something that deserves praise, the whole family feels proud, but if the family member does something wrong, the whole family does not accept responsibility. I think that is lopsided. We tend to only act as a unit when it benefits us.
Section 4
ReplyDeleteI think John Locke’s “blank state” idea is very interesting and I agree with it. I am honestly still unsure how natural instinct exists though. When we are born, we have no comprehension of what anything is. We have no idea what is right or wrong and we only learn “right” and “wrong” by our parents and what we see in society and social media. We slowly form our own thoughts and opinions, but truly they are completely our own since we are fed all this biased information our whole childhood. I mean as an adult I still have trouble making my own opinions on things in fear it’ll be seen as “bad”. If I was born without influence, then I would have the freedom to express what I want but being raised without influence is nearly impossible.
I would say the thoughts and opinions are have are MOSTLY mine. I do believe I started from a blank slate, but I wouldn’t have the thoughts and opinions I have today without an influence of some sort.
Hi, Chloe! I also agree with Locke's "blank slate" idea. I also am unsure of natural instincts. I do not think those are learned, if you throw something towards a baby's face it will most likely flinch. With this being said, I think that most other things are learned.
Deletesection 7
ReplyDeleteDo you agree that God and Nature are two ways of describing a single thing? 76
I do agree with this because I personally feel that God isn't a singular all-knowing being, but God is what makes our planet exist and live. There is something mystic about how life is created and the process of being created and destroyed to return back to earth and help the cycle continue. So yes, I do think God and nature are two words that coincide with each other.
Do you agree with Xenophanes? “The Ethiops say that their gods are flat-nosed and black, While the Thracians say that theirs have blue eyes and red hair. Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw, And could sculpt like men, then the horses would draw their gods Like horses, and cattle like cattle; and each they would shape Bodies of gods in the likeness, each kind, of their own.”
I agree with this, because our culture does this as well. Jesus was middle eastern according to history, but Americans and Europeans depict him as a white man. I think people like to interpret God a s a perfect version or reflection of themselves, so it makes sense that Caucasian people would depict Jesus as a white man.
Marim Sameer
ReplyDeleteSection 7
Discussion answer/ weekly essay
If god is infinite and all-inclusive, doesn't that imply that god includes many things and events that we consider ungodly (bad people, tragedies, disease, poverty...)? 78
I want to say yes and no. No being that bad qualities and traits are not a part of god in my opinion. However, he can cause unpleasant events we consider ungodly to us humans. My dad was telling me a story not too long ago of a son who treated his father very well and always took care of home. Later on, that son found a woman he wanted to be his wife. Just before the wedding god took the son’s life. The father questioned why god would do such an act. The son has been nothing but good and pure on this earth. God then appeared to the father in the dream saying that he took his son’s life because his wife was going to corrupt him and turn him against his father. When my dad told me this story, I was so confused why god would do such a thing to a man who is not only young but good. Once I heard the ending it all made sense. Not all god's reasons for horrific events are easily seen through our eyes. We cannot compare to god and the way he goes about situations. Another point I would like to say is that lying is considered an ungodly act, but god is described as benevolent. He does not have bad traits, but can cause ungodly events, for good reasons we might not be able to comprehend ourselves. We can only try to figure out his reasons but may never get to the purpose ourselves.
Do you agree with Xenophanes? “The Ethiops say that their gods are flat-nosed and black, While the Thracians say that theirs have blue eyes and red hair. Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw, And could sculpt like men, then the horses would draw their gods Like horses, and cattle like cattle; and each they would shape Bodies of gods in the likeness, each kind, of their own.”
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree with Xenophanes. I believe that each holy figure is illustrated to resemble the people who worship it. Most Christians believe God to be white, with long brown hair. When in reality, he was born in the Middle East. He would most likely have olive colored skin and middle eastern facial features.
If god is impersonal and indifferent to human beings, should you still love and/or worship god? 79
If you follow the Christian faith, you know that God’s love is unconditional. The Bible states that we as humans should love like Jesus, and this involves loving him in return.
What do you think of Locke's "blank slate" idea? 82
I think that Locke’s blank slate idea is quite true. As a baby, we know basically nothing. Our knowledge comes from experiences in life. I think this in an accurate description of what our brains are like at birth.
If god is infinite and all-inclusive, doesn't that imply that god includes many things and events that we consider ungodly (bad people, tragedies, disease, poverty...)? 78
ReplyDeletesection 7
Things that we consider ungodly such as sin, bad people, etc. are derived from Adam and Eve. When they were created and put into the Garden of Eden they had one task, not to eat the fruit from the one tree. When they did they created what we know as sin which incites all the bad in the world. As for disease and tragedies, those are just ways that we has humans are being tested in the world. Over the past couple years, especially as 2021 goes on, people are steering away from God and the idea of Christianity or religion. That is why we have faith in God, and Christians like myself must have faith that everything will work out in the end. Everything is a part of God's plan. Yes, bad things happen in the world and there are bad people who do really bad things, but that is how the world turns. We can't even begin to fathom why or how things work. Humans are too small and too minute to understand the power and will that God has.
Do you agree with Xenophanes? “The Ethiops say that their gods are flat-nosed and black, While the Thracians say that theirs have blue eyes and red hair. Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw, And could sculpt like men, then the horses would draw their gods Like horses, and cattle like cattle; and each they would shape Bodies of gods in the likeness, each kind, of their own.”
ReplyDeleteI would agree with Xenophanes. Each people would think that their god would look similar to them. In fact, I myself have seen different cultures protray what they think Jesus looks like and in every single one of them, the artist's protrayal of Jesus looks exactly like one of the culture's people, despite Jesus being a Jew in the Bible. No one wants to be looked at as a sinner, so they would try to make their god look as similar to them as possible.
If god is infinite and all-inclusive, doesn't that imply that god includes many things and events that we consider ungodly (bad people, tragedies, disease, poverty...)?
Yes, it is true that God is infinite and all-inclusive, but usually people protray God as a loving person and not a malicious being. A God who created humans would not also include bad things to hurt his creation. All that bad things that are in the world are the work of a evil person; in my belief that evil person is the devil. In my beliefs, everything was created good and perfect in the beginning, the devil who did not want that, tricked Adam and Eve into eating the fruit. The result of their disobdience was all the bad things in the world. The Devil uses that excuse "if God is so loving why does He allow bad things to happen?" so often that sometimes God is seen as the cause of the bad things, but in reality it is the really the Devil. But that is what I believe is the cause of all the bad things in the world, and as a Christian I believe God will eventually get rid of all evils and make the world a good place again. Also, since God is a higher divine being, we cannot understand His ways; as His ways and thinking is not our ways and thinking. But God is not a malicious or evil being, so anything ungodly would and will not be found in Him as that would opposite of His name.
Ash Warner Section 7
ReplyDeleteIf god is infinite and all-inclusive, doesn't that imply that god includes many things and events that we consider ungodly (bad people, tragedies, disease, poverty...)? 78
If there truly is a god, and he was all powerful and claimed to be what he said, and was infinite and all inclusive, then yes, I do believe that things we would consider sinful and harmful would be a part of god. While there is every great aspect of the all-inclusiveness of god, there is also the bad aspects that are included with god. I feel like there is a false perception of “god” within our culture. We have grown up believing that god is all knowing and all good, which is false. While god is good, god is also bad. Even on a molecular level, for a positive, there is a negative, protons and electrons, its just how the world works. It’s literally how its made even down to the simplest form. Without the element of bad with good, then there would be no point to life. The point of life is to overcome adversity and to learn from those hardships. How are you supposed to grow as a person and a man/woman if you never face adversity? You cannot, its impossible. Nobody has ever learned the harshest of life lessons or fixed their bad ways through good times, hardship is what makes a person a person. Without that hardship, we would never grow as people, so the evil or bad in this world is absolutely needed.
Section 7
ReplyDeleteIf god is infinite and all-inclusive, doesn't that imply that god includes many things and events that we consider ungodly (bad people, tragedies, disease, poverty...)? 78
I think it does imply this. I don’t know how religious people can believe that God is omnipotent and yet doesn’t, heal children with cancer and prevent all the suffering. They can’t have it both ways and I think religions are living a lie. It reminds me of Orwell’s double speak.
Are Japanese conformist, or pro-social? 191
I lived in Japan for 7 years on a military base. The Japanese people are amazingly nice and respectful. However, they are pretty obedient. Their work ethic is dangerous and unhealthy and forced on their children. I knew some Japanese kids who would have to go to regular school, then soroban school (a type of math), and on top of that English school.
Log:
-Answered questions on 2/18 post
-Weekly Essay on 2/4 post
-Answered questions on 2/2 post
-Answered questions on 1/28 post
Sydney Davis section 7
ReplyDeleteDo you agree that God and Nature are two ways of describing a single thing? 76
I don't agree in that statement. I personally don't believe in God, so for me God is just a being above all that is a belief for some people. However, nature is real, there is proof of nature, we can go out and see nature. I believe nature is caused by evolution and a result of earth's climate. To me these two idea's are just that, two different ideas.
Section 4
ReplyDeleteIf god is impersonal and indifferent to human beings, should you still love and/or worship god?
As a person that is not very religious, I feel like that it does not matter in either case. If he's indifferent to us, then even if you worshipped or didn't it would not matter because he would not care what we did.
Do you agree that God and Nature are two ways of describing a single thing?
I feel like both are very different things. I feel like God for people is just a belief that their is someone always watching out for them. While Nature is something that we can touch, feel, and see with our own eyes.
What do you think of Locke's "blank slate" idea?
I agree with how he thinks that as babies we are a blank slate that just absorbs experiences and information. With those experiences and information I believe that as kids it forms the people that we will eventually become.
Section 4
ReplyDeleteIf god is impersonal and indifferent to human beings, should you still love and/or worship god? 79
While I do not know about love, I do know we should respect him. He is a force of power what we should be weary in opposing.
Haven Word, Section 4
ReplyDeleteAre we still "selling ourselves dreamy fabrications"? 113
I sometimes believe that we are but at the same time if we gave up on our dreams, what exactly do we have left? I mean our reality is what we make it and how we want everything to turn out. However, I do believe we should look at things more logically then dreamly.