Spirituality, Religion, Nature

Spinoza’s God and Philosophy

Historical Data. Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) was a Dutch Jewish philosopher. He has been recognized as one of the great thinkers of XVII century, whose philosophy laid the groundwork for the Enlightenment of the XVIII century. I find my writings very close to his philosophy.[1] He wrote in Latin; this, and the fact that Ethics—presumed to be the perfect expression of his thinking [2] —was posthumously published, contributed that his work was not fully realized until years after his death. (His friends and protectors Adriaan Koerbagh, Jan de Witt, and Franciscus van den Enden were killed for supporting his teachings.)

Philosopher and historian Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel said of all contemporary philosophers, "You are either a Spinozist or not a philosopher at all." [3] However, it is important to notice that ‘Spinoza was a man of science rather than a twentieth-century philosopher.’ [4] To be a ‘philosopher’ in Spinoza’s time was the equivalent of a scientist today.

Epistemology. Spinoza, the scientist-philosopher, is difficult to understand. ‘There is still enormous work to do before we fully understand Spinoza’s life and works.’ [5] One of the difficulties to understand Spinoza’s mind is that the meaning of the philosophical terms used in his writings was different in the XVI and XVII centuries from what they mean today. We might review some examples:

Substance. Traditionally substance means that which is in se, in itself, and not in other; but for Spinoza substance is what is a se, by itself, self-caused, and therefore there is only one Substance, God, or God-Nature.

Modes. This word shouldn’t be interpreted as a property inherent to a thing, or that it must have all the time; Descartes would call this a quality or attribute. Modes are rather the very existence of particular things in causal dependence from Substance.[6]

Contingency. We used to call contingent what can or cannot be; for Spinoza in reality ‘nothing in nature is contingent’. Endless causality provides the basis for Spinoza’s view of contingency. ‘Because the chain of the causes [ordo causarum] is hidden from us, then the thing cannot appear to us as either necessary or as impossible. So, we term it either ‘contingent’ or ‘possible.’ [7]

Eternal. For Spinoza this concept is not the lack of passing of time only, but mostly the absolute necessity of being.

Time. This is not duration as usually understood; time [tempus] for Spinoza is like a whole, and each particular period of time is like a “slice” of the whole. To attribute duration to an item is just to say that it lasts through time.[8]

Spinoza’ God, or Nature. Spinoza's metaphysics consists of one thing: substance. There is only one substance, infinite, self-caused, and eternal. He uses the phrase Deus sive Nature,[9] which means “God or Nature.” In Spinoza’s mind, God and Nature are synonymous, the same substance: God-Nature. Einstein said: “I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.”

For Spinoza Nature-Universe is one substance, God. He contended that everything that exists in Nature is one Reality (substance). He expressly denied personality, intelligence, feeling, and will in God. God does not act with purpose but by necessity, from his nature. This is the antithesis to the anthropomorphic God of theism.

Was Spinoza atheist? Spinoza was neither atheist nor materialist. Spinoza viewed God and Nature as two names for the same single substance. But substance is not matter for him but “which stands beneath matter." It is a widespread belief that Spinoza equated God with the material universe; however, in a letter to Henry Oldenburg he states that, "as to the view of certain people that I identify God with nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken.”

Understanding Spinoza’s Substance. The objects we see in nature are not substance; we neither see nor touch the substance of the objects but the accidents (the word taken in its scholastic sense). The substance of the objects is invisible and untouchable; it is their being itself, their existence which is universal. The being of things is different from the color, size, weight, etc. of the objects. The being is a metaphysical reality, not the matter of the objects.

Atheists and Spinoza’s Philosophy. Strong atheists deny any kind of metaphysics; there is only matter. Other atheists, however, accept the possibility of a natural god. Famous and self-proclaimed atheist Prof. Richard Dawkins says: “As I continue to clarify the distinction between supernatural religion on the one hand and Einsteinian religion on the other, bear in mind that I am calling only supernatural gods delusional.” [10] This is a significant testimony from an atheist as Prof. Dawkins whose opposition to the idea of God is limited to a supernatural God.

Spectrum of Judgment Regarding the Existence of God. Prof. Dawkins makes a spectrum of seven categories of probabilities regarding the existence of God as judged by people, and the scale is from the supernatural God of theism, strong theists number 1, up to strong atheists, number 7. He adds “I’d be surprised to meet many people in category 7, and counts himself in category 6 leaning to 7, in which ‘I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable.’” [11]

Confession of a Proclaimed Atheist. I quote here what one of my correspondents and self-professed atheist wrote to me: “It is, in fact, contradictory to say that the source of all causes requires a cause. The word ‘cause’ is meaningless outside the context of the universe.” So, there is a cause without cause which is the conventional concept of God.

Personal View of Atheism. I personally think that there are two kinds of atheists: some of them are consciously atheists, who have concluded that there is not such a personal God as the one depicted in the Bible; and there are unconsciously atheists, I’d say, those who believe in a non-existent God as the God of theism—they are de facto without God. Those who believe that the only true God is supernatural, may consider Spinoza to be an atheist since he didn’t believe in their supernatural God.

The Existence Always is. I said in one of my past “Reflections” available in the internet [12] that any metaphysical thinking must depart from the premise that the Existence always is, call it Nature, Universe, or God, which exists by necessity, that must be. Anybody thinking about the fact of existence—scientist, philosopher, or not—must conclude that the Existence always is. Names do not matter; the reality is always the same: the Existence! Perhaps the name Existence reveals some “qualities” of God not easily seen through the word substance of Spinoza.

An Eternal Universe. In another Reflection [13] I showed that even in the view of theism the universe must be eternal, since God acts by necessity: the universe must be as “old” as God is. In this view there is not properly creation because the Existence always is, and the universe (nature₂), the mapping of nature₁, has always been.

There Cannot be Two Total Existences. When the Substance—the total Existence—is, then there is no room for other existence not included already in the existing Substance. Total is total; there cannot be total plus one.

Note to the readers before the Conclusion

Some readers have said that these comments have worn them out, and that the “ride” was a little bumpy. I understand that, but I want to tell the readers that these reflections are not the end of my thinking; I still have a long road to go.

Spinoza broke the stagnant theological past, mostly founded in an old philosophical system and a theology of imagination; we must credit him for that. But this alone is not relevant for our contemporary age. We must recognize also that he wasn’t aware of the great scientific discoveries that followed his life. His views about God, man, and nature are not entirely coherent—in my view,—and lack a clear explanation regarding the origin of man and the universe.

Spinoza’s theorem Deus sive Natura (God or Nature) is a good statement but does not satisfactorily explain how the infinite and eternal one, Natura naturans, is also the physical and temporal world, Natura naturata. He welds together infinity, nature and God in one substance, but I couldn’t find an explanation regarding how this happens. Spinoza says:

I should perhaps say not “explain” but “reminds the reader” that by “Natura Naturans” we must understand that which is in itself; that is, the attributes of substance that express eternal and infinite essence; God, insofar as he is considered a free cause. By “Natura Naturata” I understand all that follows from the necessity of God’s nature… all the modes of God’s attributes insofar as they are considered as things which are in God and can neither be, nor be conceived without God.” [14]

His idea of a God as an infinite number of infinite attributes does not please me; that is a “God of complexity;” I’d prefer to see a “God of simplicity”: the simplicity of “To Be,” or “The Existence.” I think that if we’d change his frequently used word “substance” for “Existence,” I’d solve most of my reservations with Spinoza. My reflection Whether the Idea of God is Superfluous? - Reflections About an Eternal Universe could be a step in that direction; you might see it here.

Spinoza wanted vehemently to refute the charge of atheism which was constantly brought against him during his life, as today. He says also that there is no passivity in God; that all it is, is act. This means for me that God is transcendent, as the concept of Existence is transcendent. However for him God is one immanent substance identified with Nature, but not transcendent. He does not explain how these statements conciliate: many statements, few explanations.

To make sense of our temporal life—of our only life—we have to move from the theoretical world of philosophy, to the real, practical world where we live in community with other human beings, in interaction with them, and with responsibility toward them. This is what discerns what we really are, and what we are living for. Jesus was a model for this view of human life. He was not a philosopher, much less a dogmatist as late writers (in particular John) tried to present him. Jesus is an exemplar and teacher of a dignified life, devoted to the wellbeing of the neighbor: this is the real gospel.

Historians and commentators recognize that Baruch (or Benedict) Spinoza lived indeed an irreproachable life, and his life is the best teaching of what his morals were. He inscribed in a stone in front of his cottage at Rijnsburg a quote from Dutch poet Camphuysen in his “May Morning” that says:

Alas! If all men would be wise,

And would be good as well,

The Earth would be a Paradise,

Now it is mostly a Hell.

This is an insight of his time, his experience. And I do recognize more glimpses of “paradise,” and trust that you do, too.

Conclusion: Change

The idea of God is true and good. There is God, the necessary Being! God must be! It always is! God is infinite, eternal, uncaused. He does not depend on anybody or anything. God, the substance which stands beneath matter, the plenitude and wholeness of existence, the fullness of Being not the controller of the universe, the interventionist God of theism; the “meddler,” a “handler-of-all,” or “solver-of-all.”

No human properties in God. The Deus sive Natura (God or Nature) of Spinoza does not have human properties; I agree. But this said, I sustain too that God-Nature, nature₁, is also—metaphorically speaking, — “Intelligence” and “Power.” I am not saying that Substance, God-Nature, is or has some kind of human intelligence or power; nothing can be added to God-Nature which is all. What I am saying is that Substance is in itself Wisdom and Power in action. What is the proof of this? Just look at Nature and you see its Wisdom and Power in action.

Theism’s Misunderstanding. It seems that the misunderstanding of theism on this matter (the God-Nature) arises from making God and Nature two essentially different entities; to see Nature as something “outside” God, created by God, instead of seeing God in Nature as I’ll say.

Natura Naturans and Natura Naturata.[15] These terms—most commonly associated with the philosophy of Spinoza,—suggest two views of Nature (please see footnote): Natura naturans [16] which is nature being what it is, nature₁, the being or substance of nature₂; and Natura naturata, which is the mapping or “incarnation” of nature₁ in all objects of the universe. Nature₂ is not a power or action independent of nature₁. In this sense, nature₂ is presence and manifestation of nature₁ in the physical world, and this cannot be other than God. When we see the identity Nature-God we solve most difficulties, enigmas, and contradictions.

No-limitation for the God-Nature. There is no limitation for the God-Nature because anything, by the fact of existing, belongs to Nature, is Nature. God-Nature is in everything that is; only what is not is not God-Nature. God-Nature is not limited to physical things and phenomena of the world, because that would mean a limited God, contrary to the real God which is all-that-is. The God-Nature is per se is infinite, perfect, transcending the limitations of the physical world, time and space; and at the same time is the immanent God, active and present in and through all processes and events of Nature. God-Nature₁ is not distant, but is here and everywhere in all that exists, because he is no other than All-Existence, all-that-is. [17]

God-Nature is not only matter. This vision is not a material pantheism. There were critics at Spinoza’s time, and now, that see his interpretation as an identification of matter with God; that is a misinterpretation. He answered to those who accused him that he identifies God with matter that "as to the view of certain people that I identify god with nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken."

The metaphysical position is based on the logical presumption, or necessity, that there is a “point” at which matter requires a non-material source, [18] or force, or intelligence, either different from matter itself or “one” with matter, as I explained in the reflection quoted before. Fantastic things of the universe, and discoveries of cosmology and biology, need an explanation; there must be a reason or explanation for the existence of the world, a source of their being.

Atheists arrogance. It is an irony that atheists criticize the arrogance of believers who have an idea of God inconsistent with the discoveries of science; they are equally arrogant when they do not accept at least the possibility that Nature may be divine; their position lacks balance. We know for certain that there is no evidence for any of the theories regarding the universe. The best one can do is to follow the most logical interpretation. We all are agnostics and say: “We do not know.” [19]

Leave the childhood. What is written on this web page is not what many of us were indoctrinated when we were children; this is not the theology and the tradition of past centuries; but we must confront the objectivity of the universe and accept the facts. It would be very comfortable if we’d have somebody at hand to help us in our problems and difficulties; a kind of “Solver-all” to whom we could appeal to sort out all our needs. But God is not such a person; God is not somebody there to give us extra assistance than that which nature provides, and to expect additional help is useless. That God of old traditions does not exist except in human imagination. If you look for God you must find it where it is: in Nature, the whole Nature.

Go to Content

HTM NATURE / SPINOZA CONCLUSION 09-09-11

[1] Main source of information to write this section was Michael L. Morgan, Editor, Spinoza Complete Works (Cambridge, Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 2002); Richard Mason, The God of Spinoza, and Don Garret, Editor, The Cambridge Companion to Spinoza.

[2] ‘The text of Ethics tells us all we need to know about his views on the balance between the love of God and the understandings of Nature, between the natural and the divine. There is no ‘personal philosophy.’ Richard Mason, The God of Spinoza (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 260.

[4] Don Garret, The Cambridge Companion to Spinoza (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 33.

[6] Richard Mason, Op. cit., 31, 33. Don Garret, Op. cit. 67.

[7] Richard Mason, Op. cit. 62. Don Garret, Op. cit. 75.

[10] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Boston: Houghton Miffling Company, 2006), 36.

[12] You may open the document My Name is Existence, To Be, “I AM” (http://myintimacywithgodor.ipage.com/Existence.htm.)

[13] Is God Free to Create the World? - Is he Necessary or Contingent, Transcendent or Immanent?”

[14] Ethics, Part I, Prop. 29, Scholium. Michael L. Morgan, Spinoza Complete Works (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 2002), pg. 234.

[15] I could make a bad English translation of these words as: Nature Naturing and Nature Naturalized

[16] Ethics I P29 Schol. Trans: Edwin Curley. London: Penguin, 1996.

[18] The concept of cause is applicable and meaningful only in a temporal universe.

[19] The Catholic Church states the opposite: that they are certain. The Constitution De Fide of the Second Vatican Council declares that "God, the beginning and end of all, can, by the natural light of human reason, be known with certainty from the works of creation." (Constitution De Fide, II, De Revelatione. Catholic Encyclopedia.)