Spinoza

[FightingFat]

I’m having a challenging discussion with someone regarding revelation. My perspective on Divine Revelation, as taught in Dei Verbum is being challenged by someone who believes we are all conduits for divine revelation and we give the divine access to the material world. My opponent has sighted Baruch Spinoza’s philosophy as being close to his own theradeva buddhist position in that his vision of “divinity” was that of unthinking Nature. He thinks this is a common theme in spiritual/religious experience, the idea that the subject is not separate from divinity, and that by entering certain states of mind you are simply brought back into awareness of that component - rather than the subject of an external deities wrath/love.

"In Book I Spinoza claimed to demonstrate both the necessary existence and the unitary nature of the unique, single substance that comprises all of reality. Spinoza preferred the designation “Deus sive Natura” (“god or nature”) as the most fitting name for this being, and he argued that the its infinite attributes account for every feature of the universe. "

Spinoza

Spinoza: the first modern pantheist.

"There is no evil
The perfection of things is to be reckoned only from their own nature and power; things are not more or less perfect, according as they delight or offend human senses, or according as they are serviceable or repugnant to mankind. *

“Nature does not work with an end in view.For the eternal and infinite Being, which we call God or Nature, acts by the same necessity as that whereby it exists. . . . Therefore, as he does not exist for the sake of an end, so neither does he act for the sake of an end; of his existence and of his action there is neither origin nor end. [iv. Preface]”

God is indifferent to individuals
God is without passions, neither is he affected by any emotion of pleasure or pain . . . Strictly speaking, God does not love anyone. [V.17]
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return. [V.19]"

To my opponent, Spinoza’s philosophy is very appealing and is almost on a level with Buddhism.

I’ve only vaguely studied Spinoza, can anyone help me understand how the Catholic mind would engage with this idea and how we perceive Spinoza’s thought?*

 

[MindOverMatter]

I’m having a challenging discussion with someone regarding revelation. My perspective on Divine Revelation, as taught in Dei Verbum is being challenged by someone who believes we are all conduits for divine revelation and we give the divine access to the material world. My opponent has sighted Baruch Spinoza’s philosophy as being close to his own theradeva Buddhist position in that his vision of “divinity” was that of unthinking Nature. He thinks this is a common theme in spiritual/religious experience, the idea that the subject is not separate from divinity, and that by entering certain states of mind you are simply brought back into awareness of that component - rather than the subject of an external deities wrath/love.?

What does one mean by “divinity” or “God”? It seems to me that Buddhism is a kind of naturalistic atheism which is attempting to be spiritual. It’s just jazzed up naturalism with rituals. In other words, God and divinity, along with spirituality, are just empty words in respect of an “objective truth”. They are merely inventions of the Buddhist imagination. If we attempt to believe that such words represent truth, we would be laboring under a lie. What the Buddhist speaks of, is being one with “material reality”, which, in a biological sense, we are. If experience is merely chemical interaction, then this “oneness” they speak of, is a necessary consequence. It is not “us” or “you” that is conscious, but it is reality that is conscious. You are me, and I am you. There is no individuality or distinction.

“There is no evil”?

If naturalism is true, then the Buddhist is correct.

The perfection of things is to be reckoned only from their own nature and power?

This is a false attribution. There is no such thing as meaning, if there is no God. To call existence God is meaningless. I can no more attribute perfection to power, anymore then I can attribute evil to intention. They are both subjective judgments.

things are not more or less perfect, according as they delight or offend human senses, or according as they are serviceable or repugnant to mankind.?

I agree that not all things that are repugnant are evil. I might find a particular kind of sandwich repugnant in taste, but it is not evil. But if the root of nature is “good” then all behavior in nature is measured by such a good. The problem is, although we have a sense of good and evil, and therefore can make the assumption that such a thing exists; we cannot prove them to empirically exist because they are abstract realities. If you could, then you have, to some degree, proven Gods existence. *

“Nature does not work with an end in view. For the eternal and infinite Being, which we call God or Nature, acts by the same necessity as that whereby it exists. . . . Therefore, as he does not exist for the sake of an end, so neither does he act for the sake of an end; of his existence and of his action there is neither origin nor end. [iv. Preface]”?

But we do see ends. Some animals give birth and protect there young; this suggests that there is a purpose behind things. There is a direction to reality. There are forces in nature, there are changes; these changes give birth to new qualities that did not physically exist before. Some of these qualities work toward meaningful ends, such as **fear, love, happiness ** and pain. All these things exist in respect of, and for, experience, perception and expression; and only in relation to the act of expressing and perceiving. This suggests purpose or an end to the principle of perceiving something and reacting to it. It appears as if reality exists for the purpose experience it and interacting with it. But we cannot prove that.

God is indifferent to individuals
God is without passions, neither is he affected by any emotion of pleasure or pain . . . Strictly speaking, God does not love anyone. [V.17]
He who loves God cannot endeavor that God should love him in return. [V.19]"?

If they are speaking of “nature”, then for the naturalist, it may seem correct to say that the world is indifferent to our suffering, but only so far as we experience it as individual beings who are not truly or wholly one with it; as in, sharing the same nature. However, if we are God, or apart of God, then it is incorrect to say that God does not feel or care, for we care; we feel. We are the heart of nature, the heart of God. We can only say that some aspects of God are indifferent to another aspect of God which is personal.

Buddism and naturalism are very simerla, as in they lead to the same conclusion; they merely discribe reality in a different way. have you not noticed that some scientist are uniting Buddism and Science, in quatum physics, in respect of the soul.

I’ve only vaguely studied Spinoza, can anyone help me understand how the Catholic mind would engage with this idea and how we perceive Spinoza’s thought?

I have not studied Spinoza; but from what I have read of your post, I wouldn’t worry. I have already pointed out at least one flaw.*

 

[FightingFat]

Great post MindOverMatter; some great ideas and explanations in there that have really helped me-- can we take it another stage on? Here are some reflections on your post:

What does one mean by “divinity” or “God”? It seems to me that Buddhism is a kind of naturalistic atheism which is attempting to be spiritual. It’s just jazzed up naturalism with rituals.

Strictly speaking, that’s not true. It depends on several factors. For example, some Buddhists believe in the 6 realms, demons, gods, hungry ghosts etc. These are hardly factors of the natural realm. Moreover - rebirth is generally deemed a central component of the Dhamma in orthodox circles. Western buddhists tend to excise these elements, and to be fair, while they certainly exist in the Pali Canon - it is debatable whether they are *central *to Buddhist practice. The rebirth question is a very hot debating point in Buddhist circles.

What the Buddhist speaks of, is being one with “material reality”, which, in a biological sense, we are. If experience is merely chemical interaction, then this “oneness” they speak of, is a necessary consequence.

Actually, this is more a feature of Mahayana Buddhism - the concept of “Buddha Nature” is not universally acknowledged. There are *equivalents *- but again the supposition of a permanent unchanging Buddha nature poses some philosophical problems concerning the doctrine of impermanence, and how it relates to Nibbana.

There is certainly a tendency to reify the Buddha, elevating him to a messianic status not that dissimilair from Christian mythology. One of the ironies of Buddhism is that the Mahayana lineage is more elastic and mystical - yet often more philosophically sophisticated. In contrast, Theravada is more empirical, less inclined to supernatural belief - yet more orthodox in it’s interpretation of the Buddhist scriptures and the supernatural elements within it.

On the whole, Buddhism is not intended as a study of the external world, or a proclaiming of absolute truth - it is an empirical observation of the mind and the causes of suffering.

MindOverMatter:
It is not “us” or “you” that is conscious, but it is reality that is conscious.

This is a very good description - though not necessarily of Buddhism.
This is a false attribution. There is no such thing as meaning, if there is no God. To call existence God is meaningless.

I think that’s rather the point - it makes the concept of God somewhat redundant since there is no dualistic relationship - no observer or observed.

MindOverMatter:
But we do see ends. Some animals give birth and protect there young; this suggests that there is a purpose behind things. There is a direction to reality.

I think this is one of the big stumbling blocks of atheism - sure, all life - all existence just occurs. It’s just an accident. What a wierd, rare accident though! Why evolve, why form cell colonies, why reproduce? There may not be a design - but it certainly seems that life is *determined *to occur.
However, if we are God, or apart of God, then it is incorrect to say that God does not feel or care, for we care; we feel. We are the heart of nature, the heart of God. We can only say that some aspects of God are indifferent to another aspect of God which is personal.

Yet caring for your feet is not the same as caring for your children is it?

MindOverMatter:
have you not noticed that some scientist are uniting Buddism and Science, in quatum physics, in respect of the soul.

I think this is something of a happy accident - scientists tend to look the other way when Buddhists talk about rebirth, devas or the “four elements”…though for me I don’t think Buddhism is incompatible with science - and that certain elements of it are extraneous to the main concept of the practice. As I said, Buddhism is not a study of the natural universe.

In principle - it’s a study of our response to existence, and proposes a method for eliminating the suffering that entails. Although, it has to be said that it makes some broad statements about the universe in order to arrive at that position - i.e Anatta, anicca, dukkha.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Strictly speaking, that’s not true. It depends on several factors. For example, some Buddhists believe in the 6 realms, demons, gods, hungry ghosts etc. These are hardly factors of the natural realm.
On the whole, Buddhism is not intended as a study of the external world, or a proclaiming of absolute truth - it is an empirical observation of the mind and the causes of suffering. .
Thank you for your response! I learnt alot that will sheild me from error in the future. There is alot of what you said that i did not know. I am grateful.
FightingFat;3725462:

I think this is one of the big stumbling blocks of atheism - sure, all life - all existence just occurs. It’s just an accident. What a wierd, rare accident though! Why evolve, why form cell colonies, why reproduce? There may not be a design - but it certainly seems that life is *determined *

to occur. .
Yes…I tend to stay away from concepts such as design. I would rather point out the “appearence” and “logical unity” of purpose within living organism, rather then design. I cannot deny my reason. Nature appears to have “random elements” which allows it to be “self creating”, but at the same time it is obediente to a direction or will. A plan. In otherwords, nature, through the forces of natural evolution, has been allowed to “freely express” itself in a variety of weird and wonderful ways upon a foundation of fixed determinate laws within a variety of influential enviroments. I see this as completly compatible with the Christian and Monitheistic concepts of a God, which expresses its will through creation. Like an Artist.

Yet caring for your feet is not the same as caring for your children is it?.

It depends. We can certainly invent value, but it has no objective value apart from what objective reality will allow. If the world is God, then we can only say that there are different aspects to God, neither of which is less God or more. We are certainly tempted to treat eachother as objects; and to say that we ought not to, requires an element outside of nature, a reference point, which defines such a thing as objectively true. If the root of all reality is objective perfection and goodness, despite belief or agreement, then we can say that my child is of more value then the physical reality in which we find ourselves; since the the root of everything provides an objective distinction between the value of a person and physical reality.

 

[FightingFat]

If the world is God, then we can only say that there are different aspects to God, neither of which is less God or more.

That doesn’t entirely follow. You can, for example, say “all living beings” are part of the universal self but place special emphasis on those that breathe (which allows you to continue to eat, always useful). There is no reason God could not have “higher” or “lower” aspects. In the Catholic tradition the original teaching of equality of believers - all being part of one body - is seen as no obstacle to some believers being of more consequence than others. Why should a pantheist tradition necessarily be different?

 

[MindOverMatter]

That doesn’t entirely follow. You can, for example, say “all living beings” are part of the universal self but place special emphasis on those that breathe (which allows you to continue to eat, always useful).

I never said that we cannot invent value, we do it all the time. But an objective value is an eternal truth which is true whether or not we believe it. 2+2 will always equal 4. For instance God is love. That is not just something we believe, or just a discription of what we think of God actions. God trully is love, whether we realise it or not. God is good. That is not just a subjective belief, which ceases to be true on the event of our non-existence; it is true whether we believe it or not. God does need our witness in order to be God.

It is good to eat, only if that is the will of God. It is good to create things, if that is the good will of God; goodness is defined by God. Human beings have been allowed to invent value and priciples, but those values and priciples are not neccesarily objective; especailly if God does not exist. In my mind, heaven is not a place, though there is a place in which we will experience heaven. Heaven, however, is not just a subjective experience; it is objective. Though, heaven for us, may very well be hell for others, this does not chance the objectivity of such a thing. God is heaven; heaven is the full experience of God.

 

[Greg27]

I think the person you are debating lacks a lot of rigor in their thinking. Spinoza’s position and philosophy, including his ideas about the nature of God, are quite complex. So are those of Mahyana Buddhism. But saying the two are equivocally the same is a bad argument. I think you should read the Stanford Encyclopedia on Philosophy on Spinoza:

setis.library.usyd.edu.au/stanford/entries/spinoza/

You should consult some other sources, such as Fr Copleston’s ‘History of Philosophy’ or a good introduction to his philosophy written by a Professional Philosopher.