I view this essay as a first draft. I expect that I will write a variety of updated modifications of this essay at a later date. You see, this is my first real attempt to grapple with the fascinating ideas of a perplexing philosopher -- Baruch (Hebrew for 'blessed') or Benedictus (Latin for 'blessed) Spinoza (1632-1677). The name 'Spinoza' derives from the word 'thorn' in Portugese (Rebecca Goldstein, Betraying Spinoza, 2006, Random House of Canada Ltd., Toronto.) Together, Baruch Spinoza's name seems fitting appropriate -- 'blessed thorn'. In my opinion, and the opinion of many, all of mankind is 'blessed' for having been exposed to Spinoza's extraordinary ideas -- he holds the 'dual and paradoxical distinction' that he can be viewed as both a precursor of 'Enlightenment Philosophy' and 'Romantic Philosophy' at the same time. There is perhaps, to my knowledge, only one other Western philosopher before the 1700s who can arguably hold such a dual distinction --and that is the ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus (535BC-475BC). There are other 14th to 17th century precursors to Enlightenment (Scientific-Humanistic) Philosophy -- William of Occam (1290-1349), Montaigne (1533-1592), Galileo (1564-1642), Francis Bacon (1561-1626), Isaac Newton (1643-1728), and John Locke (1632-1704) to name some of the more important ones. Rousseau can be viewed as the 'father' of Romantic Philosophy -- the point at which Romantic Philosophy grew out as a rebellion against 'unadulterated' Enlightenment Philosophy (reason, reason, and more reason -- did we forget 'passion' and even 'unreasonable passion'?), rather than being on the integrative 'Pantheistic' (scientific-spiritual) path of both Heraclitus and Spinoza.
There is at least one more very famous member of this 'triadic' scientific-spiritual-pantheistic' movment that Heraclitus started and Spinoza embellished -- and that is one of the most famous intellects in the history of mankind -- Albert Einstein (1879-1955).
Einstein's conception of God can be found at the end of this essay and is very important because it is very 'Spinozian based' and a flagship of a very well developed pantheistic position. At the end of the paper, we will also look at a quick definition of pantheism along with some of its derivatives and distinctions vs. other forms of spiritualism and/or religion.
Spinoza has been labelled the 'renegade Jew' and a 'sneaky atheist' (Rebecca Goldstein, Betraying Spinoza) and a 'Bu-Jew' (not sure what Goldstein meant by that but I will do my own interpretation here). I see Spinoza as being a 'Budhist-like renegade Jew' who both stimulated the Romantic Movement of the late 1700s and yet at the same time, except for his pantheistic vision of God, was very 'unromantic' in personality. He didn't marry or father a child. He didn't like or support 'high emotion, passion, appetite, and drama' either in his philosophy or in his life (even though he spent his whole life provoking it in the responses of others to his rebellion against orthodox Judaism, and for that matter, any type of orthodox religion. When you start saying that 'God' and 'Nature' are the same thing -- synonyms for each other, no more, no less -- especially back in the 1600s, you are asking for trouble.)
The only type of person that this pantheistic vision, at least at first blush, might be attractive to is a philosopher or a scientist who would like to add some 'spiritual depth' to his work and thus, in some form or another, integrate religion and science, creation and evolution. This, at least partly if not mainly, seems to be the type of persons who were most attracted to his work, or at least, his pantheistic work. Schelling integrated Hegel and Spinoza to create a more 'dualistic and dialectic romanticism and spiritualism. I follow Schelling in this dialectical spiritualistic direction due also in main part to my post-Spinozian in combination with post-Hegelian vision. In this respect, a distinction can be made between a 'unilateral or unconditional wholist' (Spinoza, Alfed Adler) vs. a 'dialectical integrationist and wholist' (Schelling, early Nietzsche in The Birth of Tragedy, Freud, Jung, Perls, me...) Anyway, I would call Einstein the most honorary member to Spinoza's vision, which in my opinion, his much more 'spiritual depth' than any flat out atheistic position. Spinoza was not a sneaky atheist but rather a profoundly religious, ethical, and deep spiritual person in a way that most people during his time could not, and would not accept. Even today, this is significantly still the case. Spinoza was thinking 'outside the normal religious box'. There are many more sides to Spinoza's thinking that I have not described here -- his rationalism (which I will challenge in my epistemology section), his trumpeting of the pre-Enlightenment ideas of 'freedom of speech' and 'religious tolerance' which would become central to the Scottish Enlightenment, The British Enlightenment, the French Enlightenment, and the American Enlightenment in the middle 1700s. (I will visit Spinoza here again in my Enlightenment section.)
The Spinozian vision that I have focused on here in this section is his pantheistic vision which I will spend numerous essays to follow exploring different possible avenues relative to the potential further evolution of this pantheistic vision.
dgb, Aug. 27th, 2007.
.....................................................................................
Einstein's Position On God
The question of scientific determinism gave rise to questions about Einstein's position on theological determinism, and even whether or not he believed in God. In 1929, Einstein told Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." (Brian 1996, p. 127) In 1950, in a letter to M. Berkowitz, Einstein stated that "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."[37]
Einstein defined his religious views in a letter he wrote in response to those who claimed that he worshipped a Judeo-Christian god: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."[38][39]
By his own definition, Einstein was a deeply religious person (Pais 1982, p. 319).[40] He published a paper in Nature in 1940 entitled Science and Religion which gave his views on the subject.[41] In this he says that: "a person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings and aspirations to which he clings because of their super-personal value ... regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a Divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation ... In this sense religion is the age-old endeavour of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals, and constantly to strengthen their effects." He argues that conflicts between science and religion "have all sprung from fatal errors." However "even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other" there are "strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies" ... "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind ... a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist." However he makes it clear that he does not believe in a personal God, and suggests that "neither the rule of human nor Divine Will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted ... by science, for [it] can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot." (Einstein 1940, pp. 605–607)
Einstein championed the work of psychologist Paul Diel,[42] which posited a biological and psychological, rather than theological or sociological, basis for morality.[43]
The most thorough exploration of Einstein's views on religion was made by his friend Max Jammer in the 1999 book Einstein and Religion (Jammer 1999).
Einstein was an Honorary Associate of the Rationalist Press Association beginning in 1934, and was an admirer of Ethical Culture (Ericson 2006). He served on the advisory board of the First Humanist Society of New York (See Stringer-Hye 1999 and Wilson 1995). Reference: Wikipedia
.....................................................................................Pantheism (Greek: πάν ( 'pan' ) = all and θεός ( 'theos' ) = God) literally means "God is All" and "All is God". It is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent abstract God; or that the Universe, or nature, and God are equivalent. More detailed definitions tend to emphasize the idea that natural law, existence, and the Universe (the sum total of all that is, was, and shall be) is represented or personified in the theological principle of an abstract 'god'. However, it is important to understand that Pantheists do not believe in a personal, creative deity or deities of any kind, the key feature which distinguishes them from panentheists and pandeists. As such, although many religions may claim to hold pantheistic elements, they are more commonly panentheistic or pandeistic in nature.
Reference: Wikipedia
....................................................................................
Panentheism
Pantheism has features in common with panentheism, such as the idea that the Universe is part of God. Technically, the two are separate. Whereas pantheism finds God to be synonymous with nature, panentheism finds God to be greater than nature alone. Some find this distinction unhelpful, while others see it as a significant point of division. Many of the major faiths described as pantheistic could also be described as panentheistic, whereas naturalistic pantheism cannot (not seeing God as more than nature alone). For example, elements of both panentheism and pantheism are found in Hinduism. Certain interpretations of the Bhagavad Gita and Shri Rudram support this view. Reference: Wikipedia
...................................................................................
Pandeism
Pandeism is a kind of Pantheism which incorporates a form of Deism, holding that the Universe is identical to God, but also that God was previously a conscious and sentient force or entity that designed and created the Universe. God only became an unconscious and nonsentient God by becoming the Universe. Other than this distinction (and the possibility that the Universe will one day return to the state of being God), Pandeistic beliefs are identical to Pantheism.
Reference: Wikipedia
.....................................................................................
Pantheistic concepts in religion
Hinduism
It is generally asserted that Hindu religious texts are the oldest known literature that contains the ideas of Pantheistic doctrine[1]. In Hindu theology, Brahman is the unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality which is the Divine Ground of all things in this Universe, and is also the sum total of all that ever is, was, or ever shall be. This pantheistic doctrine is traceable from some of the more ancient Upanishads to later Advaita philosophy. All Mahāvākyas(Great Sayings) of the Upanishads, in one way or another, seem to indicate the unity of the world with the Brahman. Chāndogya Upanishad says "All this Universe indeed is Brahma; from him does it proceed; into him it is dissolved; in him it breathes, so let every one adore him calmly". Reference: Wikipedia
.....................................................................................
Judaism
The radically immanent sense of the divine in Jewish mystical Kabbalah is said to have inspired Spinoza's formulation of pantheism. However, Spinoza's views have not been accepted in Orthodox Judaism.
Additionally, the Baal Shem Tov, the founder of Hasidism, had a mystical sense of the divine that could be described as panentheism.
Biblical Judaism asserts the origin of the Universe was brought forth by the Torah [law] of nature. Thus the original Torah is found not within the writing of Moshe, but within nature itself. "Reading" the Torah of nature is seen as equivalent to "reading" the Torah of revelation and theoretically will agree with one another in the end [as illustrated for example in the discovery of the Big Bang in 1965]. Rabbinical Orthodoxy viewing this as a discrepancy, in order to maintain the written Torah above that given first in nature, has argued that written Torah preceded creation, and it was from the written Torah that God "spoke" creation. A view rejected by Biblical pantheists.
Maimonides, though Orthodox, reflected the sentiment that the Torah of nature and the Torah of scripture were equivalent and found its logic inescapable, in his comments on the reconciliation of science with scripture. These instructions no doubt served as background for the development of Baruch Spinoza's later views.
Reference: Wikipedia
.....................................................................................
Einstein's Position On God
The question of scientific determinism gave rise to questions about Einstein's position on theological determinism, and even whether or not he believed in God. In 1929, Einstein told Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." (Brian 1996, p. 127) In 1950, in a letter to M. Berkowitz, Einstein stated that "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."[37]
Einstein defined his religious views in a letter he wrote in response to those who claimed that he worshipped a Judeo-Christian god: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."[38][39]
By his own definition, Einstein was a deeply religious person (Pais 1982, p. 319).[40] He published a paper in Nature in 1940 entitled Science and Religion which gave his views on the subject.[41] In this he says that: "a person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings and aspirations to which he clings because of their super-personal value ... regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a Divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation ... In this sense religion is the age-old endeavour of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals, and constantly to strengthen their effects." He argues that conflicts between science and religion "have all sprung from fatal errors." However "even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other" there are "strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies" ... "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind ... a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist." However he makes it clear that he does not believe in a personal God, and suggests that "neither the rule of human nor Divine Will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted ... by science, for [it] can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot." (Einstein 1940, pp. 605–607)
Einstein championed the work of psychologist Paul Diel,[42] which posited a biological and psychological, rather than theological or sociological, basis for morality.[43]
The most thorough exploration of Einstein's views on religion was made by his friend Max Jammer in the 1999 book Einstein and Religion (Jammer 1999).
Einstein was an Honorary Associate of the Rationalist Press Association beginning in 1934, and was an admirer of Ethical Culture (Ericson 2006). He served on the advisory board of the First Humanist Society of New York (See Stringer-Hye 1999 and Wilson 1995). Reference: Wikipedia
.....................................................................................
No comments:
Post a Comment