So God is a concept to define temporal existence, not a mundane material creature like ourselves. — Gnomon

? I would say that Spinoza is far more closer to classical theism than this kind of view.

But Holistic philosophers find such concepts necessary for their quest to probe the limits of reality : the General, the Principle, the Whole, of which all real things are mere specks of dust. — Gnomon

Yes, but note that for Spinoza and for many of the 'holists' the 'Whole' is, in fact, ontologically independent and its existence does not depend on its 'parts'. This is why IMO a fully consistent pantheism might necessarily lead to some kind of acosmism, where the 'parts' are merely illusions.

BTW, Spinoza also, if I recall correctly, believed that absolutely everything was inevitable. This is a form of 'determinism' which is stronger than Laplace: Laplace's determinism doesn't fix the initial conditions. In Spinoza's way it is even impossible to think that things could have been different, even in principle. When I was a sort of committed 'spinozist' (back in 2011-13), for a while it lead me to have a sort of calm acceptance of the events in my life. But then I couldn't deny the appearance of my own 'free will' and I accepted that my choices weren't all 'inevitable'.
To return to the topic of the thread, Spinoza's surely believed that justice and fairness were human constructs and the world could only appear 'unfair' or 'imperfect' due to a deluded perspective (a perspective which according to him was to be understood in order to be transcended, paradoxically).

Do you think Spinoza would agree with the label : "god of the philosophers", as contrasted with the God of theologians, and the godless-but-fecund Material World of scientists? :chin: — Gnomon

Yes. But note that he viewed his God as a refinement of the 'God' of the philosophers and theologians of his time. Certainly not a 'material source' of everything.

So you want to demonstrate that god exists, and that therefore the world must be fair and just. — Banno

I didn't say must. God is a free agent so God can act Unjustly. All I want to say is that excluding you there is also God who can read your thoughts and can experience your feelings. So excluding you, it is only God who can judge you properly. I believe in Karma which is imposed by God so your wrong action is not without consequences.

But the world is not fair and just. — Banno

Prove it.

Therefore you are mistaken. There is no god.

If god exists, then the world is fair. The world is not fair. Therefore god does not exist. — Banno

You need to prove your second premise.

Hence your arguments are all of them faulty. — Banno

Show me what is wrong with my arguments.

But does not God create humans to have free will? — Richard B

God didn't create humans. We know that human is the result of evolution.

And if so, can choose in such a way to create an unfair and unjust world? — Richard B

God is a free agent so God can act Unjustly but that is not what an all-wise agent does.

I do see Wayfarer as prosecuting a moral crusade, so yeah, I did introduce the term. It was you that suggested that the whole of philosophy has been a moral crusade and I asked you for examples and to explain why you see the chosen example(s) as constituting a moral crusade. — Janus

No. The term "moral crusade" sounds like a militant Christian concept, not a peaceful Philosophical quest for an ethical society. The bloody medieval crusades were "prosecuted" by physically and legalistically attacking unbelievers, as directed by the crusader's "king" in heaven : "in hoc signo vinces". I doubt that would think in such terms ; I certainly don't. And I don't know of any comparable philosophical "crusades", involving sword-wielding metaphysicians. The idea sounds absurd.

However, Way does have an erudite personal worldview, that is much less ambiguous than many that are "prosecuted" on this forum. And he defends that philosophical position astutely, without attacking with swords drawn. But yes, the work of Philosophy is inherently ambiguous, due not to any personal uncertainty, but to the difficulty of postulating metaphysical concepts in a materialistic language. :grin:

BTW, Spinoza also, if I recall correctly, believed that absolutely everything was inevitable. This is a form of 'determinism' which is stronger than Laplace: Laplace's determinism doesn't fix the initial conditions. In Spinoza's way it is even impossible to think that things could have been different, even in principle. — boundless

Hmmm. That sounds like Fatalism --- or as Spinoza might put it : Necessitarianism. If so, did he also deny that introspective rational philosophical humans have some degree of FreeWill, not completely driven by innate animal urges? :chin:

Yes, but note that for Spinoza and for many of the 'holists' the 'Whole' is, in fact, ontologically independent and its existence does not depend on its 'parts'. This is why IMO a fully consistent pantheism might necessarily lead to some kind of acosmism, where the 'parts' are merely illusions. — boundless

There is another version of Cosmic Holism --- PanEnDeism : all in god --- which views what humans call "God" as merely the Whole of which we humans are minuscule moving parts. Unlike Theism, this view does not presume that the parts have any inkling of the mind of God. And it does not imagine that humans are the darlings of the deity. So, any natural injustice or unfairness is not personally directed, but merely the nonpartisan workings of a material physical world, in which some creatures live on the life of other creatures. And some creatures develop moral qualms about killing other living things.

PED does not necessarily "divest itself" of a thinking god --- I suppose that's a Christian put-down --- but merely denies that the Whole reveals its thoughts, if any, to the parts. So the philosophical "parts" can only speculate about knowing the "Mind of God", as Steven Hawking put it. And the Prophets just make-up ideas & opinions that they think God could/should have regarding his Chosen People. As I understand it, PED does not go so far as to assume that finite dependent creatures are mere powerless cogs in the cosmic machine. If you feel & act as-if you are morally free, then you have some degree of FreeWill. But that's a whole n'other thread. :nerd:

Yes. But note that he viewed his God as a refinement of the 'God' of the philosophers and theologians of his time. Certainly not a 'material source' of everything. — boundless

The philosophers of his time were just beginning to depart from the party line of Catholic theologians. So Spinoza's deistic deity must have seemed radical to many fellow philosophers. Was his causa sui not deemed to be the First Cause of all material things? :smile:



Panendeism vs Panentheism :
Panentheism holds that God exerts a controlling effect on the universe; this opposes panendeism, which denies that God is involved…Panendeism divests itself from an explicitly thinking God. Panendeism specifically holds that there is an aspect of reality, different from physical reality, extending into a non-thinking formless and changeless, awareness realm.
https://religion.fandom.com/wiki/Panendeism

Acosmism, in philosophy, the view that God is the sole and ultimate reality and that finite objects and events have no independent existence. Acosmism has been equated with pantheism, the belief that everything is God.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/acosmism

. Believing that life is fair might make you a terrible person

God can act Unjustly — MoK

Some further problems then: is an unjust god worthy of worship? And ought you do as an unjust god commands?

Some further problems then: is an unjust god worthy of worship? — Banno

We were not talking about worship. Who said that God needs worship? I said that God can act Unjustly since God is free. That however does not mean that God would act Unjustly since God is all-wise.

And ought you do as an unjust god commands? — Banno

Sure not.

We were not talking about worship. — MoK

Good.

I don't think you have addressed the main line of thought here. That is, that if one thinks the world is just, despite the evidence to the contrary, the result is to excuse oneself from moral responsibility to make the world more just.

That is, it is a theology of moral inaction. As such it is reprehensible.

All I want to say is that excluding you there is also God who can read your thoughts and can experience your feelings. So excluding you, it is only God who can judge you properly. I believe in Karma which is imposed by God so your wrong action is not without consequences. — MoK

This deserves its own response. Fear of divine judgement is a way of ensuring your conformity.

Sure not. — MoK

Not sure what this means. Would you be willing to go against divine command, or ought you do as an unjust god demands?

Is it fear of retribution that keeps you from recognising the injustice in the world?

I don't think you have addressed the main line of thought here. That is, that if one thinks the world is just, despite the evidence to the contrary, the result is to excuse oneself from moral responsibility to make the world more just.
That is, it is a theology of moral inaction. As such it is reprehensible. — Banno

That may be the implication raised in the article that motivated me to start this thread. But I didn't express it so succinctly. Some Theists seem to take the attitude : "let go and let God". Ironically, a few respondents seem to have assumed that's what I was trying to say. If so, what would be the point of philosophy? :smile:

Cool.

I don't think you have addressed the main line of thought here. That is, that if one thinks the world is just, despite the evidence to the contrary, the result is to excuse oneself from moral responsibility to make the world more just. — Banno

What evidence do you need? Do you think that all things done in the name of humanity are right?

This deserves its own response. Fear of divine judgement is a way of ensuring your conformity. — Banno

There is no other solution to it while not all humans are not all-wise. Could you imagine what our lives would be like if we didn't submit to human-made laws? Some people are wise so they follow the laws with respect and without fear of consequences. But the laws are needed for those who are not wise enough. So, fear should be in place until we educate all people well enough so they act by wisdom rather than fear.

Not sure what this means. Would you be willing to go against divine command, or ought you do as an unjust god demands? — Banno

All-wise God wouldn't demand an unjust action. I wouldn't act according to the demand of an unjust god though.

Is it fear of retribution that keeps you from recognising the injustice in the world? — Banno

No, it is not fear.

Let's go over it again. The world is not fair and just. We can make it more fair and just. Proposing a god who makes the world fair and just both denies the fact of injustice and excuses lack of action.

Is the real world fair and just?

Only if we make it so. — Banno

What might be novel for you here is the idea that faith in god can lead to immoral acts. But if you think on it a bit more, you might see that it is fairly obvious.

Hmmm. That sounds like Fatalism --- or as Spinoza might put it : Necessitarianism. If so, did he also deny that introspective rational philosophical humans have some degree of FreeWill, not completely driven by innate animal urges? :chin: — Gnomon

I don't think so. But he would not say that a 'sage' is like someone 'driven by innate animal urges', for obvious reasons.

There is another version of Cosmic Holism --- PanEnDeism : all in god --- which views what humans call "God" as merely the Whole of which we humans are minuscule moving parts — Gnomon

Is this Whole eternal and not dependent from its parts?

For instance, a dog's body is composed of cells. Even if one adopts a 'holistic' view of the 'dog', the dog is still dependent on its cells. But this cannot be the case for the 'Whole' if it is to be called 'God', even in the most liberaly way. Otherwise, why use the word 'God' in the first place?

If you feel & act as-if you are morally free, then you have some degree of FreeWill. But that's a whole n'other thread. :nerd: — Gnomon

Actually, the denial of free will is quite pertinent for the thread, at least with respect to the 'moral' evils. If there is no 'free will', can we still speak about moral evils?

Also, IMO Spinoza's 'solution' to the problem of suffering is to see everything sub specie aeternitatis and thus transcend every individual perspective. In the distorted individual perspective the world might appear 'unfair' but when the world is seen sub specie aeternitatis, such a judgment is transcended.

The philosophers of his time were just beginning to depart from the party line of Catholic theologians. So Spinoza's deistic deity must have seemed radical to many fellow philosophers. Was his causa sui not deemed to be the First Cause of all material things? :smile: — Gnomon

'Causa sui' means uncaused and yes it is deemed the ultimate 'cause' of all material things like everything else, as said in other posts.

Let's go over it again. The world is not fair and just. — Banno

The world is just.

We can make it more fair and just. — Banno

Yes, we can make the world a right place to live. But we don't. That is why the Karam is in place and people are suffering. If any individual gets enlightened then there would be no need for Karma.

Proposing a god who makes the world fair and just both denies the fact of injustice and excuses lack of action. — Banno

That is not God's duty to make the world the right place for living. It is our main duty.

That is not God's duty to make the world the right place for living. It is our main duty. — MoK

Just curious, why would an all powerful god outsource that? And if the answer is he wants to see some puddly apes play out some vision, why would an all knowing god care to see this? Isn’t planning and carrying out one’s vision a very human like trait? Seems like the most powerful and all knowing thing would have no need for plans or need to be “happy or satisfied” that they are carried out or not. It all seems conveniently anthropocentric :chin:.

Hmmm. That sounds like Fatalism --- or as Spinoza might put it : Necessitarianism. If so, did he also deny that introspective rational philosophical humans have some degree of FreeWill, not completely driven by innate animal urges? :chin: — Gnomon
I don't think so. But he would not say that a 'sage' is like someone 'driven by innate animal urges', for obvious reasons. — boundless

I was not familiar with Spinoza's concept of a "Sage". Apparently it's a human who "participates" in the divine nature. Is that something like the "wisdom" that philosophers seek? Does such wisdom allow a Sage to find ways to work around fatalistic Determinism, in order to exercise Free Will? Does that semi-divine willpower make us the "little gods" of this world, who break free from physical limits and animal urges? :chin:

There is another version of Cosmic Holism --- PanEnDeism : all in god --- which views what humans call "God" as merely the Whole of which we humans are minuscule moving parts — Gnomon
Is this Whole eternal and not dependent from its parts? — boundless

Yes. The hypothetical all-encompassing source of all possibilities is assumed to be transcendent and Holistic : more than the sum of its parts. This is in contrast to the immanent deity of reductive PanTheism. Moreover, the notion of PanEnDeism, although metaphorical, is intended to be amenable to rational science & philosophy, although its transcendence makes it inaccessible to empirical evidence. :halo:

Also, IMO Spinoza's 'solution' to the problem of suffering is to see everything sub specie aeternitatis and thus transcend every individual perspective. In the distorted individual perspective the world might appear 'unfair' but when the world is seen sub specie aeternitatis, such a judgment is transcended. — boundless

So, from God's timeless perspective, human suffering is inconsequential? The Christian "solution" to suffering is to give some humans a remedial do-over (second life) in a timeless heavenly Paradise. For non-Christians though, maybe Stoic acceptance is the best we can hope for? :cool:

Causa sui' means uncaused and yes it is deemed the ultimate 'cause' of all material things like everything else, as said in other posts. — boundless

I may have to add Causa Sui to my lexicon of First Causes and Prime Movers. Some Forum posters don't believe in ultimate causes or principles ; preferring to think in terms of observable serial Effects rather than a hypothetical (imaginary) unique self-existent Ultimate Cause. I guess that's the main distinction between the worldviews of practical Science and theoretical Philosophy. :nerd:

Just curious, why would an all powerful god outsource that? — schopenhauer1

I think God cannot create humans in one instant since God cannot cheat life. So we have to get through, evolve, and grow.

And if the answer is he wants to see some puddly apes play out some vision, why would an all knowing god care to see this? — schopenhauer1

To make sure that the outcome of life is proper.

Isn’t planning and carrying out one’s vision a very human like trait? — schopenhauer1

What do you mean?

Seems like the most powerful and all knowing thing would have no need for plans or need to be “happy or satisfied” that they are carried out or not. It all seems conveniently anthropocentric :chin: — schopenhauer1

It is not about being happy or satisfied. It is about performing the duty. And it is not about humans, since animals, plants, and other species matter.

I find some amusement in the length this thread has reached, given what seems so obvious to me, that life is definitely, obviously, overwhelmingly NOT fair and just. Maybe we who are here to comment are the lucky beneficiaries of life's unfairness and injustice?

To make sure that the outcome of life is proper. — MoK

What do you mean, "proper"?

I think God cannot create humans in one instant since God cannot cheat life. So we have to get through, evolve, and grow. — MoK

So, according to some theologians, God is omnipresent, and omni everything else--meaning that God is aware of and present in everything that happens in creation. So, when the first molecules formed the first cell, God is there and is present and is aware of the first cell and the death of the last cell, and everything in between. Time, as creation experiences it, is not a thing God experiences, God being eternal.

God, being eternal and all-powerful after all, gets to do that.

Seems like the most powerful and all knowing thing would have no need for plans or need to be “happy or satisfied” that they are carried out or not. It all seems conveniently anthropocentric :chin: — schopenhauer1

How could God NOT be anthropomorphic, anthropocentric, anthropic in all ways, since God is OUR creation? Even if we ditch the hairy thunderer in the sky and go for the elevated omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent all-loving God (which is some sort of wishful thinking on our part) God is still ours.

Even if a divinity actually exists. we evolved apes don't have anything remotely close to direct access to this divinity. We have to "make it up", which we have done several times over.

I was not familiar with Spinoza's concept of a "Sage". Apparently it's a human who "participates" in the divine nature. Is that something like the "wisdom" that philosophers seek? Does such wisdom allow a Sage to find ways to work around fatalistic Determinism, in order to exercise Free Will? Does that semi-divine willpower make us the "little gods" of this world, who break free from physical limits and animal urges? :chin: — Gnomon

To be fair, I think that more than 10 years passed since I last read his 'Ethics' (but he did have a strong influence in my life) and right now I don't have his work available. By 'sage' I meant a person that contemplates sub specie aeternitatis.
Anyway, no the 'liberation' of the 'sage' doesn't lead to some kind of autonomy of the will but 'simply' an understanding that leads to the cessation of any kind of suffering, according to Spinoza. For instance, if one sees things 'sub specie aeternitatis', one cannot grieve for any kind of loss because he understands that such an event is part of the necessary expression of God (and this 'understanding' is not simply an 'intellectual understanding' of the doctrine). This 'insight' brings peace and serenity, according to him.

Yes. The hypothetical all-encompassing source of all possibilities is assumed to be transcendent and Holistic : more than the sum of its parts. This is in contrast to the immanent deity of reductive PanTheism. Moreover, the notion of PanEnDeism, although metaphorical, is intended to be amenable to rational science & philosophy, although its transcendence makes it inaccessible to empirical evidence. :halo: — Gnomon

Ok. But if its parts are totally depenent on the Whole - and not distinct to it - and the viceversa is not true, how can we say that they are not 'illusions'? I mean, if the Whole exists and it is ontologically independent and there is absolutely nothing 'outside' it, the 'parts' seem more like an useful abstraction of our intellect. If ultimately, there is only 'the Whole/God', I cannot see how this isn't acosmism.
If 'reductive pantheism' affirms that 'God' is 'nothing more' than its parts, then 'God' is dependent. Being dependent, it cannot be called 'God'.

So, from God's timeless perspective, human suffering is inconsequential? The Christian "solution" to suffering is to give some humans a remedial do-over (second life) in a timeless heavenly Paradise. For non-Christians though, maybe Stoic acceptance is the best we can hope for? :cool: — Gnomon

As I interpret Spinoza, in a sense yes, it is 'inconsequential'. The world appears to be 'injust', we get frustrated by the 'unfairness' that we see etc, but all these judgments are transcended in the highest perspective (and the same is valid for their opposites). They simply do not apply.
BTW, Spinoza has been dubbed 'the Stoic of the 1600s' by some, so yeah there are some similarities.

Anyway, what's the 'solution' in your view? And, also, what is the problem about which we should seek a solution?

IIRC, Spinoza's 'solution' was a state of blessedness/peace of mind that according to him came with the 'understanding' of the 'sub specie aeternitatis' perspective. The 'problem' was 'mental suffering', i.e. the suffering due to fear, grief, despair etc which he believed we could solve by 'adopting' the aformentioned 'transcendent perspective'.

I may have to add Causa Sui to my lexicon of First Causes and Prime Movers. Some Forum posters don't believe in ultimate causes or principles ; preferring to think in terms of observable serial Effects rather than a hypothetical (imaginary) unique self-existent Ultimate Cause. I guess that's the main distinction between the worldviews of practical Science and theoretical Philosophy. :nerd: — Gnomon

I am somewhat conflicted about the idea of a 'First Cause'. I don't believe that it is something that is amenable to empirical research.

It is not about being happy or satisfied. It is about performing the duty. And it is not about humans, since animals, plants, and other species matter. — MoK

Why would God, all knowing, powerful, perfect being care about duty of his creation to himself? Seems again like a petty human trait :chin:. Odd, how God seems so human- almost like humans would invent something like this...

How could God NOT be anthropomorphic, anthropocentric, anthropic in all ways, since God is OUR creation? Even if we ditch the hairy thunderer in the sky and go for the elevated omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent all-loving God (which is some sort of wishful thinking on our part) God is still ours.

Even if a divinity actually exists. we evolved apes don't have anything remotely close to direct access to this divinity. We have to "make it up", which we have done several times over. — BC

Well you said the point I am making much more clearly, you keep doing that :D. :up: But yep, I hope is paying attention!

↪Gnomon
I find some amusement in the length this thread has reached, given what seems so obvious to me, that life is definitely, obviously, overwhelmingly NOT fair and just. Maybe we who are here to comment are the lucky beneficiaries of life's unfairness and injustice? — BC

I too, am surprised at the mississippi river length, and off-topic delta, that the OP's yes or no question has prompted. I suppose its a sign that Fairness & Justice are touchy topics for philosophically and religiously inclined posters. One post above came close to summarizing the contentious issue behind an ancient philosophical conundrum. :smile:

Who's responsible for fairness & justice, us or god?
"I don't think you have addressed the main line of thought here. That is, that if one thinks the world is just, despite the evidence to the contrary, the result is to excuse oneself from moral responsibility to make the world more just.
That is, it is a theology of moral inaction. As such it is reprehensible." — Banno

I suppose its a sign that Fairness & Justice are touchy topics for philosophically and religiously inclined posters. — Gnomon

Fairness and justice are, after all, the values which animate most people's political and social thinking. Even the most unphilosophical and irreligious person is bound to have strong views on these ideas, perhaps because they are the building blocks of most discussions today, from trans rights to MAGA, golden-era romanticism.

The world is just. — MoK

No, it isn't.

But perhaps you can't bring yourself to see that, because your faith depends on it.

If the world is already just, then there could be no "duty" for us to make the world just. Another contradiction in your position.

What do you mean, "proper"? — BC

With the aim to the perfection of life.

So, according to some theologians, God is omnipresent, and omni everything else--meaning that God is aware of and present in everything that happens in creation. So, when the first molecules formed the first cell, God is there and is present and is aware of the first cell and the death of the last cell, and everything in between. Time, as creation experiences it, is not a thing God experiences, God being eternal.

God, being eternal and all-powerful after all, gets to do that. — BC

God as an omnipresent agent experiences everything in the present and past. Our experiences are however local in space and time (present only). We can however have access to our past experiences, so-called flashbacks.

Why would God, all knowing, powerful, perfect being care about duty of his creation to himself? Seems again like a petty human trait :chin:. Odd, how God seems so human- almost like humans would invent something like this... — schopenhauer1

Humans and God share common traits. Traits like Wisdom, Justice, and the like are traits of many different agents. If an agent does not have any trait then how she/he/it could interact with reality?

No, it isn't.

But perhaps you can't bring yourself to see that, because your faith depends on it.

If the world is already just, then there could be no "duty" for us to make the world just. Another contradiction in your position. — Banno

I said this to another poster and I think it is proper for our discussion too: "I think God cannot create perfect humans in one instant since God cannot cheat life. So we have to get through, evolve, and grow."

sub specie aeternitatis — boundless

I like to drop in a Latin phrase every now and then too, but it's helpful to provide a translation or English definition, especially when one's Latin gem is NOT common knowledge (like et cetera).

Thomas Nagel says "If sub specie aeternitatis [from eternity's point of view] there is no reason to believe that anything matters, then that does not matter either, and we can approach our absurd lives with irony instead of heroism or despair."

Is that what you meant? Were you being ironic? Just guessing, probably not.