I don't recall this exactly (it's been about 15 years since I've read The God Delusion) but this is what Einstein means by "God" – more than "a metaphor" – in his own words :fire:The one aspect of Dawkins' writing which did impress me was the way in which he translates some of the incongruencies in Einstein's comments about God to be about 'God' as a metaphor. — Jack Cummins
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. — response to Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein'
in contrast to popular or traditional meaningI can understand your aversion to the use of the term 'religion' to describe an emotional and psychological attitude which shows itself most clearly in Spinoza... I have not found a better expression than 'religious' for the trust in the rational nature of reality that is, at least to a certain extent, accessible to human reason. — letter to Maurice Solovine
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/einsteins-famous-god-letter-is-up-for-auction/The word ‘God’ is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weaknesses; the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends. — letter to Eric Gutkind
Being a Spinozist, I consider myself an – to coin a phrase – ecstatic naturalist, with a strong affinity for pandeism as mentioned elsewhere . Maimon, Hegel, Deleuze et al, I think correctly, describe Spinoza's position as acosmism (similiar to Advaita Vedanta) in contrast to "pantheism" of which academic fashion always has been overly (simplistically) fond.I wonder to what extent those who believe in Spinoza' s God may be considered to be theists or atheists? — Jack Cummins
How trite and dismissive ...Dawkins also states, 'Pantheism is sexed-up atheism. Deism is watered-down theism. '
Again, more superficialities. Pantheism consists in a description of nature itself as supernatural, or divine, where 'creator is not separate from creation' as its active principle (e.g. "process ontology" ~ Whitehead). This is analogous to Spinoza's natura naturans which, no doubt, is why he's so often misinterpreted as a "pantheist". In any case, IMO, Dawkins embarrasses himself with such unnuanced and shallow misreadings of philosophy as well as (biblical) theology, and is not taken very seriously outside of evolutionary biology.'Pantheists don't believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a non-supernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings.' [R. Dawkins]
every claim — Nickolasgaspar
Somewhere in the middle. Spinoza's God/Nature may be too close to Pantheism for the comfort of Atheists. And it was dismissed by his contemporary Blaise Pascal as the impotent "god of philosophers", lacking an offer of salvation. But, the notion of identifying God & Nature could be acceptable to Deists, who believe in a Supreme Being or First Cause of some kind, but not one who violates natural laws with miracles. :smile:I wonder to what extent those who believe in Spinoza' s God may be considered to be theists or atheists? — Jack Cummins
Nope. You shit the bed again, G. :sweat:Somewhere in the middle. — Gnomon
It's their fear of something that they can't understand to be really there, making them search for rational means to exclude "the concept" by reference to procedures they embrace. — Haglund
I think Spinoza uses "God" in contrast to religious (scriptural) usage in order to de-anthropomorphize reality – the necessarily independent process upon which all facts and things necessarily depend. From the (speculative) perspective of eternity, Spinoza's "God" is the unmanifest, impersonal being of all manifest beings, that is, synonymous with the laws (structure) of nature while not reductively identical to natural things themselves. Deus, sive natura =/= natura deus est. A 'metaphysical conception' that is also deflationary of irrational sectarian (ecclesiastical) dogmas about "the Word of God" and thereby argues for (maximally) opening up, or expanding, secular spaces for rational free inquiry and free expression as the basis of what Spinoza thought of as 'a well-ordered, reasonably stable & secure society' which was a radical critique of prevailing theocratic monarchism still ravaging Europe into Spinoza's day after centuries of religious wars & pogroms. Caute indeed.Why do you think Spinoza used the term 'God'? It is for theologico-political and ethical reasons? — Fooloso4
Yes. Both Atheists and Theists have some good arguments to support their polarized positions : magic vs matter. But they are both Gnostic, in the sense that they feel sure they know the true answer to the God Question. That's why I sometimes describe myself as an Agnostic Deist. Because I have concluded that logically there should be a First & Final Cause of our temporary universe, and a comprehensive holistic Aspect/Entity of our dynamic, many-minded world. But my limited mind can't wrap around an uncaused Cause or an unbounded Mind.It is all about interpretation and I do wonder if there is a middle ground rather than theism and atheism and I don't mean agnosticism because that is like a waiting area to make a choice — Jack Cummins
I missed that one. :sweat:↪Gnomon
You present a good argument for agnosticism... — Jack Cummins
Jung's epistemology was based on his idea of knowledge not being possible but gained through intuition, which he derived from Kant. — Jack Cummins
Ergo evidence-based inquiries (e.g. history, science, applied mathematics, etc) and reflective practices (e.g. political accountability, ecological sustainability, class struggle, etc) are indispensable for adaptive conduct with respect to nature – the immanent realities (domains) – within which "we" (metacognitive agents) as natural species-beings (not just apes, not yet angels) are both enabled and constrained. IMHO, at best, New Agery (i.e. perennially fashionable "transcendent(al)" folk intuitions e.g. Jungian psycho-mythology :sparkle: ) is just "self-help" pseudoscience ... :zip:Personally I always understood intuitive knowledge to be faith dressed up in big boy pants.
— Tom Storm
Intuition has some role in life and discovery but can be used in all sorts of erroneous ways in arguments. — Jack Cummins
I found an article that quoted a TV interview some time before Jung's controversial quote you mentioned. At that time he sounded certain of the existence of a god "who's nature is beyond human comprehension". Apparently, he was censured for making such a bold Gnostic assertion. However, he also acknowledged that what he "knew" was more emotional than intellectual. Yet, my own Agnostic belief is more intellectual than emotional. But, I suppose both of us fit somewhere in the middle of the range from Theism to Atheism.You present a good argument for agnosticism and one which counters Jung's argument, 'I don't believe, I know'. — Jack Cummins
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.