Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (47487)	2/25/2014 1:29:18 AM
From: Cogito Ergo Sum	Respond to of 69300

Know way of knowing his motives.. but he seems clear at times that God *has* a nature.. and at times nature and God are interchangeable.. This guy says it better than I can. ethicsatrhodes.blogspot.ca Spinoza: God vs. Nature Like several posters below me, I want to talk about Spinoza's perspective on what he calls God. However, I will try to take a different approach and compare when Spinoza uses the term "God" to when he uses "Nature." Our introduction says that Spinoza apparently uses the terms "God" and "Nature" interchangeably to mean the "vast, interconnected causal system in which everything occurs". The question that came to my mind, then, was why did he use a particular term (God or Nature) when he did? Is there any subtle difference between Spinoza's conception of God and of Nature? Hopefully this post will shed some light on this. Spinoza writes that "Nature does not act with an end in view; that eternal and infinite being, whom we call God, or Nature, acts by the same necessity whereby it exists" (Good Life 162). Here we see Spinoza using the terms interchangeably—he says "God, or Nature". However, this passage ascribes a few complicating characteristics to our conception of God/Nature. First, it is a being. Second, it acts, but not "with an end in view". Third, this being with potential for action is "eternal and infinite." Some of these characteristics compete with most people's conception of Nature. I doubt that most people would characterize nature as a being. Actions are also up for debate; actions occur in nature, but is it correct to say that nature acts? Lastly, eternal and infinite is far from clear. On the other hand, all of these characteristics do fit in with common notions of a deity. However, since Spinoza seems to equate "God" and "Nature," it is not safe to assume that his definition of God resembles a god of a theistic religion. Therefore, we must refine our understanding of Spinoza's definition of God/Nature. I will compare two more passages. Spinoza writes, "Now to perfect the intellect is also nothing other than to understand God and the attributes and actions of God that follow from the necessity of his nature" (165). Here Spinoza reiterates that God can perform actions. He also states that God, in addition to being Nature, has a nature. He has "attributes", and actions "follow from the necessity of his nature." Is Spinoza slightly differentiating between God and Nature? Is it significant that he says that perfect intellect is "to understand God" when he just as easily could have said it is "to understand Nature"? These are questions I don't have an answer for. Here is my next quote: "And so in so far as we rightly understand these matters, the endeavor of the better part of us is in harmony with the order of the whole of Nature" (168). Emphasizing the importance of understanding and intellect, this echoes the point of the passage I quoted above. However, it does identify understanding God as a perfect aim. Rather, it says that understanding leads to perfect harmony with Nature. Maybe these subtle differences do not really mean anything. However, since Spinoza is supposedly using these terms interchangeably, how does he choose which word to use? It seems like there must be at least some subtle difference, but I haven't managed to put my finger on it yet. What do you think? What does Spinoza mean when he says things like "Blessedness consists in love towards God" (172)? Would this statement be any different if Spinoza had instead written "love towards Nature"?

To: Solon who wrote (47487)	2/25/2014 4:31:20 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

Einstein rejected the label atheist. Einstein stated: "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being." [1] According to Prince Hubertus, Einstein said, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views." [19] Einstein had previously explored the belief that man could not understand the nature of God. In an interview published in 1930 in G. S. Viereck's book Glimpses of the Great, Einstein, in response to a question about whether or not he believed in God, explained: Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things. [20]