5 ms·

Spinoza was Jewish though.

082349872349872 3y ago
(a) if my theology be accurate, at least jews, christians, muslims, and mormons all believe they believe in the same god (their differences lying in beliefs as to which prophets had commit bits), so it's not surprising that Rome would have declared their impression of his philosophy an official heresy, eg https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis.html https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documen... (b) although he said he was being misinterpreted, his congregation* also threw him out for what they saw as heresy. * reform is XIX, and haredim are XX, so it's probably safe to say his XVII congregation was orthodox?
- knightoffaith 3y ago
  Well, I just meant that Spinoza was a Jewish heretic, not a Christian heretic (at least, no more than say, Mohammad), since the discussion was about Christian heresies specifically. The encyclical only discusses pantheism rather than Spinoza---I don't know that pantheism is specifically Spinoza's invention. Of course, no doubt that Spinoza wouldn't be considered a conforming Christian by any Christian church, but not just because he wrote "Deus sive Natura" (the extent to which Spinoza's thought on the relationship between God and creation is incompatible with classical theism is up for debate, it seems to me. See the interesting comments by /u/wokeupabug here - https://old.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/nar433/how_did_spinozas_ideas_about_god_challenge_the/ https://old.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/nar433/how_d...).
  - 082349872349872 3y ago
    Thanks for the wokeupabug comments; very interesting! Now I am mediating on the contrast between "God created the best possible Creation" and "God creates all possible Creations" (Spinoza opting for the latter on omnipotence grounds; being limited to creating an element of the lattice is less potent than creating an ideal of the lattice). This seems to imply an infinite lattice* of Creations, for in a finite lattice, we could always identify the possible Creations with their principal Creation? * yes, I haven't defined either meet or join of Creations; please bear with me on this point... EDIT: forgot "panentheism"; IIUC: theism: God & Creation = ∅ panentheism: God & Creation = Creation pantheism: God = Creation I don't know if theologians have a word for it, but the most general situation would be that both (God & Creation) and (God ^ Creation) may take on values other than God, Creation, and ∅.
    - knightoffaith 3y ago
      Right - but "God creates all possible Creations" is true for Spinoza but only in the sense that for Spinoza there is only one possible creation, the one that we are living in now, so God creates the only possible creation. As in, there are no possible potential realities for Spinoza---the only possible world is the one that we're living in. And so for Spinoza, God's omnipotence is expressed through his actualization of creation---that is, roughly speaking, it's not just that God could do anything that is possible, it's that God is willing everything that is possible right now, because the only possible way for things to be is the way things are (this is what wokeupabug means when he talks about Spinoza's conflation of God's power and will). This is, to be sure, something that classical theists would quarrel with. --------- For your edit: I don't know about "God & Creation = empty set", it depends on what exactly you mean by that. Classical theists say that all things don't exist independently, but exist in/through/from God (the prepositions vary). What exactly does that mean? Well, a lot of ink has been spilled fleshing out what the relationship between God and creation is, and people have had various ideas on what it is. It seems to me to be an oversimplification to categorize things neatly into theism/pantheism/panentheism without further clarification; these things are complicated. It's been said of Aquinas (certainly a little-o orthodox theologian), apparently, that he's the closest you can be to being a pantheist without being a pantheist.
      - 082349872349872 3y ago
        OK, how about this model: God (being a Proper god) could create inconsistent worlds, but will not (and the only consistent world is our own). Would this model be true for both Spinoza and for classical theists? ---- for my edit; the formalisations were attempts to convey (although I agree they're probably oversimplifications) the following general ideas: God & Creation = ∅ (the Creator and the Creation are distinct; nothing is part of both) God & Creation = Creation is equivalent to God ⊇ Creation (the Creation is part of the Creator) God = Creation is equivalent to (God ⊇ Creation ∧ Creation ⊇ God) (the Creation and the Creator equivale: they may be freely substituted in a proof)
        3y ago

(a) if my theology be accurate, at least jews, christians, muslims, and mormons all believe they believe in the same god (their differences lying in beliefs as to which prophets had commit bits), so it's not surprising that Rome would have declared their impression of his philosophy an official heresy, eg https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis.html https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documen... (b) although he said he was being misinterpreted, his congregation* also threw him out for what they saw as heresy. * reform is XIX, and haredim are XX, so it's probably safe to say his XVII congregation was orthodox?

knightoffaith 3y ago
Well, I just meant that Spinoza was a Jewish heretic, not a Christian heretic (at least, no more than say, Mohammad), since the discussion was about Christian heresies specifically. The encyclical only discusses pantheism rather than Spinoza---I don't know that pantheism is specifically Spinoza's invention. Of course, no doubt that Spinoza wouldn't be considered a conforming Christian by any Christian church, but not just because he wrote "Deus sive Natura" (the extent to which Spinoza's thought on the relationship between God and creation is incompatible with classical theism is up for debate, it seems to me. See the interesting comments by /u/wokeupabug here - https://old.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/nar433/how_did_spinozas_ideas_about_god_challenge_the/ https://old.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/nar433/how_d...).
- 082349872349872 3y ago
  Thanks for the wokeupabug comments; very interesting! Now I am mediating on the contrast between "God created the best possible Creation" and "God creates all possible Creations" (Spinoza opting for the latter on omnipotence grounds; being limited to creating an element of the lattice is less potent than creating an ideal of the lattice). This seems to imply an infinite lattice* of Creations, for in a finite lattice, we could always identify the possible Creations with their principal Creation? * yes, I haven't defined either meet or join of Creations; please bear with me on this point... EDIT: forgot "panentheism"; IIUC: theism: God & Creation = ∅ panentheism: God & Creation = Creation pantheism: God = Creation I don't know if theologians have a word for it, but the most general situation would be that both (God & Creation) and (God ^ Creation) may take on values other than God, Creation, and ∅.
  - knightoffaith 3y ago
    Right - but "God creates all possible Creations" is true for Spinoza but only in the sense that for Spinoza there is only one possible creation, the one that we are living in now, so God creates the only possible creation. As in, there are no possible potential realities for Spinoza---the only possible world is the one that we're living in. And so for Spinoza, God's omnipotence is expressed through his actualization of creation---that is, roughly speaking, it's not just that God could do anything that is possible, it's that God is willing everything that is possible right now, because the only possible way for things to be is the way things are (this is what wokeupabug means when he talks about Spinoza's conflation of God's power and will). This is, to be sure, something that classical theists would quarrel with. --------- For your edit: I don't know about "God & Creation = empty set", it depends on what exactly you mean by that. Classical theists say that all things don't exist independently, but exist in/through/from God (the prepositions vary). What exactly does that mean? Well, a lot of ink has been spilled fleshing out what the relationship between God and creation is, and people have had various ideas on what it is. It seems to me to be an oversimplification to categorize things neatly into theism/pantheism/panentheism without further clarification; these things are complicated. It's been said of Aquinas (certainly a little-o orthodox theologian), apparently, that he's the closest you can be to being a pantheist without being a pantheist.
    - 082349872349872 3y ago
      OK, how about this model: God (being a Proper god) could create inconsistent worlds, but will not (and the only consistent world is our own). Would this model be true for both Spinoza and for classical theists? ---- for my edit; the formalisations were attempts to convey (although I agree they're probably oversimplifications) the following general ideas: God & Creation = ∅ (the Creator and the Creation are distinct; nothing is part of both) God & Creation = Creation is equivalent to God ⊇ Creation (the Creation is part of the Creator) God = Creation is equivalent to (God ⊇ Creation ∧ Creation ⊇ God) (the Creation and the Creator equivale: they may be freely substituted in a proof)
      - 3y ago