Editing Baruch Spinoza (section)

==Pantheism==
{{see also|Pantheism controversy}}
Spinoza was considered to be an atheist because he used the word "God" [Deus] to signify a concept that was different from that of traditional Judeo–Christian monotheism. "Spinoza expressly denies personality and consciousness to God; he has neither intelligence, feeling, nor will; he does not act according to purpose, but everything follows necessarily from his nature, according to law...."<ref>Frank Thilly, ''A History of Philosophy'', § 47, Holt & Co., New York, 1914</ref> Thus, Spinoza's cool, indifferent God differs from the concept of an anthropomorphic, fatherly God who cares about humanity.

In 1785, [[Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi]] published a condemnation of Spinoza's pantheism, after [[Gotthold Ephraim Lessing|Gotthold Lessing]] was thought to have confessed on his deathbed to being a "Spinozist", which was the equivalent in his time of being called an [[atheist]]. Jacobi claimed that Spinoza's doctrine was pure materialism, because all Nature and God are said to be nothing but extended [[Substance theory|substance]]. This, for Jacobi, was the result of Enlightenment rationalism and it would finally end in absolute atheism. [[Moses Mendelssohn]] disagreed with Jacobi, saying that there is no actual difference between [[theism]] and pantheism. The issue became a major intellectual and religious concern for European civilization at the time.
{{clear left}}
The attraction of Spinoza's philosophy to late 18th-century Europeans was that it provided an alternative to materialism, atheism, and deism. Three of Spinoza's ideas strongly appealed to them: the unity of all that exists, the regularity of all that happens, and the identity of spirit and nature.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Lange|first1=Frederick Albert|title=History of Materialism and Criticism of its Present Importance, Vol. II|date=1880|publisher=Houghton, Osgood, & Co.|location=Boston|page=[https://archive.org/details/historyofmateria02lang/page/147 147]|url=https://archive.org/details/historyofmateria02lang|access-date=11 November 2015}}</ref>
By 1879, Spinoza's pantheism was praised by many, but was considered by some to be alarming and dangerously inimical.<ref>"The Pantheism of Spinoza Dr. Smith regarded as the most dangerous enemy of Christianity, and as he announced his conviction that it had gained the control of the schools, press and pulpit of the Old World [Europe], and was rapidly gaining the same control of the New [United States], his alarm and indignation sometimes rose to the eloquence of genuine passion." ''Memorial of the Rev. Henry Smith, D.D., LL D., Professor of Sacred Rhetoric and Pastoral Theology in [[Lane Theological Seminary]], Consisting of Addresses on Occasion of the Anniversary of the Seminary, 8 May 1879, Together with Commemorative Resolutions'', p. 26.</ref>

Spinoza's "God or Nature" (''Deus sive Natura'') provided a living, natural God, in contrast to [[Isaac Newton]]'s [[first cause argument]] and the dead mechanism of [[Julien Offray de La Mettrie]]'s (1709–1751) work, ''[[Man a Machine]]'' (''{{lang|fr|L'homme machine}})''. Coleridge and Shelley saw in Spinoza's philosophy a ''religion of nature''.<ref>{{cite web |last=Gottlieb |first=Anthony |title=God Exists, Philosophically |url=https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/99/07/18/reviews/990718.18gottlit.html |website=archive.nytimes.com |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref> [[Novalis]] called him the "God-intoxicated man".<ref name=tws9912/><ref name=tws9902>{{cite news
| title = Spinoza, "God-Intoxicated Man"; Three Books Which Mark the Three Hundredth Anniversary of the Philosopher's Birth
|work=[[The New York Times]]
| date = 20 November 1932
| url = http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40A14F83A5513738DDDA90A94D9415B828FF1D3
| access-date =8 September 2009
| first=Percy
| last=Hutchison
}}</ref> Spinoza inspired the poet Shelley to write his essay "[[The Necessity of Atheism]]".<ref name=tws9912/>

It is a widespread belief that Spinoza equated God with the material universe. He has therefore been called the "prophet"<ref>Picton, J. Allanson, "Pantheism: Its Story and Significance", 1905.</ref> and "prince"<ref>Fraser, Alexander Campbell "Philosophy of Theism", William Blackwood and Sons, 1895, p. 163.</ref> and most eminent expounder of [[pantheism]]. More specifically, in a letter to Henry Oldenburg he states, "as to the view of certain people that I identify God with Nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken".<ref>Correspondence of Benedict de Spinoza, Wilder Publications (26 March 2009), {{ISBN|978-1-60459-156-9}}, letter 73.</ref> For Spinoza, the universe (cosmos) is a ''mode'' under two ''attributes'' of Thought and [[Extension (metaphysics)|Extension]]. God has infinitely many other attributes which are not present in the world.

According to German philosopher [[Karl Jaspers]] (1883–1969), when Spinoza wrote ''{{lang|la|Deus sive Natura}}'' (Latin for 'God or Nature'), Spinoza meant God was ''natura naturans'' (nature doing what nature does; literally, 'nature naturing'), not ''natura naturata'' (nature already created; literally, 'nature natured'). Jaspers believed that Spinoza, in his philosophical system, did not mean to say that God and Nature are interchangeable terms, but rather that God's transcendence was attested by his infinitely many attributes, and that two attributes known by humans, namely Thought and Extension, signified God's immanence.<ref name="ts64">{{harvnb|Jaspers|1974|pp=14, 95}}</ref> Even God under the attributes of thought and extension cannot be identified strictly with our world. That world is of course "divisible"; it has parts. But Spinoza said, "no attribute of a substance can be truly conceived from which it follows that the substance can be divided", meaning that one cannot conceive an attribute in a way that leads to division of substance. He also said, "a substance which is absolutely infinite is indivisible" (Ethics, Part I, Propositions 12 and 13).<ref name="ts65">Genevieve Lloyd, Routledge Philosophy GuideBook to Spinoza and The Ethics (Routledge Philosophy Guidebooks), Routledge; 1 edition (2 October 1996), {{ISBN|978-0-415-10782-2}}, p. 40</ref> Following this logic, our world should be considered as a mode under two attributes of thought and extension. Therefore, according to Jaspers, the pantheist formula "One and All" would apply to Spinoza only if the "One" preserves its transcendence and the "All" were not interpreted as the totality of finite things.<ref name=ts64/>

[[Martial Guéroult]] (1891–1976) suggested the term [[panentheism]], rather than pantheism to describe Spinoza's view of the relation between God and the world. The world is not God, but in a strong sense, "in" God. Not only do finite things have God as their cause; they cannot be conceived without God.<ref name=ts65/> However, American panentheist philosopher [[Charles Hartshorne]] (1897–2000) insisted on the term [[Classical Pantheism]] to describe Spinoza's view.<ref name="auto4"/>

According to the ''[[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]'', Spinoza's God is an "infinite intellect" (''Ethics'' 2p11c) — all-knowing (2p3), and capable of loving both himself—and us, insofar as we are part of his perfection (5p35c). And if the mark of a personal being is that it is one towards which we can entertain personal attitudes, then we should note too that Spinoza recommends ''amor intellectualis dei'' (the intellectual love of God) as the supreme good for man (5p33). However, the matter is complex. Spinoza's God does not have free will (1p32c1), he does not have purposes or intentions (1 appendix), and Spinoza insists that "neither intellect nor will pertain to the nature of God" (1p17s1). Moreover, while we may love God, we need to remember that God is not a being who could ever love us back. "He who loves God cannot strive that God should love him in return", says Spinoza (5p19).<ref>{{Cite SEP|url-id=pantheism|title=Pantheism|last=Mander|first=William|date=August 17, 2023}}</ref>

[[Steven Nadler]] suggests that settling the question of Spinoza's atheism or pantheism depends on an analysis of attitudes. If pantheism is associated with religiosity, then Spinoza is not a pantheist, since Spinoza believes that the proper stance to take towards God is not one of reverence or religious awe, but instead one of objective study and reason, since taking the religious stance would leave one open to the possibility of error and superstition.<ref name="SEPNadler">{{Cite SEP|url-id=spinoza|title=Baruch Spinoza|first=Steven|last=Nadler|author-link=Steven Nadler|date=Nov 8, 2023}}</ref>