I believe in the God of Spinoza Albert Einstein

For the radical thinkers of the Enlightenment, he was the first man to have lived and died as a true atheist. For others, including Samuel Taylor Coleridge, he provides perhaps the most profound conception of God to be found in Western philosophy. He was bold enough to defy the thinking of his time, yet too modest to accept the fame of public office, despite numerous offers, and he died, along with Socrates and Seneca, one of the three great deaths in philosophy. His name is Baruch Spinoza, a Dutch Jewish philosopher from the 17th century, who can claim influence on both the Enlightenment thinkers of the 18th century and great minds of the 19th, notably Hegel, and his ideas were so radical that they could only be fully published after his death.

But what were the ideas that caused such controversy in Spinoza’s lifetime, how did they influence the generations after, and can Spinoza really be seen as the first philosopher of the rational Enlightenment?

Contributors

Jonathan Rée, historian and philosopher and Visiting Professor at Roehampton University

Sarah Hutton, Professor of English at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth

John Cottingham, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Reading

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20070503.shtml

Well, ah, not quite. In fact, Spinoza just teased out the full implications of the "traditional" Christian and Muslim view of G_d that had evolved in the Middle Ages. In that he was, of course, unique, in that he showed that such a god could not possibly be concerned with individuals, the race of mankind or anything else on such a particularistic level. Probably the term "concerned" does not even apply to such a being.

Is that "atheism?" Well, not exactly, but it certainly doesn't provide much satisfaction for someone who wants to have "a personal relationship with G_d" or even a tribal or species relationship. And the really disturbing thing is that this is a necessary implication of a god who is truly infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent, etc.

Which leaves a person who believes in G_d because he or she wants to believe that G_d IS concerned with his or her self, tribe or species with the concrete, limited, often somewhat testy, G_d of the Torah or nothing. That G_d, at least, is not so "above it all" that he can't have concerns.

I want to get rid of one of these two messages, and I wonder whether this is the right one.

Robert

Well, the Christians have come up with an intercessor who interprets between the One and the many. I don't see how that works, but it is an alternative to nothing and to the God of the Torah.

Furthermore, there is mystery, but I cannot talk about that sensibly.

Robert

Yah, and that is an interesting twist on both the Greek originated "supreme being" and the Torah's Big Guy interpretation of G_d.

One problem is, of course, that only the currently popular or recently currently popular variety of Christianity has this interpretation. Historically there were those who thought that Jesus was "only" a very very good man who became perfect or a god in human form who really wasn't human.

As you say, it is difficult to make sense out of something between those two. But then, "my son," it is "a mystery".

Furthermore, there is mystery, but I cannot talk about that sensibly.

This guy who is a gnostic philosopher touches on the mystery I found it very very interesting:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3892805257653534598&ei=Z3hkSpz4B5Pt-...