Topic: Spinoza God

Human psychology is shaped by the struggle between desires pushing us to act and fear
holding us back from taking certain actions. We are particularly fearful of the unknown, the
unexplainable and most of all death. The concept of God (or Gods) serves the purpose of
providing an answer in our mental enquiry about certain facts which have dramatic impact on
our lives. The assignment of unexplainable phenomena to a higher being is of great comfort to
our psyche. Not surprisingly this higher being (of beings) is typically represented
anthropomorphically in order to satisfy our emotional needs. Spinoza challenges this view by
offering a more holistic interpretation of God as Nature or substance consisting of infinite
attributes which cannot be ascribed to human beings (Ethics, Scholium 2 Pr. 7, I; Pr. 11, I ; and
Preface, IV). In this paper I will argue that as human agent, we are better served by the
recognition of our place in Nature as proposed by Spinoza rather than leading a life at the mercy
of an all powerful God which we have imagined to possess the human forms. My argument is
based on the view that a good concept of God should meet the following requirements: (1)
Appeal to reason and not just emotions, (2) Accessible to all, (3) Motivate us to act. These three
criteria will be explicated and evaluated in turn. I will address an objection to this view before
offering a reply and conclude.
The collision between reason and faith is a theme often repeated in time by philosophers
in their enquiry on the ontology and epistemology of the concept of Supreme Being or God.
Plato expounded on the difficulty in defining the concept of piety in Euthyphro leaving us with a
dilemma to be resolved through reasoning (Euthyphro 10b, 15d). In the opening paragraph of

The Guide for the Perplexed, Maimonides specified one of the major topics of his book which
aims to explicate the identity and essence of God and his attributes:
Some have been of opinion that by the Hebrew zelem, the shape
and figure of a thing is to be understood, and this explanation led
men to believe in the corporeality [of the Divine Being]: for they
thought that the words " Let us make man in our zelem (Gen. i.
26), implied that God had the form of a human being, i.e., that He
had figure and shape, and that, consequently, He was corporeal.
(The Guide for the Perplexed Chapter 1, Part I).

Building on this tradition, Spinoza offered his own definition of God, not as an
anthropomorphic version of human beings, but as a self-caused, immanent, eternal, indivisible
and perfect substance constituting of infinite attributes with infinite essence (Ethics, Pr. 11, 13,
18 Part I). Spinoza God or Natures two attributes which can be perceived by humans are
defined as extension, which is spatially defined and finite, and as thought which could be finite
or infinite. According to Spinoza, the concept as God as a projection of humans form and makeup is a product of our imagination whereas through reason we would think of God as something
entirely self-conceived, autonomous, absolutely infinite, without boundary and the cause for the
existence of all things. In fact, all things including humans are forms which the attributes of God
could take; our existence is determined by Nature and not by chance (Ethics Pr. 25, 26, 29 Part
1). Moreover, all finite things including humans are interdependent in their existence and their
unavoidable change is caused and determined by each other. Spinozas interpretation is that
humans, as part of Nature and owing their existence to Nature ie. being Natura naturata, are
connected to and are dependent on everything else in Nature (Ethics, Pr. 28 Part 1). This
interconnected network of existence with continuous cause and effect extends to human intellect,
thought, emotion, desire and will (Ethics, Pr. 30-33 Part 1).

With Spinozas interpretation of God now explicated, we can evaluate it against the three
criteria which have been selected for this assessment, namely soundness, accessibility and
motivational. In selecting the three criteria, I have adopted Spinozas definition of good as that
which we certainly know to be useful to us (Ethics, Part IV, Def.). So a good concept of God
should have the following characteristics: that we can derive its existence through reason and not
through the senses, that it is a concept which we can find a connection with, and finally that the
understanding of this concept would change our worldview and motivate us to act in a certain
ways.
Descartes wrote that good sense or reason is the best distributed thing in the world and
is naturally equal in all men (Discourse on Method, Part 1 French page 2). So it seems
eminently logical for us to use reason in our enquiry about the concept of God in our attempt to
understand difficult facts about life. Paradoxically faith has traditionally dominated the concept
of God so reason lost out to dogmatic ideas and we typically rely on common beliefs or emotions
to define the existence and nature of God. However, if reason were to prevail, the concept of God
could not possibly lead us to an anthropomorphic picture as representative of an infinite,
immanent and self-caused substance which can manifest itself in a multitude ways in nature
rather than solely to our liking.
So why are we attracted to an image of God who looks like us? I reckon that we can
connect more readily with this view. The fatherly image of a God looking over us and to whom
we owe both reverence and fear somehow appeal to our emotional needs for comfort and
dependency. It is an interpretation requiring minimum mental effort which meets our basic need
for a psychological answer to most lifes questions which are beyond our comprehension. But
like all things, what you get depends on how much you put in, and I posit that we can gain more

understanding by taking a more holistic view about the concept of God. The relationship we
would establish with God or Nature is through the fact that we are an intrinsic part of it, that we
are intimately connected to nature and that we can influence and be influenced by all things in
nature. It is a sense of freedom and responsibility instead of dependency. I find this view more
accessible and liberating than the picture of an oversight from a human-like beneficent God as it
instills in us a sense of self-sufficiency.
Finally, how would our worldview and inclination to act be different depending on our
interpretation of the concept of God? An anthropomorphic view of God would likely inspire us
to emulate a perfect being and instill in us the fear of a powerful and all knowing being who is
watching over our thoughts and actions. Hope through prayers to God and fear of punishment
from God are some of the psychological impact of the view that we are created in the image and
likeness of God. On the other hand, viewing God as Nature existing all around us, extending
through us and being part of our intellect wrought a deep sense of unity with the world, a feeling
of connectivity and responsibility toward all beings and a satisfying sense of freedom from any
higher authority. I believe that this holistic view will inspire us to reach deeper in ourselves to
look for the perfection of nature in us and to accept whatever happens to us with greater
understanding and serenity.
Objections which could be raised against a view of God as Nature would be our
alienation from such an abstract concept and the tough demand for reflection required to fully
appreciate it. In other words, how do we build a connection with a concept unrelated to any
corporeal attribute which we are accustomed to? Notwithstanding the fact that any concept of
God is a priory a product of human intellect so appeal to feelings should be minimized, I assume
that Spinoza would argue that a deeper sense of connection can be obtained with a non-

anthropomorphic concept of God. Here is a possible reply: we may initially approach with
skepticism such an unfamiliar concept of God but will build a stronger psychological connection
with ideas and concepts which we have acquired through introspection as they tend to be longer
lasting and less influenced by appearances or emotions. Once we have realized the sense of
liberation from any burden of hope or fear of the unknown, and have understood the logical and
natural connection that we have with everything around us, we will acquire higher confidence in
ourselves and build a stronger bond with other beings. By acknowledging ourselves as being part
of Nature and by accepting our interconnectivity and dependency with other beings, we will
develop as sense of humility and mutual respect rather than selfish aspiration for our own wellbeing. Faith in God and his benevolence could be appealing but faith in ourselves as part of an
interconnected world is far more liberating.
In conclusion, Spinozas concept of God or Nature breaks the psychological bondage
tying humans fear of the unexplainable with its call for salvation from a Super Being. In its
place we have been offered a unified concept of Nature. It is a concept which appeals to our
reason, is fully accessible to our sense of belonging and inspires us to act in accordance with our
joint interests. Reaching this level of understanding of God as Nature may not be possible to all
without help so access to teaching from those who have acquired the wisdom and demonstrated
true appreciation of how to live harmoniously with Nature would be necessary to ensure wide
acceptance of this view about God. If we accept Spinozas concept of God then perhaps we have
found the answer to Euthyphros dilemma of whether something is loved by the gods because it
is good or it is good because the gods love it?
References
Descartes R., Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy, translated by

Donald Cress, 4th edition (1998).