um...have any of these people read Spinoza? I'm talking about Benedictus de, author of Ethics. I'm not sure which Spinoza they're talking about...

"You can be a very smart person and be very dumb when it comes to religion."

I don't think Prothero knows how right he is.

Goldstein wrote "Betraying Spinoza: The Renegade Jew Who Gave Us Modernity". So she may know a bit more of Spinoza than you; plus, she taught Spinoza at university.

What exactly are they getting wrong? Theologico-Political Treatise was aimed at arguing against the unsurmountable authority of the religious institution to ultimately reconcile religious authority with faith. Spinoza was giving us, through his words, the power to dismiss religion as any meaningful alternative to reason.

If we review the definition of "dismiss," the interview is justified in its usage of the term. Although Spinoza [and Spinozists] would, by today's standards, be considered an "atheist" for brevity of the description, we all know any person of the 17th century up until the climax of the Scientific Revolution would recoil and raise hell for being labeled by such a term bearing such a stigma. However, Spinoza went further to explain the divinity of God or Nature in such a way which makes the equation of God and Nature to be more than simply attempting to avoid being labeled an atheist.

The mention of Spinoza's rejection of romantic love is factual, as the proof does exist in Ethics. I believe it's in On Human Bondage, but my memory is a little iffy right now.

The Spinoza of TPT established very soundly that religion is beneath that of reason, and religion can be dismissed for it is only obedience.

When I say "divinity," I use it in the sense that Spinoza uses it as having a chilling reverence toward the attribute of Thought in so far as the attribute of Thought pertains to the essence of God or Nature. In this way, the intellectual love of God is actually the intellectual love (through rigorous apprehension of knowledge) of God or Nature's maintaining of the infinite intellect which is the attribute of Thought itself. It is divine, but it is not divine in the same sense as religious divinity.

"Those are fighting words!"

/rolls her eyes/ This interviewer might as well be saying "I am going to fight for my continued state of stupidity!" Look, if faith and religion don't want to be held up to the same level of standards that science and reason hold themselves to, in terms of things like solid facts and repeatable research and accepting criticism, then yes religion had best resign itself to being lumped in with farces like alchemy and astrology.

Well, interviewers are supposed to make interviews as generally entertaining as possible. I believe the interviewer used that phrase to illicit a certain response from the guests.

The one thing that I don't understand is why smart people let themselves be defined as atheists (without or against god). This is a negative definition. It is odd to recognize the stigma of being labeled as an atheist and then fall into the trap of accepting that label anyway.

My own approach, which I have tried successfully on several different door-to-door Christian salespeople is to refer to myself as a "rationalist". "I am not an atheist, I'm a rationalist."

This naturally puts them in the category of being arational (without or against reason.)

The positive terms from each position then are "rationalist" and "theist".

It is much easier to have a pleasant, thoughtful, respectful conversation when each side doesn't accept the labeling from the other.

"Proud Atheist" has is feisty, but being feisty locks people into their positions.

So if you have been an "atheist" in the past, consider trying on "rationalist" next time.

It's liberating, in my view.

(BTW, this authentication method is lame. If a person gets the error message that the wrong text is entered, their's no link to try again. The back button doesn't give you new text to enter, so I was trapped into an endless look. Had to copy my message, abort, and then resubmit my comment. Stupid design]

aren't there a lot of vonnegut appreciators at this site? if there aren't, there should be. doesn't anyone remember his concept (most notably from "cat's cradle") that religion is a useful thing, and that a religion doesn't have to be true to be useful?

i think, aaron, that this is much closer to spinoza's approach in "tpt" than your version. no disrespect intended- you seem like a perfectly reasonable person and i'm aware that spinoza here is wide open to interpretation.

Ah, becker is back.

"The one thing that I don't understand is why smart people let themselves be defined as atheists (without or against god). This is a negative definition. It is odd to recognize the stigma of being labeled as an atheist and then fall into the trap of accepting that label anyway."

I use it when having a religious discussion with a religious person. They understand it better than "rationalist", and then they don't try to explain to me how religion is "rational". Immediately following any "rational" discussion about religion always leads to discussions of Pascal's Wager, St. Augustine's 7 proofs, how Einstein was a christian, and all that tripe.

Athiest is only seen as negative to evangelicals, but so is science, evolution, pro-choice, and universities. Frankly, I like being a part of that group of "negative" words.

I'm not familiar with Vonnegut's concept of Cat's Cradle that conveys the point you've shared. Nor would wish to claim my understanding of Spinoza should be accepted above anyone else's; however, I do not feel I was exactly sharing an "interpretation". I feel more that I was only expressing the aim Spinoza expressly set forth in TPT.

Now, what I've shared--and I apologize if it seemed to read this way--does not, I feel, suggest that religion is not useful. And further, I'd like to make a note that I did commit a typographical error. It should be "reconcile religious authority with reason". In any event, what I've shared of Spinoza in TPT isn't tackling the debate of the truth of religion as if it had any bearing on its usefulness. Spinoza explicits states in the preface to TPT that he would rather the more simple-minded (i.e., the religious) to avoid the work for they may not understand it completely and it would cause unnecessary disturbance of their mind.

I'm not quite sure how you came to the connection of religion's utility and its truth being debated in what I've said. But I suppose the conflict is easily and often perceived as such when one discusses reason and its inherent purpose, that is to attain Truth. To say "religion is beneath reason as an alternative" is not to say anything about whether or not religion is useful because their respective purposes as human conventions never cross. The two concepts, as Spinoza argues, are not in conflict. Therefore, religion can be useful simply because it is not in the business of attaining truth, and reason, being the consequent of the search for truth, is in such a business.

In short, reason is useful in so far as attaining to truth; whereas in so far as attaining to truth, religion is not useful. But this argument does not imply that only what is true is useful. It only argues that certain disciplines are better for obtaining Truth than others. Religion is useful in so far as whatever other domains of human living.

I hope that makes sense and even slightly clears it some of my stance. It may come off as an interpretation, but I think Spinoza makes its venture quite clear in its goals. And I'm only echoing through paraphrase what he has stated himself.

Now we can argue over if things are in themselves useful because of their truth. That would be fun, but this is not the argument I was sharing in my initial post. Nor is the one I was sharing in the latter.

I apologize for spamming, and for being long-winded. But!

We are both right, but it is possible that my tone may seem to come across as suggesting that what I've said is more correct than what you have said. It is true that Spinoza values religion for what it's worth, and it becomes a necessary tool for the state. For certain types of people, it is useful; but for philosophers (that would also include natural philosophers of the 17th century), the Truth is something that does not depend on tradition and the comfort religion implicitly claims afford to people.

But what is important is what you have said of Spinoza's approach. I think any defence of religion that Spinoza gives is simply to separate the traditions. Spinoza was attempting to create a climate for philosophy to flourish, unimpeded and unscathed by that of religious authority. And further, so that he could release the Ethics. The latter is common knowledge to anyone looking into Spinoza. Unfortunately, the situation got worse than he had expected, but the point is that he felt reason and religion can co-exist, just in case they respect each other's domain. Again, in so far as Truth goes, religion isn't the answer; and philosophy should be given free reign to explore Truth, whatever it may be and regardless of whatever other domains or traditions it comes into conflict with.

aaron, thanks for the carefully considered etc. etc. and also for the typo correction, it did indeed cause me some confusion.

i highly recommend (as if it needed my recommendation!) cat's cradle to one and all. the theologico-political treatise by reb baruch spinoza as well, of course. although it looks like aaron has already read that one.

glad to be back norm, and thanks, i think.

gosh, i missed you guys!

...in so far as Truth goes, religion isn't the answer; and philosophy should be given free reign to explore Truth, whatever it may be and regardless of whatever other domains or traditions it comes into conflict with.

just wanted to give a "hear, hear" to that point.

Added to my reading list.

Thanks!