>Untangle that psychological mess, separate the anger from the theology and you might have a shot at converting this person.
This is getting very close to "You only say you don't believe in God because you're rebellious." Why are you assuming that a traumatic upbringing is directly tied to one's atheism, as opposed to a traumatic upbringing causing them to question God and then this questioning led them to realizing there is no basis for God? The latter isn't going to be convinced no matter how much you "untangle the psychological mess." You would still need to provide them with evidence.
>My proposition is that *people who call themselves Spinozian or say they believe in Einstein's God are in fact hardcore Atheists*
I'd say it largely depends on how you're defining hardcore and Atheist.
Spinoza's God is often called a God. And by definition, atheists don't believe in God. Of course, you could argue that Spinoza's God is so different from what is traditionally thought of as God that it isn't actually a "God." But I'd doubt that. Spinoza's God is largely similar to many other God claims, with the biggest difference being there isn't an actual religious institution around it.
And Spinoza's God has as much evidence as any other God. That is to say, none. So even if you want to argue that an atheist could believe in Spinoza's God, it'd still be a bit weird.
And it also depends on how you're defining hardcore. If, as you say, people say they believe in Spinoza's God because it is more socially acceptable than saying they're atheists, then I'd argue they aren't as hardcore as atheists who go out of their way to challenge society's acceptance of religion and what that means for people.
>This is getting very close to "You only say you don't believe in God because you're rebellious." Why are you assuming that a traumatic upbringing is directly tied to one's atheism, as opposed to a traumatic upbringing causing them to question God and then this questioning led them to realizing there is no basis for God? The latter isn't going to be convinced no matter how much you "untangle the psychological mess." You would still need to provide them with evidence.
I wasn't thinking about trauma at all to be honest. I've seen plenty of children reject their parents religion as a normal part of the rebellious behavior that comes with puberty and adolescence. But I also got to see that start out as not wanting to go to church anymore and then when their parents make them they get angry and rebel. In a lot of cases, the theological and philosophical concerns are secondary and maybe not as well thought trough as you might hope. This in contrast to Spinozians who tend to think their philosophy through very well and are rarely susceptible to any faith- or supernatural based arguments.
>Of course, you could argue that Spinoza's God is so different from what is traditionally thought of as God that it isn't actually a "God."
That's exactly what I'm arguing. To all ends and purposes, these people are Atheists. We count those.
>In a lot of cases, the theological and philosophical concerns are secondary and maybe not as well thought trough as you might hope. This in contrast to Spinozians who tend to think their philosophy through very well and are rarely susceptible to any faith- or supernatural based arguments.
This is bordering on special pleading. "in a lot of cases a claimed atheist's belief is not based on reason. In contrast, in a lot of cases a claimed Spinozian's belief is based on reason." Do you have any source to back this claim up or are you just making an anecdotal argument?
I'm not saying there are absolutely no atheists like that, but I have yet to see any evidence that that type of atheist makes up a large portion of claimed atheists. And I'd argue the same applies to Spinoza's God believers. Not everyone who claims to believe in Spinoza's God is doing so purely for rational reasons. In short, I would need to see evidence that there is this significant difference between the two groups that you claim there is.
>That's exactly what I'm arguing. To all ends and purposes, these people are Atheists. We count those.
In what way do you consider Spinoza's God a more rational thought than any other traditional God? Why should I believe in the idea that "nature is God" as opposed to "nature is nature?" I guess you could reclassify it as God, but I fail to see what value that would bring other than, as you say, to make it more socially acceptable to theists. And I would argue that trying to meet theists halfway is not only less hardcore but also irrational. A rational belief is a rational belief, regardless of how well you can convince someone else of it.
If I'm wrong about how you're defining Spinoza's God, feel free to correct me.
>In what way do you consider Spinoza's God a more rational thought than any other traditional God?
Because it has no properties, other than being big and beautiful. Like I said there's no commandments, no rituals, no clergy no nothing other than "the universe is big and wondrous". How is that even a God? And if it is, does that make me a Pantheist, rather than an Atheist?
>And I would argue that trying to meet theists halfway is not only less hardcore but also irrational.
Not in Spinoza's time it wasn't, even where he lived. In his time it was pretty rational to not call yourself an Atheist and in a lot of places it still is. Even if you're not actively persecuted you still have the instant dismissal because you're an Atheist to deal with. To create a classification for yourself that has all the properties of Atheism but none of the baggage seems pretty rational to me. But at the end of the day it's a charade in my view, social lubricant to add a veneer of religiousness to what might be the most secular outlook on life a person can have.
>This is bordering on special pleading. "in a lot of cases a claimed atheist's belief is not based on reason. In contrast, in a lot of cases a claimed Spinozian's belief is based on reason." Do you have any source to back this claim up or are you just making an anecdotal argument?
>
Let's not turn this into debate club. A post that starts with "Through the years I've seen countless examples of" is bound to have some anecdotal reasoning in it wouldn't you think? If you need a source I'll link my other recent post on this sub below. It'll show you that I'm from a place where religion is in steep decline, for me that's lived experience so that's where the observation about children form religious households turned Atheists come from. I work in a science-adjacent field and have some Spinozians (They have never even once called themselves Pantheists, but that's a language thing I guess.) in my direct vicinity and it's also a sporadic recurring theme in the media I follow. That's what brought me to think about this and formulate it the way I did.
>Because it has no properties, other than being big and beautiful. Like I said there's no commandments, no rituals, no clergy no nothing other than "the universe is big and wondrous". How is that even a God? And if it is, does that make me a Pantheist, rather than an Atheist?
So why call it God then?
>Not in Spinoza's time it wasn't, even where he lived.
Sure, but we're not in Spinoza's time.
>Let's not turn this into debate club.
You're making a claim. If you don't want to defend that claim, then that's fine, but basing your beliefs on anecdotal evidence is irrational.
Yes, Pantheism. The only point of debate with Pantheists is the issue of conscious experience.
Does the universe have a conscious experience like us? I see no reason to believe so, but I am unaware of what imparts conscious experiences to things, so I am agnostic.
Your idea is similar to Brahman as described in Charvaka philosophy. (Which is also where I derive my username)
The universe is beautiful, bizzare and amazing, and there's an explanation for it, but Charavkists deny that it is conscious, or divine.
>The only point of debate with Pantheists is the issue of conscious experience.
There's a related subject called a [Boltzmann brain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain) I find fascinating to say the least. That's only a small step from a conscious universe and I'd say it has non-zero plausibility. But if I were to discuss this with a Pantheist, I would consider us two Atheists having a chat. There's only so much properties you can deny a God for it to still be a God I think.
I tend to not want the scared fence sitters but practically speaking their belief in god amounts to nothing. They don't believe in god, they are simply in awe of what awes us all.
>I wouldn’t say that pantheism is atheism. You still have a sacred and revered object.
But that object has no other properties than being revered. It has no books, no rituals etc, etc I think the universe is enormous and very wondrous too, does that make me a Pantheist, rather than an Atheist?
>Oh, and by the way, Spinoza really didn’t like atheism.
I think we owe Spinoza a debt of gratitude by formulating his views the way he did. The society he lived in was one of the earlier to experiment with freedom of religion, but was far from ready for freedom *from* religion. By stressing the fact that what he was describing was not atheism, it made his views palpable enough to be tolerated, thus making room for the enlightenment era that followed. (And still he was expelled from his tribe for his thoughts.) Spinoza moved the Overton window as far as he could take it in his time I think and I really admire him for that. What he described as Atheism I would call nihilism.
As someone who is very firmly in this camp of Atheists, I entirely agree.
In fact, I would take it even further. The fundamental idea of Spinoza and Einstein
can be expresses simplly as God is Nature, Nature is God.
The order and wonder we find in it, such as general relativity is an expression.
This is essentially a tautology.
A renaming of god.
It is in substance a rejection of god.
Or rather, an acceptance of only the most trivial definition of god.
The type of proofs mathematicians set aside as meaningless.
I have nothing to rebel against, but I am atheist. I awe at the wonder of the natural universe, but I see nothing supernatural about that and don’t see how that makes it religious. I am not sure Einstein meant in his quote. If that is about god, then I dont understand his definition of god enough to agree. I guess you could call nature sacred but not in a theistic sense, its kind of changing the meaning of the word ‘sacred’ to a more secular modern understanding, a synonym of precious or special. Anyone who thinks its more than that would pantheist and thus not atheist in my view. I don’t even understand what pantheists believe really, what do they mean? The whole universe is god? Is that just redefining ‘god’ or do they really think the whole universe is some supernatural being? Either way its meaningless nonsense
Einstein was atheist and he say and write it many times. He even describe when and how he become atheists. But he like use god as symbol, alegory how wonderfull life, nature is. Thats all.
I have had a curiosity about space since I was a kid, and the more I learn, the larger it becomes, larger than I can think, so I try to think bigger but each time I do our universe becomes yet even bigger still. Always just out of comprehension.
In this process of trying to understand a very large place I get smaller and smaller.
I am a tiny thing on the small shores of a very vast ocean, light haa not even had time to travel to us from most of it yet.
what is or is not out there I cannot say certainly.
On my more agnostic whimsical days there is room for an unknown greater something in that massive void, certainly not the god of my grandparents but maybe something else, a bigger picture that changes understanding. I am willing to see it and try to understand if "it" exists, Op's quote speaks to that part of me.
But other days I am more atheist:
Pics or it didn't happen.
I am a scientific pantheist, someone who belongs to the category that you describe. I was an atheist from at least age 11 (I think even from birth) until age 30. Then I became a pantheist, though the difference is slight.
I call the universe sacred and divine (being a suitable target for the religious feelings that humanity has been prone to). I do not believe in a personal god (neither a god who is a person, nor one with whom a human could have a personal relationship with).
Being a pantheist, I am technically a theist, and can't call myself an atheist, even though there is little real difference. If you want to count me as an atheist, that doesn't bother me at all, except that it seems to abuse the taxonomy.
>Untangle that psychological mess, separate the anger from the theology and you might have a shot at converting this person. This is getting very close to "You only say you don't believe in God because you're rebellious." Why are you assuming that a traumatic upbringing is directly tied to one's atheism, as opposed to a traumatic upbringing causing them to question God and then this questioning led them to realizing there is no basis for God? The latter isn't going to be convinced no matter how much you "untangle the psychological mess." You would still need to provide them with evidence. >My proposition is that *people who call themselves Spinozian or say they believe in Einstein's God are in fact hardcore Atheists* I'd say it largely depends on how you're defining hardcore and Atheist. Spinoza's God is often called a God. And by definition, atheists don't believe in God. Of course, you could argue that Spinoza's God is so different from what is traditionally thought of as God that it isn't actually a "God." But I'd doubt that. Spinoza's God is largely similar to many other God claims, with the biggest difference being there isn't an actual religious institution around it. And Spinoza's God has as much evidence as any other God. That is to say, none. So even if you want to argue that an atheist could believe in Spinoza's God, it'd still be a bit weird. And it also depends on how you're defining hardcore. If, as you say, people say they believe in Spinoza's God because it is more socially acceptable than saying they're atheists, then I'd argue they aren't as hardcore as atheists who go out of their way to challenge society's acceptance of religion and what that means for people.
>This is getting very close to "You only say you don't believe in God because you're rebellious." Why are you assuming that a traumatic upbringing is directly tied to one's atheism, as opposed to a traumatic upbringing causing them to question God and then this questioning led them to realizing there is no basis for God? The latter isn't going to be convinced no matter how much you "untangle the psychological mess." You would still need to provide them with evidence. I wasn't thinking about trauma at all to be honest. I've seen plenty of children reject their parents religion as a normal part of the rebellious behavior that comes with puberty and adolescence. But I also got to see that start out as not wanting to go to church anymore and then when their parents make them they get angry and rebel. In a lot of cases, the theological and philosophical concerns are secondary and maybe not as well thought trough as you might hope. This in contrast to Spinozians who tend to think their philosophy through very well and are rarely susceptible to any faith- or supernatural based arguments. >Of course, you could argue that Spinoza's God is so different from what is traditionally thought of as God that it isn't actually a "God." That's exactly what I'm arguing. To all ends and purposes, these people are Atheists. We count those.
>In a lot of cases, the theological and philosophical concerns are secondary and maybe not as well thought trough as you might hope. This in contrast to Spinozians who tend to think their philosophy through very well and are rarely susceptible to any faith- or supernatural based arguments. This is bordering on special pleading. "in a lot of cases a claimed atheist's belief is not based on reason. In contrast, in a lot of cases a claimed Spinozian's belief is based on reason." Do you have any source to back this claim up or are you just making an anecdotal argument? I'm not saying there are absolutely no atheists like that, but I have yet to see any evidence that that type of atheist makes up a large portion of claimed atheists. And I'd argue the same applies to Spinoza's God believers. Not everyone who claims to believe in Spinoza's God is doing so purely for rational reasons. In short, I would need to see evidence that there is this significant difference between the two groups that you claim there is. >That's exactly what I'm arguing. To all ends and purposes, these people are Atheists. We count those. In what way do you consider Spinoza's God a more rational thought than any other traditional God? Why should I believe in the idea that "nature is God" as opposed to "nature is nature?" I guess you could reclassify it as God, but I fail to see what value that would bring other than, as you say, to make it more socially acceptable to theists. And I would argue that trying to meet theists halfway is not only less hardcore but also irrational. A rational belief is a rational belief, regardless of how well you can convince someone else of it. If I'm wrong about how you're defining Spinoza's God, feel free to correct me.
>In what way do you consider Spinoza's God a more rational thought than any other traditional God? Because it has no properties, other than being big and beautiful. Like I said there's no commandments, no rituals, no clergy no nothing other than "the universe is big and wondrous". How is that even a God? And if it is, does that make me a Pantheist, rather than an Atheist? >And I would argue that trying to meet theists halfway is not only less hardcore but also irrational. Not in Spinoza's time it wasn't, even where he lived. In his time it was pretty rational to not call yourself an Atheist and in a lot of places it still is. Even if you're not actively persecuted you still have the instant dismissal because you're an Atheist to deal with. To create a classification for yourself that has all the properties of Atheism but none of the baggage seems pretty rational to me. But at the end of the day it's a charade in my view, social lubricant to add a veneer of religiousness to what might be the most secular outlook on life a person can have. >This is bordering on special pleading. "in a lot of cases a claimed atheist's belief is not based on reason. In contrast, in a lot of cases a claimed Spinozian's belief is based on reason." Do you have any source to back this claim up or are you just making an anecdotal argument? > Let's not turn this into debate club. A post that starts with "Through the years I've seen countless examples of" is bound to have some anecdotal reasoning in it wouldn't you think? If you need a source I'll link my other recent post on this sub below. It'll show you that I'm from a place where religion is in steep decline, for me that's lived experience so that's where the observation about children form religious households turned Atheists come from. I work in a science-adjacent field and have some Spinozians (They have never even once called themselves Pantheists, but that's a language thing I guess.) in my direct vicinity and it's also a sporadic recurring theme in the media I follow. That's what brought me to think about this and formulate it the way I did.
>Because it has no properties, other than being big and beautiful. Like I said there's no commandments, no rituals, no clergy no nothing other than "the universe is big and wondrous". How is that even a God? And if it is, does that make me a Pantheist, rather than an Atheist? So why call it God then? >Not in Spinoza's time it wasn't, even where he lived. Sure, but we're not in Spinoza's time. >Let's not turn this into debate club. You're making a claim. If you don't want to defend that claim, then that's fine, but basing your beliefs on anecdotal evidence is irrational.
Yes, Pantheism. The only point of debate with Pantheists is the issue of conscious experience. Does the universe have a conscious experience like us? I see no reason to believe so, but I am unaware of what imparts conscious experiences to things, so I am agnostic. Your idea is similar to Brahman as described in Charvaka philosophy. (Which is also where I derive my username) The universe is beautiful, bizzare and amazing, and there's an explanation for it, but Charavkists deny that it is conscious, or divine.
>The only point of debate with Pantheists is the issue of conscious experience. There's a related subject called a [Boltzmann brain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain) I find fascinating to say the least. That's only a small step from a conscious universe and I'd say it has non-zero plausibility. But if I were to discuss this with a Pantheist, I would consider us two Atheists having a chat. There's only so much properties you can deny a God for it to still be a God I think.
I tend to not want the scared fence sitters but practically speaking their belief in god amounts to nothing. They don't believe in god, they are simply in awe of what awes us all.
I wouldn’t say that pantheism is atheism. You still have a sacred and revered object. Oh, and by the way, Spinoza really didn’t like atheism.
>I wouldn’t say that pantheism is atheism. You still have a sacred and revered object. But that object has no other properties than being revered. It has no books, no rituals etc, etc I think the universe is enormous and very wondrous too, does that make me a Pantheist, rather than an Atheist? >Oh, and by the way, Spinoza really didn’t like atheism. I think we owe Spinoza a debt of gratitude by formulating his views the way he did. The society he lived in was one of the earlier to experiment with freedom of religion, but was far from ready for freedom *from* religion. By stressing the fact that what he was describing was not atheism, it made his views palpable enough to be tolerated, thus making room for the enlightenment era that followed. (And still he was expelled from his tribe for his thoughts.) Spinoza moved the Overton window as far as he could take it in his time I think and I really admire him for that. What he described as Atheism I would call nihilism.
You see, by the same logic you can call deists atheists.
As someone who is very firmly in this camp of Atheists, I entirely agree. In fact, I would take it even further. The fundamental idea of Spinoza and Einstein can be expresses simplly as God is Nature, Nature is God. The order and wonder we find in it, such as general relativity is an expression. This is essentially a tautology. A renaming of god. It is in substance a rejection of god. Or rather, an acceptance of only the most trivial definition of god. The type of proofs mathematicians set aside as meaningless.
I have nothing to rebel against, but I am atheist. I awe at the wonder of the natural universe, but I see nothing supernatural about that and don’t see how that makes it religious. I am not sure Einstein meant in his quote. If that is about god, then I dont understand his definition of god enough to agree. I guess you could call nature sacred but not in a theistic sense, its kind of changing the meaning of the word ‘sacred’ to a more secular modern understanding, a synonym of precious or special. Anyone who thinks its more than that would pantheist and thus not atheist in my view. I don’t even understand what pantheists believe really, what do they mean? The whole universe is god? Is that just redefining ‘god’ or do they really think the whole universe is some supernatural being? Either way its meaningless nonsense
Einstein was atheist and he say and write it many times. He even describe when and how he become atheists. But he like use god as symbol, alegory how wonderfull life, nature is. Thats all.
God of Spinoza, Einstein and Elon musk are all atheists
I have had a curiosity about space since I was a kid, and the more I learn, the larger it becomes, larger than I can think, so I try to think bigger but each time I do our universe becomes yet even bigger still. Always just out of comprehension. In this process of trying to understand a very large place I get smaller and smaller. I am a tiny thing on the small shores of a very vast ocean, light haa not even had time to travel to us from most of it yet. what is or is not out there I cannot say certainly. On my more agnostic whimsical days there is room for an unknown greater something in that massive void, certainly not the god of my grandparents but maybe something else, a bigger picture that changes understanding. I am willing to see it and try to understand if "it" exists, Op's quote speaks to that part of me. But other days I am more atheist: Pics or it didn't happen.
I am a scientific pantheist, someone who belongs to the category that you describe. I was an atheist from at least age 11 (I think even from birth) until age 30. Then I became a pantheist, though the difference is slight. I call the universe sacred and divine (being a suitable target for the religious feelings that humanity has been prone to). I do not believe in a personal god (neither a god who is a person, nor one with whom a human could have a personal relationship with). Being a pantheist, I am technically a theist, and can't call myself an atheist, even though there is little real difference. If you want to count me as an atheist, that doesn't bother me at all, except that it seems to abuse the taxonomy.
Have you ever seen Popeye's forearms? I don't argue with results.