Theological-Political Treatise

When Spinoza’s Theological-Political Treatise was published in 1670, it was immediately attacked as a “godless”, “atheistic” book intended to attack all religions. Many considered it the most dangerous book ever written and one reviewer described it as a “book forged in Hell.”

The reason it upset so many people was it said so many shocking things including that the “Bible is not literally the word of God, and ‘true religion’ has nothing to do with theology or liturgical ceremonies” and that religion boils down to the simple rule to love your neighbor. He dismissed the existence of miracles, said that Moses did not write the first five books of the Bible, and pioneered the use of critical text analysis for the Bible show more saying that the Bible is just a work of human literature.

This is a remarkably readable book and, despite all of the negative things said about it, it is actually very devout. The reason to book is so powerful and persuasive is that Spinoza provides detailed reasoning for all of his conjectures and his reasoning always start with a very precise reading of scripture.

Particularly interesting were the many chapters where Spinoza illustrated his methodology for critical text analysis. Although very detailed, it is fascinating to watch unfold. When he begins with the text, he looks at the original Hebrew letters and surmises that some misreading of specific letters could have led to erroneous translations. He also goes into great detail illustrating where scripture contradicts itself. He then concludes which passages can and cannot be believed due to these likely distortions. Spinoza shows genuine contempt for theologians who provide twisted reasoning in an effort to explain away these contradictions in order to defend Biblical inerrancy.

After reading Steven Nadler’s A Book Forged in Hell about Spinoza’s book, I felt compelled to read the original from Spinoza. I am glad I did. I read a very inexpensive e-book published by Grapevine and found the edition of high quality. There are, however, no footnotes or introductory remarks for this edition. show less

Fascinating--I'm glad I finally read this. Being raised an Atheist and knowing little about religion, I found this book very challenging, but informative. Spinoza's ultimate message seems to be that God/Religion is in the world around us--i.e. nature is God and God is nature. I'm surprised that he was allowed to advance this philosopy at the time that he did. He also seemed to employ quite a bit of sarcasm, which also surprised me, but which enlivened the reading.

Not as dull as it sounds

One quote review.
An excerpt from the book:

"The affirmations and the negations of 'God' always involve necessity or truth; so that, for example, if God said to Adam that He did not wish him to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, it would have involved a contradiction that Adam should have been able to eat of it, and would, therefore, have been impossible that he should have so eaten, for the Divine command would have involved an eternal necessity and truth. But since Scripture nevertheless narrates that God did give this command to Adam, and yet that none the less Adam ate of the tree, we must perforce say that God revealed to Adam the evil which would surely follow if he should eat of the tree, but did not disclose that such show more evil would of necessity come to pass. Thus it was that Adam took the revelation to be not an eternal and necessary truth, but a law - that is, an ordinance followed by gain or loss, not depending necessarily on the nature of the act performed, but solely on the will and absolute power of some potentate, so that the revelation in question was solely in relation to Adam, and solely through his lack of knowledge a law, and God was, as it were, a lawgiver and potentate. From the same cause, namely, from lack of knowledge, the Decalogue in relation to the Hebrews was a law. We conclude, therefore, that God is described as a lawgiver or prince, and styled just, merciful, etc., merely in concession to popular understanding, and the imperfection of popular knowledge; that in reality God acts and directs all things simply by the necessity of His nature and perfection, and that His decrees and volitions are eternal truths, and always involve necessity."

The key words in the excerpt are: "solely through the lack of knowledge" - the whole anthropomorphic domain of law, ínjunction, moral command, et cetera, is based on our ignorance; and the proposed ontological ethics are deprived of the deontological dimension.
_______________________________

Also, "Cigarette smoking may be hazardous to your health."
But that is not prohibited obviously — (Nothing is, nothing can be) — you're just informed of a cáusal link.

show less

One quote review.
An excerpt from the book:

"The affirmations and the negations of 'God' always involve necessity or truth; so that, for example, if God said to Adam that He did not wish him to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, it would have involved a contradiction that Adam should have been able to eat of it, and would, therefore, have been impossible that he should have so eaten, for the Divine command would have involved an eternal necessity and truth. But since Scripture nevertheless narrates that God did give this command to Adam, and yet that none the less Adam ate of the tree, we must perforce say that God revealed to Adam the evil which would surely follow if he should eat of the tree, but did not disclose that such show more evil would of necessity come to pass. Thus it was that Adam took the revelation to be not an eternal and necessary truth, but a law - that is, an ordinance followed by gain or loss, not depending necessarily on the nature of the act performed, but solely on the will and absolute power of some potentate, so that the revelation in question was solely in relation to Adam, and solely through his lack of knowledge a law, and God was, as it were, a lawgiver and potentate. From the same cause, namely, from lack of knowledge, the Decalogue in relation to the Hebrews was a law. We conclude, therefore, that God is described as a lawgiver or prince, and styled just, merciful, etc., merely in concession to popular understanding, and the imperfection of popular knowledge; that in reality God acts and directs all things simply by the necessity of His nature and perfection, and that His decrees and volitions are eternal truths, and always involve necessity."

The key words in the excerpt are: "solely through the lack of knowledge" - the whole anthropomorphic domain of law, ínjunction, moral command, et cetera, is based on our ignorance; and the proposed ontological ethics are deprived of the deontological dimension.
_______________________________

Also, "Cigarette smoking may be hazardous to your health."
But that is not prohibited obviously — (Nothing is, nothing can be) — you're just informed of a cáusal link.

show less

I know, I know that I also have this in French and in Latin but I bought the intro by Jonathan Israel.

Qué escándalo que debió haber causado este libro en 1670, si incluso hoy muchas de sus ideas deben ser muy avanzadas para ciertas personas: la Biblia no es la palabra de Dios, ni el Pentateuco fue escrito por Moisés, la Biblia fue escrita por seres humanos, con el propósito básico de hacer que el pueblo judío obedeciera órdenes para garantizar la "cohesión social". Los milagros son básicamente supersticiones. Y finalmente, el Estado debe ponerse por encima de las distintas facciones religiosas para garantizar que ninguna de ellas pueda usurpar derechos básicos: de pensar lo que se quiera, de decir lo que se piensa, para garantizar finalmente la tolerancia religiosa. Este libro está en el origen de la concepción moderna del show more estado secular, liberal, tolerante y pluralista. Fue casi que universalmente condenado por sus contemporáneos cuando Spinoza lo publicó anónimamente (para protegerse de la intolerancia religiosa, precisamente). show less