One of our Buchanan classes from last semester was Astronomy. In that class, we talked a lot about the use of infinity. Many people may have various definitions of the word infinity. Thanks to our good friend better known as Google, there are two different definitions.
1. The state or quality of being infinite.
2. An infinite or very great number or amount.
These definitions tend to go along with the ideas Spinoza had. He said that is God were infinite like everyone says, that there must be nothing that isn't God. He took the saying that God is infinite very literally. Often times when we are talking about God being infinite, we are talking about time going on forever. In Christianity, once you accept the gift of salvation, you know that you will live forever in God's kingdom. This idea of infinity to Spinoza was mistaken for things as opposed to eternity. In today's discussion, we talked about time relative to infinity. If time is infinite, does that change our look on things? One discussion question that we raised was, "Is every human action the result of an earlier cause? This was the main focus of our discussion for today. We were torn between a few ideas. Sometimes we use the actions in the past to keep us from making the same mistakes. Then we changed the direction to theories. Kailey and Mason brought up the idea of the Butterfly Effect. This is the idea that a butterfly flapping its wings in the western part of the world could cause something as massive as a tornado in the eastern part of the world. This is the idea that very small events can have very tremendous effects in the world. (Better watch out for those butterflies...)
Another connection was made by Trevor. In the movie Back to the Future, when they went back to the future and changed just a few small details in the past. Once they did this, the present brother began disappearing. I know time travel is not related to linear time... but I figured it was a bit to think about!
D.Q: (totally off topic) Does everyone see the same color, or were we all just taught our own ideas of colors?F.Q: Whar is the definition of Pantheism?
Answer: The belief that God is everything.
Here is a link to a website discussing linear time. http://www.manage-time.com/linear.html
I don't be necessarily think the idea is crazy,but I do find it hard to wrap my mind around. I think it is an interesting idea though. If one believes God is in everything you do or that happens, then couldn't God be everything? Isn't that, essentially, the idea of mother nature only renamed God? Also, in the post it said he mistook infinity to refer to things when, actually, it refers to time. How can we know what it refers to? Maybe it is different to every person. For example, how every one seems to believe in a different type of God. H1-01
ReplyDeleteWhile I don't necessarily believe Spinoza's theory... it makes sense to me. God is already in every christian as the "holy spirit"--it's a small leap of faith to think that this omnipotent and omniscient god is Nature as well!
ReplyDeleteIn fact, a great many religions believe this, or a very similar idea of this. New Age Unitarians, Wiccans, Native American religions are just a few that come to mind (for more, wiki "pantheism").
I guess what I'm asking is, what exactly is it that makes "pantheism" crazy, other than that it doesn't subscribe to your personal believes about what god is? You hinted at infinitudes... but I, like Quinian, don't think that that is a good enough logical fallacy.
DQ: expand on this?
Honestly, I wrote this more from my perspective than from the group as a whole. This topic has many different views. The main problem I had was that he said since God is everything, he doesn't care about anyone or anything. That statement alone is hard for me to believe simply because I am a Chrisitan. I understand where some people would say it is similar because of the Holy Spirit. I however, do not believe in his idea. Granted, I am just one person, and I am not by any means trying to persuade people to believe like I do.
DeleteI know that's what you believe haha, my question is WHY is your idea of god... more valid than Spinoza's idea of god?
Delete(I actually, for once, don't have an opinion on this one haha)
This question extends to anyone btw haha
Well I base my idea of God straight out of the bible. To me, this is more valid, but his God may be more valid to him. I'm not saying anyone's God is better than anyone elses. But to each person, their God is more valid.
DeleteI forgot to state that this is group 2. I always leave something out.
ReplyDeleteHmmm...I don't think Spinoza was talking about the Christian God at all. It clearly states in the bible that, "In the beginning there was nothing..." and then God created everything, therefore implying that God wasn't a part of everything. How could he/she create himself/herself? Spinoza's idea was pantheism, and that idea/religion concerns a completely different God (if that's how you'll define what pantheism considers the deistic creator). I think the reason his idea sounded so ridic was because he was an atheist who expanded on the Christian saying that God is infinite, and wanted people to think that the idea was stupid, therefore the Christian God is stupid. I don't think he honestly believed that God was in everything, I think that he believed nature was beautiful and that everything happened because it happened: not because a sentient God willed it so, and pantheism was created because Spinoza was trying to be analogical and some people took it literally. I just can't mesh together that God is everything because a) how did everything get created then? b) he doesn't explain whether or not this deity has sentient thought, is omnipotent, omniscient, etc...it just sounds like a random expansion on what he thought was a silly belief (God is infinite), and that he had no back up evidence or stories or explanations.
ReplyDeleteBeing a determinist was also wack, because if there is no God actively participating in our lives or concerned with them, then why is free will an illusion? Yes, our frame of reference affects our choices, but it doesn't make them for us. Our choices are ultimately random and are decided by us. People do things randomly sometimes, on impulse. How is that determined?
In Yusra's fashion, my two cents,
-Jake (H01)
FQ: What three groups does Will Kymlicka describe as minority groups that deserve lawful protection?
A: 1)indigenous people 2) historical, regional, and linguistic minority groups 3) immigrants!
Here's a link that I found interesting:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/04/is-conscious-ch.html
I totally agree with you, and the free will being an illusion also struck me as odd. I everything was predetermined, why waste any time or energy at all thinking? We would merely be vessels that act upon a situation according to previous actions. Also, why waste time arguing a point of view if everything is unchangeable, and if rational thought is not involved, why learn or go to school, because you cannot influence your own choices no matter what you have learned?
DeleteFrom http://boogerschnot.joeuser.com/article/7155
"Determinism is self-defeating. A determinist insists that both determinists and non-determinists are determined to believe what they believe. However, determinists believe self-determinists are wrong and ought to change their view. But "ought to change" implies they are free to change, which is contrary to determinism, since how can one change what is already determined."
Determinism is irrational. C.S. Lewis argued that naturalistic, complete determinism is irrational. For determinism to be true, there would have to be a rational basis for their thought. But if determinism is true, then there is no rational basis for thought, since non-rational forces determine all. So, if determinism claims to be true, then it must be false. Do you get it?"
I feel like determinism is just another way to absolve people from feeling guilty for wrongdoings. All you have to say is that you were predetermined to do so, its out of your control, and you cant be punished, because you did not actively make the choice. They cant blame you for acting immorally if the decision was out of your hands, so no one can take action against you. This belief just seems like another way for people to commit any act they the desire to endeavor upon.
DQ: If Determinism were true, could chaotic events exist? If no, Why aren't all or most events in life predictable? If yes, how could determinism still be true?
FQ: Who wrote proofs on philosophy?
A: Spinoza
Mason Riley H1
I agree with Jake that I don't think Spinoza believes in the same god Christians do. As a Christian, I believe that God hears my prayers, and that He genuinely cares about all of His children (even guys like Spinoza who don't believe in Him). Spinoza believed in the same god that Albert Einstein believed in. Einstein said his view of god was that he is “but a reflection of human frailty.” He believes that humans modeled a god to believe in after their own purposes. In the reading, it called this anthropomorphism, or projecting human qualities on a nonhuman being. I believe pretty much the complete opposite. I think that humans were created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). We possess qualities, such as compassion, because God possesses these qualities as well.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the definition that I've learned for infinity is something that goes on forever. Spinoza believed that infinity equaled everything. We can view this as “relative truth” or whatever where everyone can believe what they want and everyone is right... but I don't believe in that either.
Genesis --and the old testament in general-- says a lot of things and are primarily merely the recordings of oral tradition that dates back countless years. So, I tend to not take the earliest of the books in the bible all that seriously.
DeleteI say this because, how can humans be created in the image of God? Is god a rainbow of colors? Does he have both a vagina/womb/voluptuous breasts and a penis? And if he was adrogynous... what does this say about transsexual rights?
Also, while I know it can be easily explained away, I would like to point out that our image of God is very similar to the ancient's image of Zeus. Indeed, this original idea that made it into Genesis likely came from this idea that we were formed to resemble the Greek Gods (or vice versa).
I don't think that "image of God" refers to our physical appearance.
Deletehttp://www.gotquestions.org/image-of-God.html
I definitely think Spinoza was a bit off his rocker with his most famous theory. The idea that God is present in inanimate objects is kinda off the wall to me. Moreover, his idea that God doesn’t love you, but you should love him also doesn’t add up. First, why would you even believe in a god that doesn’t love you? I mean the Greeks did it, but still. In most modern religions the god being worshipped has some sort of love for his/her/its followers. Second, let’s say Spinoza’s god doesn’t love him so why should he love him back? Is it some kind of sick ultimatum as it was with the Greek gods? Love us or we’ll destroy your crops, send earthquakes, kill you, etc.? It all just sounds pretty far fetched to me.
ReplyDeleteIn relation to the butterfly effect, it definitely makes sense. In back to the future, everything Marty did made his brother’s chance of being brought into the world go down. Similarly, in theory, a butterfly flapping its wings could set off an effect on the air around it, which effects an even bigger area, so on and so on. However, the big problem with this theory is that it can’t be falsified until time travel is invented.
DQ: Would you love a god that doesn’t love you back?
FQ: Who believed that god was present in all nature?
Answer: Spinoza
...and my FQ that I keep forgetting: Why was Spinoza excommunicated (and from what faith)?
DeleteDQ: How does a good God allow suffering?
ReplyDeleteFQ: T/F Volitare was a rich philosopher. Answer: True
I'm a Spinoza lover... I see God as being in and of everything that has ever been. He is the random (or not so random) sequence of events that led to our existence. He is everything. And by "he" I mean "it".
ReplyDelete