Are you missing something in our secular society? It is natural for people to want to believe in something, according to philosopher and Spinozist Ton de Kok. Recently his book on the God of Spinoza was published. In this you will be introduced in an understandable way to Spinoza's rational alternative to a father figure in heaven.
Philosophy is no easy feat. That is why it is extra nice when someone with knowledge writes an understandable book about the outcome of the deep thinking of philosophers. Ton de Kok, philosopher and teacher of philosophy of religion, has succeeded in this with 'God for non-believers. The God of Spinoza'.
Football and God
If I'm honest, I often can't follow the work of Spinoza, a Dutch philosopher from the seventeenth century. And I don't even mean the Latin originals, but the modern translations. Ton de Kok's explanation of Spinoza's philosophy about the existence or not of God, on the other hand, is easy to understand. It is noticeable that in addition to being a philosopher, the author is also a teacher, with the clear metaphors he uses.
For example, De Kok compares classical religions to a football field. God is the referee who punishes you when you misbehave. The God of Spinoza, God Nature who is in everything and everyone, neither judges nor loves. So no penalty for a violation, but also no players' heaven after a goal.
The strongest
According to Spinoza, God is nature and humans are only a temporary manifestation of it. Our driving force is the same as with animals:to survive at all costs. Self-interest comes before everything and there is nothing we can do about it. That is also nature. Acting right or wrong has nothing to do with what you are supposed to do according to the social norm, but what nature forces you to do in the interest of your well-being.
And to return to the football field for a moment:“Every person wants to stay on the field as long as possible and is merciless because God Nature does not act as a referee. This is where the law of the strongest comes into play. Only smarter, stronger or meaner fellow players can push you out.” That sounds unfair and it is. Suffering on earth does not result in heavenly life after death, and the last will not be the first. Not really a happy message, at least for the poor, suffering person.
Controlling emotions
Humans are distinguished from animals by their ability to think and thus make decisions that promote our self-interest. Unfortunately, that thinking often fails when emotions take over. They ensure that we make decisions that are not good for us or our environment. These inadequate ideas, as Spinoza called them, lead to suffering but are preventable by remaining rational. Take the ending of your relationship as an example. An adequate idea when your partner is not good for you, but an inadequate idea when you end up in the arms of another driven by lust.
Featured by the editors
MedicineWhat are the microplastics doing in my sunscreen?!
AstronomySun, sea and science
BiologyExpedition to melting land
Inadequate ideas, of course, also play out on a larger scale and have already caused many wars. If people curb their emotions, the world is a better place to live, Spinoza says. Because whoever looks for causes instead of primarily reacting and judging or condemning, comes to understanding. And to understand is to love, according to the philosopher:“Understanding all things, of God Nature in Her effects, also in the small things in personal relationships, gives peace and resignation and often joy and ultimately love.” And who wouldn't want that?
Animals
Although our analytical powers distinguish us from the animals, we are not more important than them, or than plants or anything else in the universe. This was an insurmountable fact for the Christians of the seventeenth century, since their God saw man as the crown of His creation. In Spinoza, God is not an omniscient architect who created the earth and everything on and around it from scratch. Because there is no nothing. Even when we die, we do not disappear into thin air, but disintegrate into an innumerable number of atoms.
God Nature is not a person like God the Father. Praying for him to reward you for good behavior or punish you for your sins was out of the question with Spinoza. But that was unthinkable for many of his Christian contemporaries.
People needed images to turn to God, but these, according to the philosopher, sprang from the visions, dreams and fantasies of the ancient prophets and were only hopeful illusions. But where the Christian God is inscrutable (why does he let a child die?) God Nature is not (that is nature). De Kok:“God Nature is neither good nor bad, but it is visible, unlike the Christian God.”
Author is a believer
Ton de Kok himself is a supporter of Spinoza's theories, a Spinozist, and the book has a slightly too high promotion content, especially at the end. Spinoza has a monopoly on the truth, and I can feel the urge to convert from the pages. To reinforce his argument, the author brings in well-known scientists such as Einstein, not the stupidest of course, who can agree with Spinoza's ideas about God Nature.
Of course, De Kok has the best interests of the reader, but that has everyone who wants to open the eyes of the ignorant unbelievers. In any case, De Kok is happy in his 'faith' and convinced that he has become a better person:“Through Spinoza I have come to see the world and myself as it is and I am, and not as she and I should ideally be. to be. I view the world and myself as part of God Nature, accepting its laws and trying to acquiesce in them, whatever misfortune befalls me.”
According to De Kok, it is our nature to want to ego-trip, grab money and chase skirts, even if that is not the best for us. Using Spinoza's theories - thinking and staying rational - we would be a lot happier and the world a nicer place to live. And that is of course always a good goal.