Pantheism

Despite his seminal development of the prototypes of American democracy and personal freedom, Spinoza is basically unknown to the American public. But even amongst the few, who either revere or revile him, the radicality of his perhaps most significant theory seems barely understood. Whatever fame that he does have is attached to his Theological views, the best-known of which is his pioneering proposition that Biblical scriptures are to be read metaphorically, not literally. Especially coming from a rabbi, this heresy got him ex-communicated from his Jewish community, a somewhat laughable action since, unlike in Roman Catholicism, there is no one invested with such meaningful authority. To others, on the other hand, he was 'God intoxicated', no doubt because of his formal Theological theory. But such swooning seems strangely misplaced when applied to a philosopher who attempted to devise what is possibly the most rigorously rational system in intellectual history. That theory is classified as Pantheistic, which means that Nature and God are one and the same, not to be confused with the view that God is 'in' everything', which still implies some dimension that is not divine. This theory, which denies any separation of God and the Universe, is, for that reason, profoundly opposed to Judaic orthodoxy or even convention. Furthermore, it attributes to God physicality, which makes it impossible to reconcile with any version of Christianity. But God/Nature is not merely a body either; it is a mind/spirit as well, which refutes the interpretation of NeoCon guru Leo Strauss and others, who take the Spinozistic God to be a Newtonian automaton. Instead, a full understanding of this position could lead to the conclusion that what has generally been known as 'Secularism' is actually 'Pantheism', as can be seen in the extent to which Nature is divinized by allegedly secular Environmental principles. Re-casting the common Religion vs. Secularism debate as Theism vs. Pantheism could significantly and profitably upgrade the quality of that argument, but both sets of partisans involved would first need a drastic change of mind-set.