On a Fragmented Christian Philosophy of Spinoza’s God

For it seems that while Christianity embraces parts of Spinoza’s conception of the eternal will of God, it too rejects the insignificance of intercessory prayer. It is therefore in this sense that Christian Philosophy, in a strictly Spinozian idea, is fundamentally fragmented and therefore self-contradictory.

With reference to my previous article, I would like to further state a few of points of his conception of a natural religion. For since God is perfect, and thus there be in him (or her) no arbitrary form within him, then randomness – randomness being the super-reality of the state of being arbitrary – cannot be of his nature. And therefore, from the absence of randomness in his nature, the omni-presence of utter coherence be his ultimate essence, for that is which shall determine his character of being, his nature. That being said, Geometry is nevertheless a small but significant example of the presence of a uniform and self-affirming discipline of an all-embracing coherence of reality. And that for God to be mysterious in any respect will inevitably diminish his grandeur and beauty as an innate property of all reality. To all inquiries of his argument please refer to my previous post.

On the former note, then, for modern Christian conception to uphold the belief that intercessory prayers to God are answered under reasonable terms and conditions would be contradictory to his very essence of being. Despite the pre-condition of there being reasonable demands put forth upon that mighty God, no less thus it reveal a sense of obliviousness to his inherent coherence and therefore the innate coherence of reality. It is of simple ignorance.

Of course it could be argued that a personal God is ‘better’ than the programmer-God since the former is more ‘caring’ than the latter, which thus reveals a moral dichotomy between the two and thus the better one over the other. But no matter the simple moral inclination, perfection, as revealed in my other post, also covers others such as presence, benevolence, ability, and fore-knowledge. We cannot simply say that the best of all characteristics makes the best of all. As if they were hard to grasp, we should then look no further but to the realm of physiology. For example, it is as if to say that an increase in hemoglobin in the blood tissue will increase blood flow and therefore the general health of the body. But we must not forget that while there may indeed be increase in blood flow, the pressure from the blood flow shall inevitably destroy the heart and other tissues that contain this heart, and that glands will manufacture more hormones than needed etc. We cannot then simply say that if we making everything in the body proportionally stronger will better the individual health. For humans can be so much exposed to that amount of food and water, and the lack of sufficient nutrition will thus lead to disease or even death. Then we cannot then say that the planets and natural recourses be made larger and more abundant respectively since that will cause the universe – with respect to the interplay between astronomical objects in space – the grow ever so larger. How far can this argument grow? Similarly, in metaphorical terms, if characteristic A were made to optimal status, then it will infringe upon the optimal reason of perfection of other characteristic(s). Ultimate perfection thus can be reached not at the optimal status of its parts, but rather at the optimum interaction of its parts. In all, the notion of intercessory prayer is a contradiction to the ultimate perfection of God himself.

I agree that Christian theology, depending upon the very variation of interpretations of the Holy Bible, has greatly influenced a significant portion of history. These include the abolition of slavery, of sexual equality etc. But of course we must not forget that many of these historic atrocities were also validated by older interpretations of the SAME holy book. Nevertheless the path taken by religion, meaning not just Christianity, is not towards a personal God, but rather a Spinozian God – a pantheistic conception of God, a natural religion. That is, the path of history reveals the gradual acceptance of God’s eternal unalterable decree on reality and a decrease in the role God actively plays in reality. And I think this rejection does not only apply to Christianity alone, but that it is me reference point due to the degree of familiarity I have with it.

In the end, all religions unite into a Spinozian conception. All peoples accept the actuality of reality, embrace the beauty of things contained within reality, and unify the coherence of all things existent. A human brotherhood is thus formed under the embracement of a unified coherent fabric of existence.