Spinoza vs. Nietzsche

How to handle the collision between ancient religion and modern science

My basic argument

1. Most ancient religions have at their core doctrines about creation, the soul, and providence (God’s concern for us).

2. Scientific naturalism does not allow for any of these things.

3. So, if we accept naturalism, something about religion must change.

What about denying science?

• Radical fideism denies the legitimacy of natural knowledge

• “But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise” (1 Cor. 1:27)

• “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness” (1 Cor. 2:19)

• Pascal, Kierkegaard; CH has nothing to say about this.

What about doubting science?

• Popperian skepticism: we never prove a theory; at best, we try and fail to falsify it, and suppose that it is true

• Scientific revolutions are always possible• But: do we have any reason now for

thinking our scientific theories are wrong or fundamentally incomplete?

No.

Even if we did…

• Bringing in a “god of the gaps” does not amount to explanation; it says only “something we don’t understand explains this in a way we don’t understand”

• Simpler to say: “we don’t understand”• History of science suggests these gaps

always get filled by natural entities: gravity, magnetism, biological functions, etc.

Scientific naturalism

• All of nature “plays by the same rules” (laws of nature)

• Scientific method (hypothesis, test, revision) reveals those laws, forces

• Seeming violations of those laws can be explained through complications, psychology“better living through science”

Naturalist critique of religion

1. For every supernatural explanation (“God did it”), there is a natural one.

2. It is rational to prefer natural explanations to supernatural ones.

• Which is more likely: that magic happens, or that we are somehow ignorant/deceived?

3. So, supernatural explanations shouldn’t be accepted.

Naturalistic explanationsReligious concept

Natural replacement

Creation Big Bang; Darwin; quantum mechanics

Soul Cognitive science; neuroscience

Providence None.

I. Spinoza’s response

• Bible filled with error, superstition

• But also contains worthy moral principles, wisdom

• Bible should be read as guide to life, not metaphysical or scientific treatise

Following Spinoza

• Accept religion as powerful, transformative myth:– Not literally true– Inspirational way of interpreting experience

• Truths vs. facts• Perhaps: metaphysics can be described to

allow for this (Bultmann)• But: no going back on mythological status

Possibility: Whitman“…And I know that the hand of God is

the promise of my own, And I know that the spirit of God is the

brother of my own, And that all the men ever born are

also my brothers, and the women My sisters and lovers, And that a kelson of the creation is

love,And limitless are leaves stiff or

drooping in the fields, …”-- “Song of Myself”

II. Nietzsche’s response

• “God is dead”• Individuals must create

meaning for their lives• There is nothing

intrinsically worthy of reverence (overman)

• Only eternal recurrence redeems the world

Morality?

• Natural account: – Our sympathies result from generations of

natural selection– If conditions were different, our sympathies

would be different– No higher obligation

• What do we say to the “overman”?

Conclusion

• Scientific naturalism precludes the miraculous objects of belief of ancient religions

• We can follow Spinoza: invest the natural world with quasi-religious significance (but drop the miracles)

• We can follow Nietzsche: abandon religion, and face the consequences.