Spinoza furthers the
aforementioned point about treatment of others by specifying that persecution
of others constitutes “wicked and dangerous” behaviour towards the state[i]. How
could this scenario be avoided? Spinoza views knowledge of God as part of the
definition of faith[ii].
This is because he considers it impossible to obey God without having knowledge
of the God you are meant to be motivated to obey[iii].
In this way, one grasps a fundamental aspect of how to define faith and what it
consists in. From faith and knowledge of God arises the doctrines of faith. The
pivotal doctrine of faith, according to Spinoza, is to love thy neighbour[iv],
which is the opposite of persecution. The importance of this doctrine of faith
is that it is the one from which all others can be logically “deduced” using
“reason alone”[v]. In
this way, this central doctrine of faith is logically accessible to the
philosopher. Nevertheless, both the philosopher and the multitude can grasp the
significance of this doctrine through correct scriptural analysis. Spinoza
claims that knowledge of the original language of scripture is vital for
accurate scriptural analysis which is needed for true worship and true religion[vi]. I
maintain that Spinoza is right to argue that careful knowledge of scripture and
sound scriptural methodology is key to true worship and religion. For instance,
the doctrine of love thy neighbour[vii] is
often misunderstood as referring to the Israelites and so only being applicable
between Israelites or, more generally, people of the same nation or religion as
yourself, and, as such, only teaches particularist not universalist morality[viii].
However, the Hebrew word for neighbour is “rea” which Hertz points out means
“neighbour of whatever race or creed” and equates to any human being in “virtue
of his humanity” and even encompasses “the homeless alien”[ix]. Hertz argues that this meaning of neighbour
is retained not only in this “Golden Rule in Judaism” but also throughout all
“moral precepts of Scripture”[x].
This word does not only apply to strangers who worship in the same manner as
yourself because the word for stranger is “gerim” which is also applied to the
Hebrews in Egypt who did not worship the Egyptian gods[xi].
This, I suggest,
is one of the main reasons why Spinoza sees his arguments about universal moral
doctrines being taught through scripture in a way that should be applied to
every person regardless of wealth, background, race or religion. In this way,
Spinoza is right to argue that sound methodology and understanding of the clear
and distinct ideas and doctrines in scripture amount to true religion and, in a
sense, true worship. This is because true worship includes acting in a just and
charitable way towards everyone in a political society and “true method of
interpreting Scripture”[xii],
which involves working through scripture in an almost Cartesian-style error
avoiding manner, mixed with the historical, linguistic, argumentative and
contextual considerations inspired by Jewish tradition. Spinoza considers his
brand of scriptural interpretation methodology as paramount knowledge for
learning how to go about loving one’s neighbour, justice, charity and other
pious and moral behaviour[xiii]
and I claim that Hertz’s commentary[xiv]
on the Pentateuch provides a contemporary example of how interpretative
techniques that Spinoza advocates are still relevant and useful today.
So, from this, it can be seen
that this is one of the ways in which the wisdom and knowledge of God involved
in and developed by true worship and true religion impacts positively on the
state. That is, if loving one’s neighbour is emphasized and reason is employed
to expand this doctrine into other areas of socio-political life then people’s
conduct will benefit the state by creating more cooperation and stability. The
main ways this is achieved, for Spinoza, is through the practice of justice and
charity towards others. Indeed, Spinoza argues that the main, foundational
doctrine of universal faith and “the whole of scripture” [xv]
expounds that:
“…there exists a God, that is, a
Supreme Being, Who loves justice and charity, and who must be obeyed by
whosoever would be saved; that the worship of this Being consists in the
practice of justice and love towards one’s neighbour, and that they contain
nothing beyond the following” seven “doctrines”[xvi].
In other words, these vital
concepts within knowledge of God motivates one to obey God and includes knowing
that God loves justice and charity. In this way, Spinoza provides strong
Biblical textual support for his argument that true worship entails acting with
justice and love towards the other, irrespective of their religion because
justice, love and charity are foundational concepts to which all religions can
relate. I take the foundational doctrine of universal faith/whole scripture and
the dogmas that arise from it to be Spinoza’s attempt at trying to find common
ground between the Abrahamic religions in order to promote dialogue between
people of different religions and denominations and consequently, bring about
religious toleration. In this way, I see this as a seventeenth century attempt
at what one sees these days as discursive preconditions for successful
interfaith dialogue. Lemmens[xvii]
maintains that Spinoza also includes polytheistic traditions within his
arguments for religious toleration which, if this is what Spinoza intended
would, I think, make Spinoza especially applicable to the various types of
interfaith dialogue that take place these days.
Hence, I have suggested this is an
example of how Spinoza perhaps sees true worship directly impacting positively
on society and the political state since it engenders patterns of behaviour,
actions and attitudes by bringing people together peacefully to avoid
insecurity and instability. This, I think, may show that Spinoza’s concept of
true worship is broader than common usage. It is not limited to actions such as
how to pray and ceremonies but encompasses and infuses actions throughout daily
life. In Judaism, this is often referred to as doing good deeds (commonly
referred to in Judaism as doing a mitzvah) which results in acting in such a
way as to make the world a better place. So, I suggest, this could be what
Spinoza had in mind. This is because the concept of a mitzvah is more
all-encompassing since it generally
refers to doing a charitable deed, an ethical deed as well as a religious and
social deed, including mundane actions within daily life, so would seem to be
close to what Spinoza is describing.
Nevertheless, for the reasons I
discussed earlier, Spinoza seems to see this type of true worship as applicable
to wider society and to people of different faiths. This is because he sees
scriptural evidence for this and points out that other religions also argue
that justice and charity (in a general sense) are key concepts in their
religion that should be put into practice by their followers. For instance,
Spinoza cites that justice and charity are central to Christianity and that
persecution of people who advocate justice and charity are “the true enemies of
Christ”[xviii].
I think it is worth bearing in mind, however, that the concept of charity is
different between Christianity and Judaism. In Christianity, charity often
arises out of pity or a sense of duty. In Judaism, the concept of charity is
linked with the concept of justice. In this way, a charitable act or donation
in Judaism is done from a sense of correcting an injustice or bringing about
justice, whereas the same act in Christianity mostly arises from pity or duty.
Hence, Spinoza discusses the concept of charity between different religions in
a general way, rather than dwelling on these distinctions between them. I
suspect this may be because Spinoza wishes to bring out general, similar
grounds between religions in order to improve discourse and toleration between
different religions and denominations. These days, this is a common approach
used successfully in interfaith dialogue. In this way, justice and charity is
something that can be agreed upon as an important wider societal, ethical and
political principle irrespective of which religion people belong to in that
state. This cooperation and peacefulness between members of different religions
is something that Spinoza explicitly admired about the Netherlands and
advocated as a desirable feature of a state. For instance, he describes how in
Amsterdam “men of every nation and religion live together in the greatest
harmony, and ask no questions before trusting…” each other because “His
religion and sect is considered of no importance”[xix].
Moreover, not only does Spinoza
think that true worship, including acting justly and charitably, has a
beneficial impact on a state, but he further affirms that a kingdom of God is
that which:
“best fulfils God’s law and
worships Him, according to His command, through acts of justice and charity; it
follows, therefore, that wherever justice and charity have the force of law and
ordinance, there is God’s kingdom”[xx]
I read Spinoza as suggesting in this passage
that justice and charity are a necessary condition for a state to be God’s
kingdom. I think his argument could be summarized as the following necessary
condition I have outlined below:
If justice and charity are laws
in a state, then that state can be a God’s kingdom.
In this way, Spinoza’s
requirements for a kingdom of God enlightens how true worship which, amongst
other things includes justice and charity, not only produces a stable, secure
state, but also elevates that state into being able to be considered a kingdom
of God.
[i] Spinoza, chap. XIIV, 182-3.
[ii] Spinoza, 184.
[iii] Spinoza, 184–85.
[iv] Spinoza, 183.
[v] Spinoza, 184.
[vi] Spinoza, chap. X, 156.
[vii] Dr. J.H. Hertz, ed., “Leviticus,” in Pentateuch
and Haftorahs (United Kingdom: The Soncino Press, 2014), Lev. 19:34, Hertz
p563.
[viii]
Hertz, 563.
[ix] Dr. J.H. Hertz, ed., Pentateuch and
Haftorahs (United Kingdom: The Soncino Press, 2014), 563. He also refers to Exodus 11:2
in his argument.
[x] Hertz, 563.
[xi] Hertz, 563.
[xii] Spinoza, TTP Trans. Elwes, chap.
VII, 99.
[xiii]
Spinoza, chap. VII, 99.
[xiv] Hertz, Pentateuch and Haftorahs.
[xv] Spinoza, TTP Bennett (Ed), XIV,
186.
[xvi] Spinoza, TTP Trans. Elwes, 186.
[xvii]
Willem Lemmens, “Spinoza on Ceremonial
Observances and the Moral Function of Religion,” Bijdragen - International
Journal for Philosophy and Theology 71, no. 1 (n.d.): 55,
https://doi.org/10.2143/BIJ.71.1.2046947.
[xviii]
Spinoza, TTP Trans. Elwes, XIV,
185.
[xix] Spinoza, XX, 264.
[xx] Spinoza, TTP Bennett (Ed), XIX,
246.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.