2 clarification
source | link

The OP offers the following definition of pantheism:

[T]he position that affirms the equality between God and the whole reality (not of course equal to every single existing thing, but equal to ALL reality, reality as a totality).

As evidence the OP cites Spinoza's Ethics (Part 1, Proposition 5):

In the nature of things, two or more things may not be granted having the same nature or attribute.

The OP compares this with Ethics Part 1, Proposition 15.

Whatever is, is in God, and nothing can exist or be conceived without God.

The OP suggests based on these propositions and the definition that Spinoza might not be a pantheist and asks:

Is this the right or at least the most common interpretation of Spinoza? Is this coherent with the proposition 15 of Part I?

This does look as if God contains the whole of reality, but is different from that reality as a whole since God is the container. This would appear to be a sort of panentheism (all-in-God). God might be viewed like a gravitational or electromagnetic field that contains the totality of reality.

However, according to Wikipedia Spinoza's view of God has been labeled "panentheist", "pantheist" and even "atheist". It would be a matter of opinion which of these is right or even most common.

To get a perspective on what is at stake, it might be useful to consider those who view Spinoza as a pantheist and ask why they might do so. I will only consider C. S. Lewis who viewed Spinoza as a pantheist. He writes (page 131)

Pantheism is congenial to our minds not because it is the final stage in a slow process of enlightenment, but because it is almost as old as we are. It may even be the most primitive of all religions....

What kind of view of God would not be pantheistic for someone like Lewis? On page 130 he offers this contrasting view:

...a God who has purposes and performs particular actions, who does one thing and not another, a concrete, choosing, commanding, prohibiting God with a determinate character.

That God would be free to perform miracles and participate in human history by doing so.

Lewis offers only three categories.

  1. Naturalism (more generally, atheism)
  2. Pantheism
  3. Platonism, Judaism or Christianity ("which has incorporated both", page 132).

He doesn't care about subcategories.

If Spinoza were given a multiple-choice question betweenoffering only these three options that Lewis offers, realizingprovides keeping in mind how Lewis views God, heSpinoza might choose pantheism as best fitting him although he might prefer calling himself by some other name.


Lewis, C. S. (1947). Miracles; a preliminary study.

Spinoza, B. Ethics. Retrieved on May 14, 2019 from Internet Archive at https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.190893/page/n47

The OP offers the following definition of pantheism:

[T]he position that affirms the equality between God and the whole reality (not of course equal to every single existing thing, but equal to ALL reality, reality as a totality).

As evidence the OP cites Spinoza's Ethics (Part 1, Proposition 5):

In the nature of things, two or more things may not be granted having the same nature or attribute.

The OP compares this with Ethics Part 1, Proposition 15.

Whatever is, is in God, and nothing can exist or be conceived without God.

The OP suggests based on these propositions and the definition that Spinoza might not be a pantheist and asks:

Is this the right or at least the most common interpretation of Spinoza? Is this coherent with the proposition 15 of Part I?

This does look as if God contains the whole of reality, but is different from that reality as a whole since God is the container. This would appear to be a sort of panentheism (all-in-God). God might be viewed like a gravitational or electromagnetic field that contains the totality of reality.

However, according to Wikipedia Spinoza's view of God has been labeled "panentheist", "pantheist" and even "atheist". It would be a matter of opinion which of these is right or even most common.

To get a perspective on what is at stake, it might be useful to consider those who view Spinoza as a pantheist and ask why they might do so. I will only consider C. S. Lewis who viewed Spinoza as a pantheist. He writes (page 131)

Pantheism is congenial to our minds not because it is the final stage in a slow process of enlightenment, but because it is almost as old as we are. It may even be the most primitive of all religions....

What kind of view of God would not be pantheistic for someone like Lewis? On page 130 he offers this contrasting view:

...a God who has purposes and performs particular actions, who does one thing and not another, a concrete, choosing, commanding, prohibiting God with a determinate character.

That God would be free to perform miracles and participate in human history by doing so.

Lewis offers only three categories.

  1. Naturalism (more generally, atheism)
  2. Pantheism
  3. Platonism, Judaism or Christianity ("which has incorporated both", page 132).

He doesn't care about subcategories.

If Spinoza were given a multiple-choice question between these three options that Lewis offers, realizing how Lewis views God, he might choose pantheism as best fitting him although he might prefer calling himself by some other name.


Lewis, C. S. (1947). Miracles; a preliminary study.

Spinoza, B. Ethics. Retrieved on May 14, 2019 from Internet Archive at https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.190893/page/n47

The OP offers the following definition of pantheism:

[T]he position that affirms the equality between God and the whole reality (not of course equal to every single existing thing, but equal to ALL reality, reality as a totality).

As evidence the OP cites Spinoza's Ethics (Part 1, Proposition 5):

In the nature of things, two or more things may not be granted having the same nature or attribute.

The OP compares this with Ethics Part 1, Proposition 15.

Whatever is, is in God, and nothing can exist or be conceived without God.

The OP suggests based on these propositions and the definition that Spinoza might not be a pantheist and asks:

Is this the right or at least the most common interpretation of Spinoza? Is this coherent with the proposition 15 of Part I?

This does look as if God contains the whole of reality, but is different from that reality as a whole since God is the container. This would appear to be a sort of panentheism (all-in-God). God might be viewed like a gravitational or electromagnetic field that contains the totality of reality.

However, according to Wikipedia Spinoza's view of God has been labeled "panentheist", "pantheist" and even "atheist". It would be a matter of opinion which of these is right or even most common.

To get a perspective on what is at stake, it might be useful to consider those who view Spinoza as a pantheist and ask why they might do so. I will only consider C. S. Lewis who viewed Spinoza as a pantheist. He writes (page 131)

Pantheism is congenial to our minds not because it is the final stage in a slow process of enlightenment, but because it is almost as old as we are. It may even be the most primitive of all religions....

What kind of view of God would not be pantheistic for someone like Lewis? On page 130 he offers this contrasting view:

...a God who has purposes and performs particular actions, who does one thing and not another, a concrete, choosing, commanding, prohibiting God with a determinate character.

That God would be free to perform miracles and participate in human history by doing so.

Lewis offers only three categories.

  1. Naturalism (more generally, atheism)
  2. Pantheism
  3. Platonism, Judaism or Christianity ("which has incorporated both", page 132).

He doesn't care about subcategories.

If Spinoza were given a multiple-choice question offering only these three options that Lewis provides keeping in mind how Lewis views God, Spinoza might choose pantheism as best fitting him although he might prefer calling himself by some other name.


Lewis, C. S. (1947). Miracles; a preliminary study.

Spinoza, B. Ethics. Retrieved on May 14, 2019 from Internet Archive at https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.190893/page/n47

1
source | link

The OP offers the following definition of pantheism:

[T]he position that affirms the equality between God and the whole reality (not of course equal to every single existing thing, but equal to ALL reality, reality as a totality).

As evidence the OP cites Spinoza's Ethics (Part 1, Proposition 5):

In the nature of things, two or more things may not be granted having the same nature or attribute.

The OP compares this with Ethics Part 1, Proposition 15.

Whatever is, is in God, and nothing can exist or be conceived without God.

The OP suggests based on these propositions and the definition that Spinoza might not be a pantheist and asks:

Is this the right or at least the most common interpretation of Spinoza? Is this coherent with the proposition 15 of Part I?

This does look as if God contains the whole of reality, but is different from that reality as a whole since God is the container. This would appear to be a sort of panentheism (all-in-God). God might be viewed like a gravitational or electromagnetic field that contains the totality of reality.

However, according to Wikipedia Spinoza's view of God has been labeled "panentheist", "pantheist" and even "atheist". It would be a matter of opinion which of these is right or even most common.

To get a perspective on what is at stake, it might be useful to consider those who view Spinoza as a pantheist and ask why they might do so. I will only consider C. S. Lewis who viewed Spinoza as a pantheist. He writes (page 131)

Pantheism is congenial to our minds not because it is the final stage in a slow process of enlightenment, but because it is almost as old as we are. It may even be the most primitive of all religions....

What kind of view of God would not be pantheistic for someone like Lewis? On page 130 he offers this contrasting view:

...a God who has purposes and performs particular actions, who does one thing and not another, a concrete, choosing, commanding, prohibiting God with a determinate character.

That God would be free to perform miracles and participate in human history by doing so.

Lewis offers only three categories.

  1. Naturalism (more generally, atheism)
  2. Pantheism
  3. Platonism, Judaism or Christianity ("which has incorporated both", page 132).

He doesn't care about subcategories.

If Spinoza were given a multiple-choice question between these three options that Lewis offers, realizing how Lewis views God, he might choose pantheism as best fitting him although he might prefer calling himself by some other name.


Lewis, C. S. (1947). Miracles; a preliminary study.

Spinoza, B. Ethics. Retrieved on May 14, 2019 from Internet Archive at https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.190893/page/n47