Spinoza is interesting because he was probably the peak of the effort to derive an ethical philosophy from neither revelation nor science, but from pure mathematical reason.

The edifice he built in this effort is (IMO) handsome and useful if not ultimately convincing.

It is that ultimate failure--Kant's too, as well as the Pragmatists--that requires anyone who believes in morality to accept God.

On the eve of the opening of Mel Gibson's Passion, let it be remembered that Bach created two musical settings of Christianity's central story. His St. Matthew Passion is arguably the greatest artistic work of all time.

Spinoza did think God was necessary for morality -and for everything else.

His God is not the Genesis God however, but more like an all-encompassing pantheism.

Brit:

Indeed, the first section of his treatise on ethics is a "proof" of the existance and nature of God.

Cardozo's critique may be a little too broad, here, though: it's interesting to contrast Spinoza's rejection of orthodox Judaism with his respect for civil authority:

PROP. LXXIII. The man, who is guided by reason, is more free in a State, where he lives under a general system of law, than in solitude, where he is independent.

Proof.--The man, who is guided by reason, does not obey through fear (IV. lxiii.): but, in so far as he endeavours to preserve his being according to the dictates of reason, that is (IV. lxvi. note), in so far as he endeavours to live in freedom, he desires to order his life according to the general good (IV. xxxvii.), and, consequently (as we showed in IV. xxxvii. note ii.), to live according to the laws of his country. Therefore the free man, in order to enjoy greater freedom, desires to possess the general rights of citizenship. Q.E.D.

Brit:

Pantheism is relativism.

Or pantheism is a meaningless tautology, since it just redefines the term 'God' to mean 'the universe'.

Spinoza is a real oddity. He's hailed by some as a great Christian, and by others as a great atheist.

The Ethics looks like a maths textbook.

His concept of freedom is particularly strange: there is no 'free will' as such...ie. you don't have the freedom to say 'no'. But 'freedom' exists when you understand why you have to say 'yes' to God's will. It's never made much sense to me.

Why, God, of course, is "substance, consisting of infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality". What could be clearer? (All right, nearly anything.)

And as you say, he doesn't seem to believe in free will in any kind of nondeterministic sense, but rather that we are necessarily controlled by some combination of (mostly harmful) external influences and an internal guidance synonomous with God's will. (The latter, obviously, being preferable).

As you say, a bit of an oddity, partly due to its position in time; written from within a religious culture, a rationalist tract from before rationalism turned on itself. But then, I like maths textbooks.

Brit:

Naturalism is relativism

I found it interesting that Charles Marray's Human Accomplishment ranked the top composers in the order: Mozart, Beethoven, and then either Bach or Wagner. I, along with Orrin, would rank Bach first, followed by Mozart. Bach's music has always seemed the most rational to me; it is almost mathematical in form, he is the undisputed master of the fugue, and he was instrumental in the adoption of the equally tempered musical scale - the only rational way to arrange the scale.

Spinoza strikes me as inconsistent and hypocritical. His ethics clearly emulate Euclid and use Aristotlean logic, both totally traditional and rule bound. If the physical universe is ruled by laws (the fundamental assumption of science), then it is only rational to accept them and live under their restrictions, instead of looking for other 'lofty speculations'. Would this not be equally true of religious beliefs?

JD:

The question is what those laws are. Spinoza rejected any revealed truth, and from that perspective thought it obvious that orthodox Judiasm was essentially a superstition; harming ourselves out of fear of God rather than seeking virtue out of love of God.

Mike:

If morality isn't revealed by an Authority, how can there be any?

One could hold that some truths are self-evident.

Mike:

That Men are endowed by their Creator.

Yes, exactly. Spinoza would have said (AFAIKT; he is, as others have noted, not exactly crystal clear) that men were endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights (and responsibilites), and this that should be apparent to anyone who considers the matter carefully.

He would apparently not have agreed that among those obvious responsibilities was "Don't eat pork".

In short, it's a philosophy that trusts only things derived from first principles (though I for one would think he has rather a lot of assumptions hidden away in them). There was a marvelous bit in a recent essay posted here - alas, I don't remember the author - that described the mind of the rationalist as a finely tuned neutral instrument, desperately seeking detachment from any particular culture.

The acknowledgement that our Creation by God imposes responsibilities and confers rights is hardly neutral.

"If morality isn't revealed by an Authority, how can there be any?"

Why are you equating morality with obedience to authority? Why do you religionists continue to get sidetracked into that definition?

Sidetracked? That's all morality is.

Obedience is doing right to avoid bad consequences. Morality is doing right in spite of bad consequences.

Robert:

It's actually obedience to an objective standard regardless of personal consequences. That's why folk who don't desire a moral order simply insist that they can derive morality personally--then the consequences are always in your favor.

Robert:

I know, it's crazy isn't it? We have to live with all those bad consequences that flow from obeying the Ten Commandments!

It was unfair to link Spinoza and Bach in the way that this author did. Spinoza was a member of a particular community in turmoil. The community of Amsterdam having fled first Spain and then Portugal and having dealt with issues of forced and disembled conversion, was not in the mood to be as sharply questioned as it was by Spinoza. A more settled community might well have simply ignored it.

Judaism does not depend on faith, it rests on practice and if a philosopher will show up at prayers on shabbat and not be obnoxious he can believe pretty much what he wants to believe. Spinoza's pantheism is not even that far away from some of the speculations of some Kabbalists.

On the flip side, the members of Spinoza's community played a role that "orthodox" rabbi's (it is impossible to retroject the concept to that era) came to play later. They simply object vociferously to any change in the folkways of their village, no matter how well rationalized or harmonized with the rest of halacha. All arguments are resolved by dissolving into an incoherent rage against the innovator.

"[Spinoza] thought it obvious that orthodox Judiasm was essentially a superstition; harming ourselves out of fear of God rather than seeking virtue out of love of God."

While the Old Testament does have its fair share of "Do it or else" sorts of "encouragement," what
can one possibly make of:

"And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might [alternately, 'and with everything you possess']...." (Deuteronomy 6:4)?

P.S. I have heard that among Japanese Shinto, Spinoza has been found to be a most fascinating philosopher, a kindred spirit (no doubt due to his "pantheisic" view of the divine in nature), which may mean that there is a certain innateness for the love of (some) Jews for sushi. (Alas, I'm still working on a theory for pickled herring.)