Page 1 of 9 Original Research

Baruch Spinoza and the naturalisation of the Bible: An

epistemological investigation
Author: This article investigates the naturalisation of the Bible. Three voices are of special importance
Nicolaas J. Gronum1 in the narrative presented in this article; they are Aristotle (384–322 BC), Rene Descartes
Affiliation: (1596–1650) and Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677). This article will investigate the scientific method
1
Department Science of and metaphysics espoused by each of the three scholars, thereby highlighting changes in
Religion and Missiology, scientific method and metaphysics that lead to the naturalisation of the Bible. Firstly, Aristotle
Faculty of Theology,
pioneered a scientific method (his logic) that would dominate for centuries, as well as a highly
University of Pretoria,
South Africa influential metaphysics. Secondly, Descartes, witnessing the horrors of the Thirty Years War
and seeing first-hand the new discoveries that brought about the scientific revolution, reacted
Correspondence to: against Aristotle’s metaphysics. Ironically he then used Aristotle’s scientific method to provide
Nicolaas Gronum
a foundation for the new science resulting in Descartes’s famous dualism. Thirdly, Spinoza,
Email: equally horrified by the amount of religious violence of his time, reacts against Descartes’s
gronumnh@[Link] dualism, providing scholars with a monist metaphysics that would contribute greatly to the
naturalisation of the Bible. This article will be relevant to theologians who wish to engage
Postal address:
more fully with contemporary Western culture.
PostNet Suite #412, Private
Bag X2, Raslouw, Centurion,
Gauteng 0109, South Africa

Dates:
Introduction
Received: 08 Jan. 2015 Naturalism is not so much a special system as a point of view or tendency common to a number of
Accepted: 19 May 2015
philosophical and religious systems; not so much a well-defined set of positive and negative doctrines
Published: 28 Sept. 2015
as an attitude or spirit pervading and influencing many doctrines. As the name implies, this tendency
How to cite this article: consists essentially in looking upon nature as the one original and fundamental source of all that exists,
Gronum, N.J., 2015, and in attempting to explain everything in terms of nature … All events, therefore, find their adequate
‘Baruch Spinoza and the explanation within nature itself. But, as the terms nature and natural are themselves used in more than
naturalisation of the one sense, the term naturalism is also far from having one fixed meaning. (Dubray 1911)
Bible: An epistemological
investigation’, HTS Teologiese
Studies/Theological Studies This article tries to recount and make sense of changes in scientific method and metaphysics that
71(3), Art. #2885, 9 pages. lead to the naturalisation of the Bible, that is, the tendency to negate the supernatural authorship
[Link] of the Bible, believing it to be a product of nature that should be investigated as such.
hts.v71i3.2885

Copyright: Three voices are of special importance in the narrative presented in this article; they are Aristotle
© 2015. The Authors. (384–322 BC), Rene Descartes (1596–1650) and Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677). I hope to show how
Licensee: AOSIS Rene Descartes used Aristotle’s scientific method whilst rejecting his views on metaphysics.
OpenJournals. This work is
Spinoza, in turn, reacted to Descartes’s views on metaphysics whilst utilising Aristotle’s scientific
licensed under the Creative
Commons Attribution method.
License.
Important to note, the narrative presented here is only part of the story of the naturalisation of the
Bible. It forms part of a larger attempt1 to recount and make sense of changes in scientific method
and metaphysics that lead to the naturalisation of the Bible. It is hoped that this attempt would
make the process behind the naturalisation of the Bible more accessible to theologians who do not
specialise in philosophy and who would normally not consult philosophical journals. Knowledge
of the naturalisation of the Bible (and faith) is of vital importance to theologians who wish to
engage more fully with contemporary Western culture.

Aristotle
Introduction
As a theologian, I approach Aristotle cautiously, relying exclusively on scholars who have
already mastered his thought. I do this because studying Aristotle is not without its problems.2
Read online:
Scan this QR [Link] to Legaspi (2010).
code with your
smart phone or [Link] Groarke (2014) writes that: ‘What we have are largely notes, written at various points in his career, for different purposes, edited
mobile device and cobbled together by later followers. The style of the resulting collection is often rambling, repetitious, obscure, and disjointed.
to read online. There are many arcane, puzzling, and perhaps contradictory passages. This problem is compounded by the abstract, technical
vocabulary logic sometimes requires and by the wide-ranging scope and the scattered nature of Aristotle’s observations’.

[Link] doi:10.4102/hts.v71i3.2885
 Page 2 of 9 Original Research

Although theologians may find Aristotle difficult to As Shields (2007) explains, essential features are the most
understand at first, knowledge of his scientific method and basic properties that all the other (necessary) properties
metaphysics is important to anyone who wants to come to depend on. In this case our rational faculty (our mind) is our
grips with Western thought. With theologians grappling most basic essential feature. If that is absent we will not have
with popular culture, as well as the Church’s place within the ability to speak, make jokes or gather food for the winter.
it, there is no better place to start with than Aristotle. These essential and necessary features are what it means to
The same is true for this article; a thorough treatment of be human. Thin or fat, long or short, athletic or stocky, hairy
Aristotle’s thought will greatly simplify our understanding or bald, muscular or weak are accidental features of human
of Descartes and Spinoza. beings. Whilst human beings necessarily possess minds, they
are not all necessarily tall, or short.
Aristotle’s metaphysics
What is generative change then? We call it substantial change
It is best to start with an important question in Aristotle’s because matter obtains a new form. The substance changes
time: what is change? Physics, the study of nature, was closely because its form or, rather, its essential and necessary features
intertwined with change. Philosophers in Aristotle’s time undergo change. For example, generative change occurs
regularly debated whether things can change (Parmenides) when a bronze statue changes from the form of rubble to the
and if so, why do things change? What types of change form of a human statue. The matter (in this case bronze) is
exist? Aristotle and his fellow philosophers thought that he the underlying constant with the form that is changing (from
who knew change and what brought it about, would know rubble to statue). Qualitative change, on the other hand,
nature itself. Why was change so important? If everything would be when the objects ‘pins’ change but the form stays
constantly changes we would not be able to know anything, the same, in other words, when it only changes accidental
therefore, to know something, to have real knowledge an properties (Shields 2007; Spade 1999).
object in nature, we need to know that which do not change,
the universal or the ever-enduring aspects of reality (Groarke
2014; Shields 2007; Spade 1999). Aristotle’s scientific method
This brings us to Aristotle’s views on knowledge and
Aristotle believed in two types of change, the one could be science which coincided with the views of his day. Ancient
called generative and the other qualitative. With generative science, episteme (Greek) or scientia (its Latin equivalent),
change something new comes to be or goes out of existence, pointed to knowledge that was held with certainty. In
a person is born and then eventually dies; with qualitative Aristotle’s case episteme or scientia was knowledge of the
change something that already exists undergoes change essence of groups of objects in nature that could be held
without going out of existence, for example a person grows with certainty (Shields 2007).
old (Shields 2007).
At this point, it may be prudent to mention that although
Nevertheless, how does Aristotle explain the different Aristotle believed episteme to be the knowledge of the
types of change? For this we turn to Paul Vincent Spade’s essence of an object, Groarke (2014) points out that a looser
(1999) ‘pincushion model’ as he himself refers to it tongue translation also allows necessary features to be included.
in cheek. Spade explains Aristotle’s views regarding Thus, to have knowledge is to know an object’s essential
being, with the metaphor of a pincushion. In this case, and necessary features with certainty. Secondly, but equally
the pincushion consists of form and matter; together we important, Aristotle was not interested in individual or
call the pincushion substance. The form is what gives the primary substances (for example, Spot my four-footed
pincushion its essential and necessary features. Without friend) but rather in secondary substances like species and
it, the pincushion would cease to exist. Then there are the genera (dog or mammal). That is because I will only come
smooth-tipped pins stuck into the pincushion which can to know the essential and necessary features of Spot when
be removed or added without destroying the pincushion I look at dogs in general. Thirdly, knowledge is not a word
or substance. In other words, with or without them, it but a sentence or rather a proposition: human beings are
essentially remains the same pincushion. These smooth rational. Aristotle’s scientific method will, therefore, pay
pins from the outside give the pincushion its accidental close attention to propositions that assert something about
features. the essential and necessary features of substances. Groarke
(2014) describes it as follows:
Let us take a cow as an example. Cows are known to be A proposition is ideally composed of at least three words: a
viviparous (bringing forth living young). It is an essential subject (a word naming a substance), a predicate (a word naming
or necessary feature of cows. Therefore, if we see a creature a property), and a connecting verb, what logicians call a copula
that lays eggs (oviparous, that is, with the young developing (Latin, for “bond” or “connection”). (n.p.)
outside of body) we will not say that the creature is a cow,
even if it remotely resembles one. On the other hand, if Next Aristotle identifies ten categories that make up
we have one animal with a brown coat and another with a propositions. The first category has to do with the subject or
white and black coat we would still not hesitate to call both substance. The next nine categories deal with the predicates
animals cows if they are viviparous, et cetera. regarding the substance. The ten categories are substance,

[Link] doi:10.4102/hts.v71i3.2885
 Page 3 of 9 Original Research

quantity, quality, relation, where, when, being-in-a-position, the final cause would be to honour the fallen or something
possessing, doing, undergoing something or being affected or another. If we know these four causes of an object we
by something (Groarke 2014; Shields 2007). know the object itself (Cohen 2014; Shields 2007).

The next step in Aristotle’s scientific method is the use of After this brief explanation of Aristotle’s metaphysics,
deduction, a method he pioneered that would later on be scientific method (logic) and physics, we can look at his
refined by the ancient Greek geometer Euclid through views on motion more closely. Aristotle believed that
his Euclidian geometry. Deduction or syllogism comes substances consisted of a mixture of four elements, with one
in a variety of forms. The most basic way of describing element dominating. The elements were earth, water, air
deduction is to use the following propositions: if A = B and and fire. This fitted well with his cosmology. Aristotle, like
B = C then A = C. With deduction you deduce additional many of his compatriots, believed in earth as the centre of
propositions (A = C) from existing propositions (A = B and the universe, above that, one above the other, the spheres
B = C). For example, if ostriches have feathers and birds of water, air and fire. The element that dominated within
have feathers, ostriches are birds (although they cannot a substance, also determined its movement. A substance
fly). The proposition may not be new knowledge, but if the that mainly consisted of earth would fall down if picked up
starting propositions were necessary then the proposition (a stone) whilst a substance consisting primarily of fire would
deduced from it will be guaranteed to also be necessary. rise up (a flame). Each was trying to reach its natural position
Aristotle views science as knowledge held with certainty. In that is earth with earth, water with water, air with air and
Aristotle’s mind, this meant starting with two propositions fire with fire. The four elements held true for the sub-lunar
you are certain about and then progressing from there on to world; above that everything (heavenly bodies) was made
knowledge that is equally certain. Deduction helped ensure of a fifth element called aether, moving in concentric circles
this (Groarke 2014; Shields 2007). around the earth (Cohen 2014; Principe 2011; Shields 2007).

However, how could he be so certain of the truth of his

starting propositions? Aristotle called for self-evident
Rene Descartes
propositions. Usually propositions are justified by other Introduction
propositions: this is so because that is so. An infinite regress Some tend to oversimplify the Middle Ages as if they were
would entail that propositions are based one on the other dark ages waiting to be banished by the Enlightenment.
into infinity. Aristotle would have none of this. We could Fortunately, there have been quite a few important
never be certain of our propositions if the one rested on scholarly contributions that show that the Middle Ages
the other into infinity. Aristotle therefore looked to self- are pivotal in the history of the West.3 In light of this, the
evident propositions, which carry the truth regarding following generalisation may seem grossly oversimplified,
themselves within themselves. They are not justified by nevertheless, it remains useful during the initial stages of
other propositions. When you see them, you just know them the Middle Ages; Plato and Augustine prevailed. During
to be true. The proposition I think therefore I exist, is a good the latter stages, Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas prevailed
example. Or in Aristotle’s case, human beings are rational with churchmen (scholastic theology), making diligent use
beings. How do we acquire these necessary self-evident of syllogism and logical argument. It was against Aristotle
propositions? (Groarke 2014; Shields 2007). that scholars would rebel during the scientific revolution that
started with the Renaissance (1300–1650).
Aristotle reasoned that one could, through repeated
experience or induction, grasp the necessary properties of an Descartes lived during this diverse period in history. With
object in nature to the extent that they become self-evident the Renaissance in the south of Europe, an equally important
to the mind. These necessary properties so induced are then movement would arise in the north: the Reformation. Whilst
used as self-evident propositions in a deductive argument to Renaissance humanists wanted reform aided by the Greek
further deduce additional propositions. This method would and Roman classics, the Reformers pleaded for reform
later be known as Euclid’s geometry or foundationalism in the light of the Gospel and an earlier classical form of
(Groarke 2014; Shields 2007). Christianity. Both, however, wanted reform of medieval
society.4 Charles Taylor (2007:62) goes to great lengths to
Last remarks recount how badly Protestants wanted medieval society to
conform to the demands of the Gospel and a more classical
Aristotle’s views on knowledge and science had a direct
bearing on his physics. According to Aristotle, when we want
[Link] example, A secular Age by Charles Taylor (2007) and The theological origins of
to know nature we need to know the material (matter) and modernity by Michael Allen Gillespie (2008).
formal causes (form) of objects in nature; more still, we also [Link] (2010:11) writes that: ‘Renaissance humanism is better described as a
need to know who or what imposed the change – the efficient broad, religiously flexible, and civic-minded educational program encompassing the
humanities (studia humanitatis) and a movement, furthermore, rooted in medieval
cause – and to what end the change was imposed – the appropriation of classical sources. One of its distinctive features was the study of
classical texts in their original languages − preeminently Latin but also Greek and,
object’s final cause. For example: a bronze statue’s material later, Hebrew. This gave rise to the Renaissance ideal of the vir trilinguus and the
cause would be bronze, the formal cause would be the shape close association of political and religious renewal with fresh appropriations of
ancient learning. Humanism was a reformatory enterprise energized at all points
of the statue, the efficient cause would be the sculptor and by philology’.

[Link] doi:10.4102/hts.v71i3.2885
 Page 4 of 9 Original Research

conception of Christianity on the one hand, and, on the other, a mountainside as an example. The colour of the mountainside
how eager Renaissance humanists were to rebuild medieval changes throughout the day. It all depends on the way the
society utilising ancient Rome as template. sun shines on the mountainside as well as our perspective
towards it. The same goes for taste; it differs from person
Unfortunately, political and religious conflicts (Roman to person, depending on a variety of factors when people
Catholic versus Protestant) fuelled a series of wars in central interact with (taste) something in reality. Secondary qualities
Europe, collectively called the Thirty Years War (1618– were therefore not viewed as something permanent that
1648). This War eventually bled Europe dry and left her existed on their own.
devastated. Knowledge of this tends to change the view of
the Renaissance from a time of peace, progress and stability The world of the scientific revolution was colourless and
to some of Europe’s darkest days (refer to Stephen Toulmin silent. All that really existed was the three-dimensional
[1990] for a more detailed discussion in this regard). shape of an object and its motion. Not that this was, in
fact, perceived as a negative thing. Such a world could be
Fortunately, the Renaissance was not only doom and gloom. described with mathematical equations that explained
Several technological advancements made during this period universal laws (Kochiras 2013; Principe 2011; Slowik 2013;
proved to be pivotal. New, more powerful telescopes, for Uzgalis 2012).
instance, gave Renaissance scientists insight into the realm
beyond the sub-lunar, proving Aristotle’s views on the What is important is that near the end of the Renaissance,
heavenly bodies and their motion to be fallacious (Principe traditional religion showed itself to be bitterly divided,
2011). leading to an unending series of conflicts while at the same
time unable to help guide Europe back on its feet. Equally
The new inventions spurned on the scientific revolution with important is that scholars started seriously to doubt the old
illustrious names such as Tyco Brahe (1546–1601), Galileo Aristotelian view of the world. A new more attractive way of
Galilei (1564–1642), Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), Christiaan describing reality was presenting itself.
Huygens (1629–1695) and Isaac Newton (1642–1727).
The scientific revolution with its mechanistic philosophy
Those scholars at the front of the scientific revolution, such and underlying corpuscular hypothesis, posed serious
as Galileo Galilei, looked upon nature as if it was a machine, questions to basic tenets of the Christian faith that the
functioning according to set laws that could be described majority of Europeans at that time still held dear. What is
with mathematical equations. It could be said that it was an to become of free will, so important to the Christian faith
engineer’s way of looking at the world. Underlying this new or the role of God who guides history? Philosophers of the
mechanistic philosophy that broke with Aristotelian and 17th century grappled with issues such as these, each trying
medieval concepts of nature, was the corpuscular theory, to paint a satisfactory picture of the make-up of reality that
partly derived from Democritus, a Greek philosopher who would take into account both the Christian faith and the new
predated Aristotle. The corpuscular hypothesis stated that: mechanistic philosophy.
• Matter is composed of very small material particles
(corpuscles or atoms). Descartes’s epistemology and scientific method
• Impact is the sole means of communicating motion. Another important member of the scientific revolution, and
• Qualities such as colour, taste and smell can be reduced father of the Enlightenment, Rene Descartes, also broke with
to the primary, inherent properties of the corpuscles of Aristotelian metaphysics (matter and form equal substance)
which the body is composed of (Kochiras 2013; Principe and physics (the focus on a four-fold causal explanation for
2011; Slowik 2013; Uzgalis 2012). the physical world).

The proponents of the corpuscular hypothesis saw the Having lived through the hell of the Thirty Years War,
world in a different way than people ordinarily experienced and seeing first-hand the destruction of Europe, he was
it. The ordinary world was full of colours, shapes, smells, convinced that traditional religion, now bitterly divided,
movements and sounds. In this world God and people acted would not be able to help guide Europe back on its feet.
out of free will. Furthermore, Catholics were committed to the outdated
teachings of Aristotle through Aquinas. This left the revolution
The world of the scientific revolution was, however, an in science. How could this science be shown to be grounded
engineer’s world. It consisted of tiny atoms that constituted in fact (Hatfield 2011; Lokhorst 2011; Newman 2010)?5
objects in reality. These objects had three-dimensional
shapes (an object’s primary qualities) and were in motion [Link] (2010) writes: ‘In establishing the ground for science, Descartes was at the
same time overthrowing a system of natural philosophy that had been established
or at rest. Objects also had colour, taste and a certain smell for centuries - a qualitative, Aristotelian physics. In a letter to Mersenne, dated
28 January 1641, Descartes says ‘these six meditations contain all the foundations
(an object’s secondary qualities). Whilst the primary qualities of my physics. But please do not tell people, for that might make it harder for
supporters of Aristotle to approve them. I hope that readers will gradually get used
really belonged to the object itself, the secondary qualities to my principles, and recognize their truth, before they notice that they destroy the
did not. These were somehow caused in us through the principles of Aristotle.’ Unlike his earlier work, The World, the Meditations parts
ways with the ‘old’ science without explicitly forwarding controversial views, like
interaction between an object in nature and our senses. Take that of the Copernican heliocentric model of the solar system’.

[Link] doi:10.4102/hts.v71i3.2885
 Page 5 of 9 Original Research

Interestingly enough, to solve his problem Descartes turned Descartes’s metaphysics

to Aristotle’s logic, whose scientific method was still much
Descartes’s picture of reality was his metaphysics. His first
respected. Descartes’s famous method of doubt would be
self-evident proposition, for example, captured the essence
loosely based on Aristotle’s logic.
of the human soul, namely thinking. All he could be certain
of was that he was an immaterial thinking thing (he was still
There was one problem. Aristotle was an empiricist, in
not even certain that he had a body). That was the essence of
other words he believed that experience is the fountain of
human beings. Descartes then proceeded to show, through
knowledge. Descartes, in turn, was a rationalist who closely
innate propositions, that the essence of God is perfection and
adhered to nativism.6 Samet and Zaitchik (2014) define
that the essence of everything around us (matter) is extension
nativism as follows:
(Hatfield 2011; Lokhorst 2011; Newman 2010).8
Nativism and Empiricism are rival approaches to questions
about the origins of knowledge. Roughly speaking, Nativists
How should we understand matter as extension? Supporters
hold that important elements of our understanding of the world
of the corpuscular hypothesis were by no means unified in
are innate, that they are part of our initial condition, and thus do
the precise make-up of reality. Rene Descartes supported the
not have to be learned from experience. Empiricists deny this,
claiming that all knowledge is based in experience … It should plenist version of the corpuscular theory. Plenists believed
be noted that the commonplace opposition of Empiricism to that reality was made up of infinitely divisible small particles
Rationalism reflects back on 17th and 18th century philosophical that were simply everywhere. There was no such thing
debates in which Nativism was a central plank in the Rationalist as a vacuum or void. Air and everything else was matter.
position. (n.p.) According to this view the essence of matter was extension:
if matter was everywhere, it was extended. John Locke, in
Whilst Aristotle had the highest regard for the mind and its turn, held to the atomist version of the corpuscular theory.
ability to reason, he did not believe in innate knowledge. He believed that indivisible atoms existed in space. Kochiras
The origin of knowledge is first and foremost in the explains the difference as follows:
senses. Descartes, on his part, greatly valued experiential Plenist theorists deny the void and assert a plenum of matter,
knowledge, but he thought that we first needed the innate as Descartes does by identifying matter with extension. Such
truths contained in the mind to give us a picture of the world theorists may speak of particles, but their particles are not
in order to guide our senses. Whereas Aristotle’s science atoms, being infinitely or at least indefinitely divisible. Atomist
would begin with repeated experiences, Descartes’s began theorists, by contrast, accept the void and take the particles or
with mathematical arguments that took the form of a process corpuscles comprising compound bodies to be indivisible, or at
of methodical doubt. Both, however, used more or less the least probably so.’ The difference between plenist and atomist
same method (Hatfield 2011; Uzgalis 2012). versions had further bearing on issues such as motion and
gravity, but that does not concern us here. (Kochiras 2013)

With his now famous method of doubt, Descartes started

The essence of matter was extension; it, therefore, had three-
to tease out the innate propositions from his mind. After
dimensional shape. Objects with three-dimensional shape
doubting literally everything, he came up with the clear
that obeyed the laws of motion could be described with
and distinct innate idea that he is thinking and (therefore)
mathematical equations. This included our bodies. This
existing (cogito ergo sum). It was the only thing he was
is where the senses came in. The senses tell us about the
indubitably certain of and it would be his first self-evident
dimensions of objects in reality and, for example, how fast an
foundational proposition.7 Descartes would continue to
object is moving. The senses could, however, not penetrate
unearth and utilise innate propositions such as these in his
deep into the essences of reality; for that we needed reason
quest to provide Europe with a picture of all reality and a
and innate ideas. Hatfield (2011) describes it best:
foundation for the new science.
In considering Descartes’ answer to how we know, we can
distinguish classes of knowledge. Metaphysical first principles
[Link] a distinction is generally held between Continental rationalism and are known by the intellect acting alone. Such knowledge should
British empiricism during the 17th and 18th centuries. This distinction pertains attain absolute certainty … Objects of natural science are known
to Rene Descartes (France), Gottfried Leibniz (Germany) and Baruch Spinoza
(Netherlands) as the European Continental rationalists and John Locke
(England), George Berkeley (Ireland) and David Hume (Scotland) as the British
empiricists. In the end, so the story is often told, Immanuel Kant, the great [Link] regards to matter Descartes (2012) writes: ‘Take, for example, this piece of
German philosopher would bring the two sides together with his Transcendental wax; it is quite fresh, having been but recently taken from the beehive; it has not yet
idealism. lost the sweetness of the honey it contained; it still retains somewhat of the odor of
the flowers from which it was gathered; its color, figure, size , are apparent (to the
[Link] (2012) writes: ‘The Meditation of yesterday has filled my mind with sight); it is hard, cold, easily handled; and sounds when struck upon with the finger.
so many doubts, that it is no longer in my power to forget them. Nor do I see, In fine, all that contributes to make a body as distinctly known as possible, is found
meanwhile, any principle on which they can be resolved; and, just as if I had in the one before us. But, while I am speaking, let it be placed near the fire – what
fallen all of a sudden into very deep water, I am so greatly disconcerted as to remained of the taste exhales, the smell evaporates , the color changes, its figure is
be unable either to plant my feet firmly on the bottom or sustain myself by destroyed, its size increases, it becomes liquid, it grows hot, it can hardly be handled,
swimming on the surface. I will, nevertheless, make an effort, and try anew and, although struck upon, it emits no sound. Does the same wax still remain after
the same path on which I had entered yesterday, that is, proceed by casting this change? It must be admitted that it does remain; no one doubts it, or judges
aside all that admits of the slightest doubt, not less than if I had discovered it otherwise. What, then, was it I knew with so much distinctness in the piece of wax?
to be absolutely false; and I will continue always in this track until I shall find Assuredly, it could be nothing of all that I observed by means of the senses, since
something that is certain, or at least, if I can do nothing more, until I shall know all the things that fell under taste, smell, sight, touch, and hearing are changed, and
with certainty that there is nothing certain. Archimedes, that he might transport yet the same wax remains.’ With the now famous wax experiment, Descartes tries
the entire globe from the place it occupied to another, demanded only a point to show that when it comes to wax, nothing is certain. The properties of the wax
that was firm and immovable; so, also, I shall be entitled to entertain the highest change depending on what is done with the wax, so much so that if he relied only
expectations, if I am fortunate enough to discover only one thing that is certain on his senses he would not know what the essence of wax was. It is only through
and indubitable’. reason that he would come to know that the essence of matter was extension.

[Link] doi:10.4102/hts.v71i3.2885
 Page 6 of 9 Original Research

by a combination of pure intellect and sensory observation: the reasonable person should find abhorrent.’ One disturbed critic
pure intellect tells us what properties bodies can have, and we went so far as to call it ‘a book forged in hell,’ written by the devil
use the senses to determine which particular instances of those himself’. (n.p.)
properties bodies do have. (n.p.)
Reading up on the history of the Renaissance and the
How do we understand human beings? According to Enlightenment, one cannot help but feel ambivalent. On the
Descartes human beings are a duality, split between an one hand Spinoza’s thought did hold serious consequences
immaterial thinking mind or soul, and matter or body that for both Protestant and Roman Catholic Christianity. The
was extended. The two, mind and body, were connected reactions of early commentators on his ethics may have
through the pineal gland, as Descartes would later try to been harsh but it was not without merit. That being said, the
explain (Hatfield 2011; Lokhorst 2011). overall tone of religious dialogue in the 17th century was
harsh. Gillespie (2008) writes:
Conclusion Beginning in the early sixteenth century and lasting until the
middle of the seventeenth century, the Wars of Religion were
Descartes taught the Western world that the criterion for
conducted with a fervor and brutality that were not seen again
truth was not to be found outside oneself in revelation,
until our own times. (n.p.)
Church tradition or the Pope but in the mind’s ability to
grasp something as indubitably true (Hatfield 2011; Lokhorst
And maybe this harshness is what contributed most to
2011; Newman 2010).
Spinoza’s thought in the first place.
More importantly, the new science proved to be
Spinoza the Jew was born and grew up during the
controversial. If everything is governed by universal laws
devastation that was the Thirty Years War.9 One could say
what is God’s place in the bigger scheme of things? What
that the reasons for the war were political, but they were
type of freedom do humans have, if any, to go about their
still Christians (Protestant and Roman Catholic) visiting
daily lives? Are we all simply robots? Descartes tried to
horrible atrocities upon one another. Spinoza’s family
supply his peers with a solution. Creation is extension
fled Spain to escape forced conversion to Christianity.
governed by laws whilst human beings have an immaterial
In Amsterdam he was excommunicated from the Jewish
soul/mind that is not governed by set laws, free to operate
community for his views. In the midst of it all the Netherlands
and think as they wish. The same goes for an immaterial
was embroiled in a dispute between the Arminians and
God.
Orthodox Calvinists culminating in the well-known Synod of
Later scholars would reject Descartes mind/body dualism. Dort (1618–1619) as well as the disputes between the followers
Some, like Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) scoffed at the idea of Johannes Cocceius and Gisbertus Voetius. Times were
of immaterial material (soul/mind). He thought it was a volatile. The whole of Europe was in a phase of transition.
contradiction in terms. There could only be matter, Hobbes
said, even God existed out of some kind of matter. Free will Spinoza’s scientific method
was a fallacy. In the end Hobbes proved to be controversial
Spinoza basically used the same geometric method as
in his own lifetime, yet he would continue to have a strong
Descartes, borrowed from Aristotle and thereafter refined
influence on later scholars. One of those was Baruch Spinoza
by the Greek geometer Euclid, but he used it more
(Duncan 2013).
diligently. Spinoza first posited definitions, then axioms
he believed to be self-evident, and then proceeded to state
Baruch Spinoza certain propositions based on the definitions and axioms. In
Introduction this way he built his own metaphysical foundation without

The Netherlands in Spinoza’s day may have been tolerant, [Link]’s (2008) words deserve mentioning in full: ‘Religion were conducted
with a fervor and brutality that were not seen again until our own times … The
but only to a certain degree. Manuscripts that could be slaughter at Magdeburg, for all its horror, was not the first nor the last such event.
considered atheist or heretical were many times either During the Peasants’ Rebellion in the 1520s, over one hundred thousand German
peasants and impoverished townspeople were slaughtered, many of them when
published posthumously or anonymously. Spinoza himself they rushed headlong into battle against heavily armed troops, convinced by their
leader Thomas Mintzer that true believers were immune to musket balls. In 1572,
published anonymously in Latin. In A book forged in hell: seventy thousand French Huguenots were slaughtered in the St. Bartholomew’s
Day Massacre. The Franciscan monks who had preached that killing heretics was
Spinoza’s scandalous treatise and the birth of the secular age the surest way to salvation were pleased, but apparently not as pleased as Pope
Nadler (2010) writes: Gregory XIII, who was so delighted to receive the head of the slain Huguenot leader
Coligny in a box that he had a special medal struck commemorating the event. And
Writing in May 1670, the German theologian Jacob Thomasius finally, lest anyone imagine that the barbarity was one-sided, Cromwell’s model
army sacked the Irish town of Drogheda in 1649, killing virtually everyone. They
fulminated against a recent, anonymously published book. burned alive all those who had taken refuge in the St. Mary’s Cathedral, butchered
the women hiding in the vaults beneath it, used Irish children as human shields,
It was, he claimed, ‘a godless document’ that should be hunted down and killed every priest, and sold the thirty surviving defenders into
immediately banned in all countries. His Dutch colleague, slavery. Cromwell, without the least sense of irony, thanked God for giving him the
opportunity to destroy such barbarous heretics. While these accounts are shocking,
Regnier Mansveld, a professor at the University of Utrecht, they only give us an inkling of the horror of these wars that raged over Europe for
insisted that the new publication was harmful to all religions and more than five generations. By conservative estimates, the wars claimed the lives
of 10 percent of the population in England, 15 percent in France, 30 percent in
‘ought to be buried forever in an eternal oblivion.’ Willem van Germany, and more than 50 percent in Bohemia. By comparison, European dead
Blijenburgh, a philosophically inclined Dutch merchant, wrote in World War II exceeded 10 percent of the population only in Germany and the
USSR. Within our experience only the Holocaust and the killing fields of Cambodia
that ‘this atheistic book is full of abominations … which every can begin to rival the levels of destruction that characterized the Wars of Religion’.

[Link] doi:10.4102/hts.v71i3.2885
 Page 7 of 9 Original Research

recourse to empirical experiment (Dutton 2005; Nadler because it must: there are no purposes, no aims, all simply
2013; Newlands 2013). exists because it must (Dutton 2005; Nadler 2013; Newlands
2013).
Let us look at a few examples. In Spinoza’s Ethics, he first
puts forth eight definitions familiar to most philosophers of
Spinoza’s metaphysics
his time, such as:
In the Christian faith, God is believed to stand apart from
III. By “substance” I mean that which is in itself, and is conceived
his creation. The Christian God created a world for a specific
through itself: in other words, that of which a conception can
be formed independently of any other conception. (De Spinoza reason. He continues to be involved having created human
2012) beings who have the capacity to achieve or miss a goal,
purpose or end that God has set for them for some reason or
This is roughly Descartes’s definition of substance; the other. Spinoza rejects this God.
something that is conceived through itself, almost something
like a self-evident idea. For Descartes the chief substance Was Spinoza a pantheist? If we say that he equates God
was God, although he also viewed soul and matter as lesser with nature, with the world and everything that exists, one
substances. Spinoza, however, acknowledges only one could say that. But then, one must also add that he is not a
substance, that was God or nature. He continues to state that: pantheist in the ordinary sense of the word. Nadler (2013)
‘IV. By “attribute” I mean that which the intellect perceives writes that, ‘… it is a mistake to call him a pantheist in so
as constituting the essence of substance’ and ‘V. By “mode” far as pantheism is still a kind of religious theism’. What he
I mean the modifications (“affectiones”) of substance, or that means by this is that Spinoza is not the kind of pantheist
which exists in, and is conceived through, something other who believes that God comes from the outside to inhabit an
than itself’ (De Spinoza 2012). already existing world. Pantheists such as these believe that
nature must be venerated as something holy. In contrast
Above is technical jargon harking back to Aristotle. Basically Spinoza thought that God is nature – the world. All is one
an attribute is equal to the essence of a substance and a mode substance, namely, monism. This one substance and its essence
is a modification of that substance. Spinoza then defined can best be understood through philosophy and science and
his conception of God saying: ‘VI. By “God” I mean a being not religion (Dutton 2005; Nadler 2013; Newlands 2013).
absolutely infinite – that is, a substance consisting in infinite
How does this play out in reality? Spinoza is a pioneer of
attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite
naturalism. Because of his monist views everything has to
essentiality’.
be understood within the boundaries of nature (God). Any
explanation of events in the world will be accepted for
Spinoza then continues to list seven axioms10 and a list
scrutiny if it does not resort to a supernatural God working
of 36 propositions11 that outline his whole metaphysical
from outside, as part of the explanation. In Spinoza’s world
system.
there can be no recourse to a transcendent reality or being
that will give us knowledge and special insight, or that will
In short, Spinoza says that God or nature is infinite in his
manipulate the course of history. There is only nature and
essences. If God or nature was infinite, then there would not
its laws. This naturalism also became evident when Spinoza
be anything that is not God or nature. All is one substance
spoke about the only way to interpret the Bible. He writes
(Spinoza’s monism). Two of the distinguishable essences
the following in his Theological-Political Treatise (the TTP or
or attributes of God are extension and thought. The modes
Tractatus Theologico-Politicus):
(modifications) of extension are physical objects whilst the
modes for thought are ideas. I may sum up the matter by saying that the method of
interpreting Scripture does not widely differ from the method
of interpreting nature – in fact, it is almost the same. For as
This one substance consisting of infinite attributes is the cause
the interpretation of nature consists in the examination of
of everything. Everything is but a modification of one of the
the history of nature, and therefrom deducing definitions
attributes. Because God (nature) is the cause of everything, of natural phenomena on certain fixed axioms, so Scriptural
he also determines everything. In Spinoza’s world there is no interpretation proceeds by the examination of Scripture, and
free will. Everything flows from and is determined by God inferring the intention of its authors as a legitimate conclusion
from its fundamental principles. By working in this manner
[Link] example: ‘AXIOM I. Everything which exists, exists either in itself or in everyone will always advance without danger of error – that
something else. II. That which cannot be conceived through anything else must be
conceived through itself. VII. If a thing can be conceived as non-existing, its essence is, if they admit no principles for interpreting Scripture, and
does not involve existence’ (De Spinoza 2012). discussing its contents save such as they find in Scripture itself –
[Link] example: ‘PROPOSITION V There cannot exist in the universe two or more and will be able with equal security to discuss what surpasses
substances having the same nature or attribute. >>>>> Proof – If several distinct
substances be granted, they must be distinguished one from the other, either our understanding, and what is known by the natural light of
by the difference of their attributes, or by the difference of their modifications reason. (De Spinoza 2011)
(Prop. iv.). If only by the difference of their attributes, it will be granted that there
cannot be more than one with an identical attribute. If by the difference of their
modifications – as substance is naturally prior to its modifications (Prop. i.) – it
follows that setting the modifications aside, and considering substance in itself, According to Spinoza the Bible was not a book filled with
that is truly, (Deff. iii and vi.), there cannot be conceived one substance different scientific or philosophical knowledge, but was primarily
from another – that is (by Prop. iv.), there cannot be granted several substances,
but one substance only. Q.E.D’ (De Spinoza 2012). written to teach the masses obedience. In that lies its

[Link] doi:10.4102/hts.v71i3.2885
 Page 8 of 9 Original Research

divinity, the exhortation to obey the command to love one’s as Johann David Michaelis (1717–1791) and Johann Herder
neighbour.12 The books of the Bible have to be understood (1744–1803), who would in turn have a substantial influence
like any other book or object in nature. In this sense Spinoza on the father of liberal theology, Friedrich Schleiermacher
breaks with traditional Protestant hermeneutics.13 (1768–1834).

Spinoza lived at the tail end of the Renaissance and the

Spinoza and the naturalisation of the Bible
beginning of the Enlightenment, commonly taken to have
With a call to return to the classics, the Renaissance humanists commenced with Descartes’s death in 1650. He inherited
provided the reformers with the tools (literary and historical the drive to reform the literary and historical analysis of
analysis) and learning to take on the Roman Catholic Church. classic texts, the wars of religion and the rise of the scientific
In doing so the Bible as text became central in the dispute revolution. He shared the drive to utilise literary and
regarding different doctrines in Western Christianity. The historical analysis of biblical texts to stem sectarian violence.
origin of its authority, the correct original text (the Latin It is within this context that Spinoza’s conversation with his
Vulgate or Greek and Hebrew manuscripts), the precise peers, including Descartes, and his drive to naturalise nature,
number of canonical books, as well as the most responsible must be seen. In his own efforts to fashion a new metaphysics
methods of interpreting the Bible were disputed. With the for a new age of science marred by conflict, he was one of the
text of the Bible in focus, amidst the conflict that embroiled first to naturalise the Bible.
Western Christianity, the Bible could no longer function as
Catholic scripture. Catholic scripture in this case denotes the
Bible as an anthology of sacred books that both belonged to
Conclusion
the Church to be interpreted by the Church within its own This article investigated the thoughts of Aristotle, Descartes
divine economy of meaning. It was Catholic scripture that and Spinoza, thereby highlighting the changes in scientific
brought Europe together, supplied it with a moral universe method and metaphysics that lead to the naturalisation of the
and framed its philosophical enquiries. With the schism Bible. During the investigation a gradual picture emerged
in Christianity there was no more Catholic scripture, only of human beings trying to figure it out for themselves, that
Bibles, differently authorised, with a different number of is, abandoning Church authority and tradition, and instead
canonical books derived from different original texts with utilising reason to arrive at knowledge of all reality of which
different interpretations given by Catholics, Lutherans and they could be certain of. This became all the more important
Protestants. Legaspi (2010) says: during the Thirty Years War and, thereafter, when the failings
As the seventeenth century wore on, however, textualization of the Church of the time (both Catholic and Protestant)
was also advanced as a remedy to these same divisions. The new became clear for all to see. How could we figure out things for
focus on textualization lay at the heart of attempts to unify and ourselves without relying on Church authority, revelation of
overcome religious division, to use critical science to regularize supposed current day miracles and prophecies? What would
interpretation and save the text from confessional abuse … our own endeavours bring? Would we be able to remain
Like Walton, Spinoza believed that it was possible and, indeed, Christians through all of this? Maybe reason is a better guide
necessary to set forth a way of interpreting the Bible that would than supposed revelation; maybe it will help us become
stem sectarian violence. Spinoza set out to accomplish this, better Christians? Questions such as these may seem strange
first by setting aside theological judgments and confessional to our ears but they were important to scholars during the
frameworks for understanding the Bible, which he regarded as
Enlightenment. Detractors such as Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi
the ‘prejudices of theologians’ and mere ‘human fabrications’
(1743–1819) would regularly point out that rationalism leads
passed off as ‘divine teachings.’ … Careful philological study
of the Bible shows that concerns with modern philosophical, to atheism, something that was hard to accept by Christian
political, legal, or scientific questions are alien to the Bible. Enlightenment scholars.
The Bible contains the ancient historical record of a specific
civilization, which is firmly embedded in the language and All in all it would seem that Spinoza’s pantheism was a by-
thought patterns of its time. (pp. 21, 23) product of the larger battle to wrestle control of society not
only from the clergy but also from religious enthusiasts who
With this Spinoza sows the seeds of liberal theology. His were constantly stirring up trouble, finding fertile ground in
ideas would be picked up by scholars and theologians such a fast changing world that generated substantial uncertainty.
It is within this context that Spinoza championed monism
[Link] writes in the TTP that: ‘[W]e know that Scripture does not aim at imparting that would play such an important part in the naturalisation
scientific knowledge, and, therefore, it demands from men nothing but obedience, of the Bible.
and censures obstinacy, but not ignorance. Furthermore, as obedience to God
consists solely in love to our neighbour – for whosoever loveth his neighbour, as
a means of obeying God, hath, as St. Paul says (Rom. xiii. 8), fulfilled the law – it
follows that no knowledge is commended in the Bible save that which is necessary The metaphysical speculations of Descartes and Spinoza
for enabling all men to obey God in the manner stated, and without which they would however be dealt a serious blow by Immanuel Kant
would become rebellious, or without the discipline of obedience’ (De Spinoza
2011). (1724–1804). Kant famously argued that the mind structures
[Link] writes: ‘… since in the earlier chapters much of what Spinoza is doing is knowledge. There was a noumenal world, the world as it was,
undermining the claim of Scripture as a source of genuine knowledge. The value
of Scripture does not lie in its mysteries or its abstruse metaphysical content, since and a phenoumenal world, the world as our mind structured
to the extent that it is concerned with these matters it is – by Spinoza’s lights – it. We only had recourse to the phenoumenal world. Mind,
utterly confused. Rather, it lies in the simple moral truths that Scripture contains…’
(Steinberg 2013). once transcendent and able to speculate about the really

[Link] doi:10.4102/hts.v71i3.2885
 Page 9 of 9 Original Research

big questions, was now once more brought back to reality, Dutton, B.D., 2005, ‘Benedict de Spinoza’, in J. Fieser & B. Dowden (eds.), Internet
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, viewed 06 January 2015, from [Link]
bound to human life. Without mind able to know things as edu/spinoza/
they were in themselves, speculation about the nature of Gillespie, M.A., 2008, The theological origins of modernity, Kindle edn., University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
God was futile; trying to prove his existence through rational
Groarke, L., 2014, ‘Aristotle: Logic’, in J. Fieser & B. Dowden (eds.), Internet
arguments equally so.14 Encyclopedia of Philosophy, viewed 06 January 2015, from [Link]
edu/aris-log/
Hatfield, G., 2011, ‘René Descartes’, in E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Why did Kant support such a view? He may have tried to Philosophy, viewed 23 October 2013, from [Link]
shield the Christian faith from the probing investigations of sum2011/entries/descartes/
Kochiras, H., 2013, ‘Locke’s philosophy of science’, in E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford
those trying to figure it out for themselves. By saying that Encyclopedia of Philosophy, viewed 15 October 2013, from [Link]
you cannot figure it out rationally, that you simply have edu/archives/fall2013/entries/locke-philosophy-science/
to believe, he may have silenced scholars such as Hobbes Legaspi, M. C., 2010, The death of scripture and the rise of biblical studies, Oxford
University Press, New York, NY. (Kindle edn.).
and Spinoza. Unfortunately such a move also banishes Lokhorst, G., 2011, ‘Descartes and the pineal gland’, in E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford
discussions about God from the public arena because God is Encyclopedia of Philosophy, viewed 07 May 2013, from [Link]
archives/fall2013/entries/pineal-gland/
not something you can prove or dissect. Faith is something
Nadler, S., 2010, A book forged in hell, Spinoza’s scandalous treatise and the birth of
personal. This undoubtedly aided in the naturalisation of not the secular age, Kindle edn., Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
only the Bible but also of society. Nadler, S., 2013, ‘Baruch Spinoza’, in E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, viewed 05 January 2015, from [Link]
fall2013/entries/spinoza/
In closing, the events during the 17th and 18th centuries in Newlands, S., 2013, ‘Spinoza’s modal metaphysics’, in E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, viewed 05 January 2015, from [Link]
Europe provide us with ample and rich material to meditate edu/archives/win2013/entries/spinoza-modal/
on as we move further into the 21st century. Newman, L., 2010, ‘Descartes’ epistemology’, in E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, viewed 10 April 2013, from [Link]
archives/fall2010/entries/descartes-epistemology/
Acknowledgements Principe, L.M., 2011, The scientific revolution: A very short introduction, Kindle edn.,
Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Competing interests Rohlf, M., 2014, ‘Immanuel Kant’, in E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, viewed 05 May 2015, from [Link]
The author declares that he has no financial or personal sum2014/entries/kant/
relationships which may have inappropriately influenced Samet, J. & Zaitchik, D., 2014, ‘Innateness and contemporary theories of cognition’, in
E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, viewed 05 January 2015,
him in writing this article. from [Link]
Shields, C., 2007, Aristotle, Kindle edn., Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, New York,
NY.
References Slowik, E., 2013, ‘Descartes’ physics’, in E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy, viewed 27 October 2013, from [Link]
Cohen, S.M., 2014, ‘Aristotle’s metaphysics’, in E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford fall2013/entries/descartes-physics/
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, viewed 15 October 2013, from [Link]
edu/archives/sum2014/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/ Smith, K., 2010, ‘Descartes’ life and works’, in E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, viewed 20 November 2013, from [Link]
Descartes, R., 2012, Meditation on first philosophy, Start Publishing LLC, New York, [Link]/archives/win2014/entries/descartes-works/
NY. (Kindle edn.).
Spade, P.V., 1999, ‘The warp and woof of metaphysics: How to get started on some
De Spinoza, B., 2011, The chief works, vol. 1, transl. R.H.M. Elwes, Liberty Fund, big themes’, viewed 20 November 2013, from [Link]
Indiana. (Kindle edn.). [Link]
De Spinoza, B., 2012, Ethica: English, transl. R.H.M. Elwes, Public Domain Book. Steinberg, J., 2013, ‘Spinoza’s political philosophy’, in E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford
(Kindle edn.). Encyclopedia of Philosophy, viewed 05 January 2015, from [Link]
Dubray, C., 1911, ‘Naturalism’, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, viewed 06 January 2015, edu/archives/win2013/entries/spinoza-political/
from [Link] Taylor, C., 2007, A secular age, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, London.
Duncan, S., 2013, ‘Thomas Hobbes’, in E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of (Kindle edn.).
Philosophy, viewed 10 October 2015, from [Link] Toulmin, S., 1990, Cosmopolis: The hidden agenda of modernity, University of Chicago
sum2013/entries/hobbes/ Press, Chicago, IL.
Uzgalis, W., 2012, ‘John Lock’, in E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of
[Link] to Michael Rohlf’s (2014) discussion of Kant. Philosophy, viewed 12 April 2013, from [Link]

[Link] doi:10.4102/hts.v71i3.2885