1. Spinoza vs. Nietzsche How to handle the collision between ancient religion and modern science

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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”

7. 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.

8. Naturalistic explanations Religious concept Natural replacement CreationBig Bang; Darwin; quantum mechanics SoulCognitive science; neuroscience ProvidenceNone.

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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”

12. 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

13. 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”?

14. 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.