Professor Steven Nadler is a philosopher and author, the Vilas Research Professor and the William H. Hay II Professor of Philosophy at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. He is an internationally recognized scholar specializing in 17th-century philosophy, including many works of Baruch Spinoza, René Descartes, and Nicolas Malebranche, as well as medieval and early modern Jewish philosophy, and he also serves as the director of the Institute for Research in the Humanities.
In his well-written and interesting 2026 book, Spinoza, Atheist, Professor Nadler wrote that Spinoza was not a pantheist but was an atheist. Although I would like to think that Spinoza held the same ideas about God and Judaism as the great sage Maimonides, I recognize that, given the ambiguity surrounding virtually everything about Spinoza, I may be mistaken and the professor may be right. Nevertheless, I prefer to think he was not an atheist.
There is a Jewish saying that I am certain Professor Nadler knows: Elu v’elu divrei Elohim Chayim. The words mean: “These and these are the words of the living God.“ It is a Jewish principle regarding civil discourse, pluralism, and the possibility that opposing perspectives can both be true.
The saying is found in the Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin 13b. There were two important academies in the 1st century CE, the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai. The two had many disagreements. According to a legend, a heavenly voice resolved the controversies by proclaiming, “These and these are the words of the living God, but the law follows the House of Hillel.”
The Talmud recognized that human understanding is limited. Truth is not found by silencing one side, but by listening to both.
I think this legend applies here because of the many ambiguities surrounding Spinoza, his thoughts and his life, and especially his three unclear Latin words about God, Deus sive Natura, which mean “God or Nature.”
While Professor Nadler thinks that Spinoza was an atheist, and many people, including some of my friends, think he is correct, I like to think that he held the same views as the greatest thinker of Judaism, Maimonides.
I base my thinking on:
- There is no clear evidence that he was an atheist.
- He never converted from Judaism.
- He most likely felt he needed to hide his views, like the Greek pagan Plato, who developed the idea of the “Noble Lie” to hide ideas from uneducated people who could not accept the truth, but retained ideas they learned as children, the Jew Maimonides, who called such lies “Necessary Truths,” the Muslim ibn Tufayl, and many others. (An example of a “Necessary Truth” is that God becomes angry at people who act contrary to His commands.) Spinoza most likely did so because the Christian leaders in Amsterdam during his lifetime threatened to kill people who expressed religious ideas contrary to those they felt God wanted them to have.
- We know that the Jewish community leaders, especially those in the school Spinoza attended, considered him very intelligent and expected him to become a religious leader. It is reasonable to assume that he knew Maimonides’ teachings.
- It is possible that he expressed ideas at school that were contrary to what people not as smart as him held, ideas also contrary to what Amsterdam’s leaders held, and the Jewish leaders feared the Amsterdam leaders would hear of it, and turn against and destroy the Jewish community, many of whom had just escaped from Spanish and Portuguese antisemitism. So, to protect the Jewish community and despite Spinoza’s views reflecting those of Maimonides, they censored Spinoza.
- We know of no Spinoza ideas that are contrary to those of Maimonides.
- One biblical teaching held by Maimonides is that humans cannot understand what God is. In Exodus 18, Moses asks God to reveal God’s identity. God replies that humans are unable to understand what God is, only God’s “back.” This is interpreted to mean that all that humans can know about God is what they can discover from what God created or formed, meaning we can learn about God by understanding what He did about nature, the sciences, and the laws of science. A poet wrote a song in Hebrew called Yom zeh mechubad, “This day (of the Sabbath) is honorable,” in which he, like many others, including the Bible itself in Deuteronomy 32:1, in different words, declares that God exists, and we can learn about God by looking at the universe, “The heavens declare His glory, and the earth is filled with His kindness.” Many Jews sing it during the Shabbat meal.
- Isn’t it reasonable to think this is what Spinoza was implying when he wrote the Latin words, Deus sive Natura, which mean “God or Nature,” and Spinoza was saying “God is seen in nature and was not an atheist?
If you say G-d is not involved in our lives. Do you think or might believe there is a “Hell”? King Solomon said, “For every action, God will bring to judgment, for every unknown, whether good or evil.” Thoughts?
I am convinced that we know nothing about God. I definitely like to think there is a God even though I know nothing about him In Exodus 18, Moses asks God to reveal God’s identity. God replies that humans are unable to understand what God is, only God’s “back.” This is interpreted to mean that all that humans can know about God is what they can discover from what God created or formed, meaning we can learn about God by understanding what He did about nature, the sciences, and the laws of science. A poet wrote a song in Hebrew called Yom zeh mechubad, “This day (of the Sabbath) is honorable,” in which he, like many others, including the Bible itself in Deuteronomy 32:1, in different words, declares that God exists. We can learn about God by looking at the universe: “The heavens declare His glory, and the earth is filled with His kindness.” Many Jews sing it during the Shabbat meal. My mother’s mother’s cousin wrote the music for the zemerot.
If G-d is not involved in the world, then why do we have a Siddur??
As I wrote in reply to your former excellent question, we know nothing about God other than what we see what was created or formed. Perhaps God listens. We do not know. However, what we do know is that the words and ideas placed in the Siddur contain much to teach us, more than what one can learn even during a PhD program in a university. This is why I encourage people to read the prayers slowly, paying attention to what is said, think about it, learn, and improve their lives as well as the helping others improve. In short, I see prayers addressing the prayer, not God, and rather than we worrying whether God hears and responds to prayers, we need to worry about ourselves listening and responding to them.
There is a difference between pantheism and panantheism. If Spinoza equates God with the universe, then God is not unique. If God is everything beyond the universe, then God is unique. Maimonides states clearly that how God manifests himself in this universe is not the same as God’s essence. I think Spinoza equated the two. Whether that defines him as an atheist is subject to debate. Perhaps any wrong view about God is a form of atheism.
I think the best approach to the issue whether Spinoza was an atheist is to realize two things: (1) All of Spinoza’s writings are ambiguous, and (2) we really know nothing about God.
Dear Rabbi Israel Drazin ! Imo, Spinoza is not an atheist in the classical sense, but rather a philosopher who has a deeply unconventional view of God and the nature of reality. His goal is not to deny the existence of God, but to understand the world and our place in it through the power of reason and the observation of nature. Best, stephen
I think we agree. I would add to your excellent thoughts that I prefer to think he held the same views as Mimonides.
This is an eloquent short essay, and it is good to hear you expand your views.
Thank you Robin. This comment coming from an expert in review writing pleases me greatly. By the way, I ordered the book about the invisible Jewish settlement that you and your friend did not like. I did so because I think the author may be mocking traditional ideas about the past which I may find interesting. I will write a review and send it to you.
In the spirit of pluralism, I admit that you may be right and I like to think that you are correct that Spinoza was not an atheist. Spinoza said he scorned atheists. However, his formulation of “God or nature” does seem to implie that either the one Substance said to exist may be termed God (pantheism) or Nature (atheism). But, like you, dear Rabbi Drazin, I like to think Spinoza held the same idea about God like Maimonides. I am also convinced that Maimonids and Spinoza were deists. I understand that deism means that God is not involved in human affairs and whether Spinoza was a pantheist or held ideas about God as Maimonides did, either way, God is not involved with the world = deism. But I respect your view and that of Prof. Nadler’s.
Mr. Hill
I think we mostly agree, although, as you know, I prefer not to place the word Deist to Maimonides because that word has many meanings that the great sage would not have liked.
“These and these are the words of the living God.
Wait if all things that are alive can die
Does this imply and mean that god the almighty can decay and die eventually?
No. We know nothing about God other that what we see or sense that He created or formed.
The Talmud recognized that human understanding is limited. Truth is not found by silencing one side, but by listening to both.
i thought the truth is heard by listening to people who are knowledgable not just listening to any side.
people can be easily swayed and mislead.
You are partially correct. We need to learn from everything – as my wife said, we can even learn about life from trees. But, as Socrates said, while we can learn much, we will never know the full truth.
I like your wife, Dina’s view, that we can learn much even from trees. It shows wisdom.
Yes, my wife is very smart. The book “The Golden Bough” discusses the fact that the ancients worshiped trees. I read the book many decades ago and realized that we can understand some biblical paasges by realizing that the ancients considered trees important in many ways. I am still convinced that this explains the precense of pillars as substitutes for tree in the past and present.
You may want to go on AI and ask, “What did George Frazar say about trees in his classic ‘The Golden Bough’?”
Israel