In 1929, the renowned Jewish leader, Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein sent Einstein a telegram asking whether or not he believed in God. His reply was as follows:
“I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.”
Baruch (or Benedict) Spinoza was a 17th century Philosopher who was excommunicated from the Jewish community because of his views on God. Through his own Philosophy, he achieved a Pantheism similar to the Hindu concept of Brahman.
He contended that the entire Universe is one Reality and there is only one set of rules governing it in its entirety. What he called “Deus sive Natura” (“God or Nature”) was a being of infinite aspects.
The key word: Being. He perceived an entity as the order of the universe as well as the universe itself.
The core concept of Logos appears again through philosophy but independent of the Greek thinkers and thousands of years later.
But the pantheistic similarities between Spinoza’s Deus sive Natura and Logos ends there.
Spinoza’s God is simply the natural world and thus, has no distinct personality.
Logos is similar in that it is the system of which everything in nature is a part, but it’s a rational system, a sentient system. And if it fully sentient then it has a personality, albeit a personality completely beyond our understanding.
Additionally, Spinoza claimed that human free will was nothing more than an illusion since we are nothing more than cells in a giant being without a brain. He claimed that what we presume to be free will is a result of our awareness of appetites and being unable to understand the reasons why we want and act as we do.
Ironically, this is strikingly similar to the Calvinist or Islamic concept of Divine providence – God’s plan for the world and every soul is guided by his will.
While Divine providence presents a divinity that consciously brings about already damned souls, the Deus sive Natura sees no fault in human action no matter the action.
There are grave flaws in both philosophies for to deny the free will of the individual is to deny either a rational God or a compassionate God – impossibilities to the Abrahamanic conception.
So back to Einsteins comment. His perception is astute but incomplete in that God does reveal himself in the orderly harmony of what exists and also concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.
The way it intervenes in humanity is through humanity since it is, in part, humanity.
For Logos to intervene in free will would be against the whole human experiment, the whole purposive evolution of our race.
The fact is, free will allows for a wholly imperfect world but is the only way that the best of humanity can manifest itself.
