Spinoza, Atheist

by Steven Nadler, Robert G. Slade (Narrator)

This audiobook narrated by Robert Slade shares a fascinating historical and philosophical account that unravels the mystery of whether Spinoza was an atheist

In 1656, a young Amsterdam merchant was excommunicated by his Portuguese-Jewish community in the harshest terms it had ever used. Baruch Spinoza was accused of unspecified "horrifying heresies," but the precise reasons for his expulsion remain a mystery. When he published his Theological-Political Treatise in 1670, which was condemned as "the most atheistic book ever written," he began to reveal to the world what his heresies may have been. Yet ever since the eighteenth century, most readers and scholars have assumed that Spinoza was a pantheist—even a "God-intoxicated man," as the poet Novalis put it. After all, how could a person whose books are suffused with talk of God be an atheist? In Spinoza, Atheist, Steven Nadler, one of the world's leading authorities on the philosopher, aims to settle the question and show that that's exactly what he was.

Nadler makes a powerful case that there is no real divinity for Spinoza. God is Nature, and isn't an object of worshipful awe or religious reverence but can only be understood through philosophy and science. There is nothing supernatural—no mystery, ineffability, or sublimity. Spinoza does speak of "blessedness" and "salvation," but these, too, are to be understood in natural and rational terms, as the peace of mind and happiness that come from understanding ourselves and the world.

Whether Spinoza believed in God is a fascinating and enduring controversy. Spinoza, Atheist promises to transform our understanding of his views and to make clear just how radical a thinker he was and remains.

Genres: Philosophy, History, Religion

Audible Audio

Published April 7, 2026

About the author

Steven Nadler is the William H. Hay II Professor of Philosophy at the University of Wisconsin--Madison. His books include Rembrandt's Jews, which was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize; Spinoza: A Life, which won the Koret Jewish Book Award; and A Book Forged in Hell: Spinoza's Scandalous Treatise and the Birth of the Secular Age (Princeton).

Reviews

[R-K · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a pretty good book which, eventually, gave me what I was looking for — an explanation as to how one would consider Spinoza to be an atheist. I was not totally convinced in the final analysis but that was largely because Spinoza consistently referred to “God” throughout his works.

Nadler spends a good part of the book arguing against those who posit that Spinoza is either a “pantheist“ or a “panentheist” (a new term with which to impress my friends). Spinoza then proceeds to break down the concept of God as a personal, providential, judging being. Also, as Nadler states, “Spinoza reduces Holy Scripture to a ‘corrupted’ and ‘mutilated’ work of human literature. At the same time, he argues that his positions on the nature of religion and God are suitable only for the “learned”: the hoi polloi, on the other hand, need to keep their superstitious beliefs. Spinoza does, however, criticize organized religion for being overly controlling and misleading and uses “ceremony and pomp, so that it will be thought to have greater weight than any other influence, and so that everyone always worship it with the utmost deference.” Spinoza is specifically very critical of religion meddling in political matters.

In regard to his arguments for the nature of God, Spinoza introduces the concept “Deus sive Natura” (“God or Nature”). Here, Nadler argues that Spinoza’s God is not merely unconventional but fundamentally incompatible with classical theism. God does not choose, love, command, punish, or intervene. Nature unfolds through necessity alone. Nadler is especially good at showing how Spinoza empties traditional religious language of anthropomorphic meaning while still retaining the word “God.” Nadler goes on to argue as to why this position looked indistinguishable from atheism to Spinoza’s contemporaries.

Nadler distinguishes between nominal belief in “God” and belief in a genuinely religious deity. His claim is subtle: Spinoza is not an atheist because he denies substance or ultimate reality; he is an atheist because the being he calls “God” lacks will, personality, intention, providence, and moral governance . (I will note here that concurrently with this book, I have been making my way, rather slowly, through Brook Ziporyn’s book ‘Experiments in Mystical Atheism: Godless Epiphanies from Daoism to Spinoza and Beyond’ in which Ziporyn puts forward a very similar understanding of atheism.) Nadler also introduces a second criterion for atheism: the absence of reverence in the ordinary religious sense. Spinoza seeks understanding rather than worship, rational clarity rather than awe and that Spinoza dissolves the emotional and devotional dimensions central to Judaism and Christianity.

Nadler further argues that Spinoza replaces religious salvation with a form of rational liberation. Blessedness comes not through grace, ritual, or immortality, but through understanding necessity and overcoming passive emotions. This produces a calm, active joy rooted in knowledge of nature. Nadler emphasizes how radical this was: Spinoza offers something structurally similar to salvation while rejecting virtually every theological foundation traditionally associated with it. The result is an ethics of flourishing without transcendence.

Nadler finally suggests that Spinoza represents one of the earliest and strongest attempts to ground morality entirely within nature and reason. Virtue does not require divine reward or punishment; ethical life emerges from understanding ourselves as finite modes within the whole of nature. Nadler presents Spinoza as someone seeking liberation through understanding one’s place within an immanent totality rather than through obedience to a transcendent ruler. There is an interesting parallel there with traditions that value attunement to the larger process of reality rather than submission to a creator God.

I suppose that what I consider to be the weakness of the book, that Spinoza never ceases to use the word God, that “Deus sive Natura” (God or Nature) remains the usage of Spinoza throughout his later writings leaves me with some suspicions. Perhaps Spinoza was just doing it to have an out should anyone want to have him pilloried as an atheist. I guess in the final analysis, I would have to read Spinoza’s “Ethics” in order to settle the question for myself, but in the meantime I shall just remain a Skeptic, my go to position.

————————

Some quotes:

It is not at all that the sacred books everywhere speak so improperly about God, and attribute to him hands, feet, eyes, ears, a mind, and local motion,as well as emotions, like jealousy, compassion, etc., or that they depict him as a judge, and as sitting on a royal throne, with Christ at his right hand. They speak according to the power of understanding of the common people, whom scripture is concerned to make obedient, not learned. (Spinoza)

Despite the delayed appearance in the Ethics os ‘Deus seu Natura’ asa kind of Spinozistic motto, the identification of God and Nature clearly inform Spinoza’s discussion of God throughout the work …. (Nadler)

“In nature there exists only one substance, and … it is absolutely infinite.” The point is that Nature is that infinite subject and its attributes; but God is the unique substance with infinite attributes; Nature is God. (Nadler)

[Herb · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the 4th book I have read by this popularizer of Philosophy (2 others about Spinoza, 1 about Leibniz) wherein he aims to end the centuries-old debate as to whether or not Spinoza was really an atheist or some hybrid something else. The title gives the author's position away. Well argued, enlightening and very readable. Good book.

[Israel Drazin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Was Spinoza an atheist?

Spinoza, Atheist is a 2023 book by Steven Nadler in which he argues that Spinoza was an atheist; that his philosophy was a form of pantheism; that God does not exist; that what we call God is nothing more than nature; and that Spinoza was a symbol of freethought and secular modernity.
He was convinced that Spinoza rejected what many think is the biblical conception of the deity: God intervenes in history, performs miracles, rewards, punishes, and listens to prayers. In its place, Spinoza proposed that God does not exist and that the universe is governed entirely by unthinking nature. He thinks that the many modern ideas concerning religious tolerance, freedom of thought, secular government, and scientific rationalism owe a debt to Spinoza’s daring philosophy. According to Nadler, Spinoza is a hero of the Enlightenment.
He is likely correct that Spinoza was convinced that God does not intervene in history, perform miracles, reward, punish, or listen to prayers - other Jewish thinkers said the same thing while never denying God’s existence. But he is clearly wrong to suppose that when Spinoza said we can see God in nature, he meant God does not exist.
There is substantial evidence that, despite being intelligent, Professor Nadler was mistaken in his understanding of the ambiguous statement. He failed to realize that Spinoza was reflecting a long-held Jewish understanding.
In Exodus 33:18-23, Moses pleads with God, "Please show me Your glory." God responds that Moses cannot see His face, "for no man can see Me and live." Instead, God places Moses in a cleft of a rock, covers him with His hand as His glory passes by, and then removes His hand so that Moses can see His "back" (Hebrew: achoray), while His face remains hidden.
Jewish tradition strictly avoids anthropomorphism (ascribing physical traits to God) and interprets this story through philosophical and allegorical lenses. The story is saying that we can know nothing about God, only know about God’s back, what God created or formed.
Moses repeated this idea in his final song in Deuteronomy 32:1-2, "Give ear to the heavens about what I will speak. Listen to the earth about the words of my mouth." Jewish commentators, including Midrash Sifre, link these words of Moses to the Exodus story. Because Moses witnessed and understood the brilliance of creation (the "back" of God), he realized that heaven and earth testified to God's existence and that he could call upon them as witnesses to this teaching. Isaiah said the same thing in the introduction to his prophecies.
There are multiple other similar Jewish sayings that Nadler missed.
In Berakhot 7a, the Talmudic sages interpret the "back of God" both literally and symbolically, stating that God showed Moses the knot of His tefillin (phylacteries), which allegorically implies that Moses was allowed to see the physical bond between God and the Jewish people, the lower earthly manifestations of divine will and work.
Midrash Shemot Rabba 23:1 states that God’s essence is hidden from all created beings, even angels. But it does not suggest that God does not exist.
In The Guide for the Perplexed 1:37, 1:38, and 1:54, Maimonides explains that "face" means the true essence of a being, but humans cannot see or even understand God’s “face,” and "back" means God's actions and effects in the physical world. Therefore, Moses was granted an understanding of the laws of nature and creation, but not the essence of God. Spinoza knew Maimonides’ interpretation.
Like Maimonides, the rational medieval scholar and biblical commentator, Abraham ibn Ezra, in his commentary to Exodus 33:18 and 21, held the same view as Maimonides that Moses' request was intellectual. Moses wanted to understand as much as he could about God and the universe, but was told that humans were unable to understand these matters.
I explained this narrative as did Maimonides in many of my writings. I emphasized that the story teaches a vital lesson about human limitations: we cannot know what God is, but we can know what God does. Looking at God's "back" means examining the laws of nature, science, and the moral order established in the universe. When Moses asks to see God's "glory," he is seeking ultimate scientific truth about the universe. God's refusal shows that the human brain is physically unequipped to absorb the absolute essence of reality. Instead, humans must “find and understand God" by studying, understanding, and respecting the natural world and its ethical demands.
Likely, Baruch Spinoza, who was considered very knowledgeable of Jewish teachings and whose teachers thought he would become a rabbi, understood this story in exactly this manner. It is a perfect blueprint of his philosophy.
We all make mistakes. It is part of the human makeup. Virtually every person in the Hebrew Bible committed an error, at least once. I am not disparaging Professor Nadler for his error. I also made mistakes. So too did the scholars who translated the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament in the King James translation in 1604-1611.
They translate the Greek word logos at the start of the New Testament book of John, “In the beginning was the logos,” as “the word,” even though it is clear that God spoke many words in the first chapter of Genesis. True, logos means “word.” But it also means “wisdom.” The author of John clearly meant the latter word, as many sources in Jewish texts state that in the beginning, there was wisdom. They, like Professor Nadler, ignored long-held Jewish teachings.
For example, the concept that wisdom existed at the beginning with God appears in Proverbs 8:22–31 of the Hebrew Bible. Proverbs 8:22 reports wisdom stating, "The Lord created/possessed me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old." Proverbs 8:23 continues: "Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth." Proverbs 8:30 adds: "Then I was beside him, like a master workman; and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always."
Proverbs 3:19 is another example: "The Lord by wisdom founded the earth; by understanding He established the heavens." So, too, is Psalm 104:24: "O Lord, how manifold are Your works! In wisdom have You made them all."
The King James translators also erred in Genesis 1:1 and 2, where they translated, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." The Hebrew for “Spirit of God” is ruach Elohim, two words they mistranslated because they either did not know or forgot that while the word Elohim is usually translated God, it is so used because it denotes “powerful,” and is also used to denote powerful humans, as in Exodus 21:6 and 22:8-9: When discussing civil disputes and the permanent bond of a servant, the text states the case must be brought before Elohim. Medieval commentators such as Rashi and Abraham ibn Ezra interpret Elohim in these verses as local human judges.
Similarly, in his commentary on Genesis 6:2, ibn Ezra describes the "bnei Elohim" (often mistranslated as "sons of God") marrying the "bnot ha-adam" ("daughters of men"). Instead of viewing these beings as angels or other supernatural entities, he draws on his background in astronomy and astrology to offer a highly rationalistic, human-centered explanation- they were exceptional men.
These two examples are not the only mistakes of the King James translators. Their translation is filled with errors. Nadler erred as they did.

[robin friedman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Is Spinoza An Atheist?

Many years ago, as a graduate student in philosophy I was required to select a philosopher to write about as part of my prelims. I chose Spinoza. The examination question was "Is Spinoza an atheist"?I don't remember what I wrote and never completed the PhD. But Spinoza, and the question asked on the exam, have stayed with me.

The question is the subject of philosopher Steven Nadler's new book, "Spinoza, Atheist" (2026). Nadler, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Wisconsin -- Madison has written extensively on Spinoza. He has the gift of writing for interested lay readers rather than only for specialists in philosophy or Spinoza. As Nadler points out, Spinoza likely receives more attention from nonspecialist readers than any other philosopher. In my view, this is because Spinoza is seen as offering a broad way of thinking about important questions of life separate from the Abrahmic traditions. Nadler lectures frequently to nonspecialist audiences, and he points out that "Spinoza, Atheist" is designed to appeal to lay readers as the questions it considers remain important. Nadler writes in a colloquial, accessible style to present his great learning and long thinking about Spinoza.

Was Spinoza an atheist? Yes, says Nadler, unequivocally so. In the opening chapters of his book, Nadler reviews Spinoza's life, his excommunication from the synagogue at the age of 23, and early interpretations of his work. During his lifetime and beyond, Spinoza was largely viewed (and reviled) as an atheist. Some of the reaction was due to poltitics and clergy, but perhaps some hit home. In the 18th Century, Spinoza began to be viewed as a pantheist, a difficult term but meaning that God is immanent in everything. Pantheism displaced atheism as the leading interpretation of Spinoza and remains so today. A still broader position on Spinoza is called panentheism, which means that God is immanent but also goes beyond immanence. This position has attracted some support in contemporary philosophy.Nadler argues against both the pantheist and the panentheist interpretations.

What is clear, Nadler argues, is that Spinoza rejects the view of God of the Abrahamic tradition under which God is at least in part anthropomorphic, creates the world, has will and knowledge, gives laws for humans to follow, and offers rewards or punishment, as the case may be, after death. Beyond that, in determining Spinoza's views, Nadler examines Spinoza's two great works, the "Theological-Political Treatise" and the "Ethics" and their relationship. For a long time, the "Theological-Political Treatise"tended to be less studied. Nadler has written an excellent book about it, "A Book Forged In Hell: Spinoza's Scandalous Treatise and the Birth of the Secular Age." (2011) He also studies Spinoza's correspondence.

Nadler finds the two books reach similar conclusions about God and about atheism. In the former book, Spinoza allows for the practice of traditional theism by the unlearned to the extent it teaches justice and love for one's fellowman. But in both books, particularly in Part I of the Ethics which Nadler examines, Spinoza's philosophy turns to atheism, for Nadler. He finds that Spinoza's famous equation "God or Nature" does not allow for the characteristics of theism, whether of an Abrahamic, pantheistic, or panentheistic variety.

Nadler has a great deal of learning in the current large literature on Spinoza. His views seem to me close to the views of Jonathan Israel who has written extensively on "Radical Enlightenment" in Spinoza. Nadler examines the views of contemporary scholars including Yitzhak Melamed and Clare Carlisle in her book, "Spinoza's Religion" (2021). Melamed and Carlisle both offer panentheistic readings of Spinoza which Nadler treats respectfully but critiques on historical and philosophical grounds.

It was refreshing to return to Spinoza through Nadler's book. Like many readers, I have been inspired by Spinoza's writing largely through the possibility it offers of an alternative to the Abrahamic tradition of monotheism in a secular age. As between an atheistic and a pantheistic reading of Spinoza, I continue to go back and forth. There are ambiguities in Spinoza's work itself, as come through in Nadler's account and become still stronger when one considers other difficulties in Spinoza's position besides those involving theism. Spinoza frequently seems to want to have things both ways. Perhaps Spinoza was developing a philosophy beyond the easy labels of "atheist" or "pantheist" that form a seeming dichotomy. Nadler quotes, but rejects, a philosopher who in the following passage takes this position.

"The contradictory interpretations of the Spinozist system prove, once again, that singular systems of thought, to the extent that they are complex, rich, and profound, have little to gain by being put into boxes that freeze them in a single optic to the detriment of another that is just as valid. Such systems remain definitively unclassifiable because they are original." (Nadler, pp 148-49, footnote omitted.)

This book is valuable for readers, specialist and nonspecialist, with a passion for Spinoza and for philosophical thinking.

Robin Friedman

[Mark · Rating 2 out of 5]

I wasn’t convinced by the author’s argument. It seems pedantic. And as Nadler says himself he will “put words in Spinoza’s mouth.”

Spinoza developed a theory to prove God’s existence but also to prove that the personified version in the Abrahamic faiths didn’t work. A number of other religions also conceive of a Oneness in which all else is connected and they seem to hold those “facts” in reverence and wonder. Why can’t he?

Spinoza said God as Nature is necessary. I am not sure this book is. I have learned a lot about Spinoza in the author’s earlier works and from elements of some chapters in the current book when talking about others’ attempts to label or compartmentalize Spinoza. But this time my learning seemed accidental, hidden in the trappings of the argument he wanted to advance that seemed more the author’s view of the world than Spinoza’s.

Glad I read it as a library book.

[Thomas Solow · Rating 4 out of 5]

Spinoza is usually labeled a pantheist but Nadler argues that he is better understood as an atheist. The book is a good introduction to Spinoza; I'm not very familiar but didn't have trouble following the various arguments.

A bit of a slog when the discussion turns to whether everything is in God or God is in everything or God is everything or God causes everything. But you only have yourself to blame, you chose to read a book about Spinoza.

[Kerry Pickens · Rating 4 out of 5]

Spinoza was considered an atheist and ostracized by the Jewish community for questioning their version of God. He was a naturalist and saw God in all his creations. Today he would be considered a philosopher and not an atheist.