What do you think?
Rate this book
Spinoza's Religion: A New Reading of the Ethics
A bold reevaluation of Spinoza that reveals his powerful, inclusive vision of religion for the modern age
Spinoza is widely regarded as either a God-forsaking atheist or a God-intoxicated pantheist, but Clare Carlisle says that he was neither. In Spinoza's Religion, she sets out a bold interpretation of Spinoza through a lucid new reading of his masterpiece, the Ethics. Putting the question of religion centre-stage but refusing to convert Spinozism to Christianity, Carlisle reveals that "being in God" unites Spinoza's metaphysics and ethics. Spinoza's Religion unfolds a powerful, inclusive philosophical vision for the modern age--one that is grounded in a profound questioning of how to live a joyful, fully human life.
Like Spinoza himself, the Ethics doesn't fit into any ready-made religious category. But Carlisle shows how it wrestles with the question of religion in strikingly original ways, responding both critically and constructively to the diverse, broadly Christian context in which Spinoza lived and worked. Philosophy itself, as Spinoza practiced it, became a spiritual endeavor that expressed his devotion to a truthful, virtuous way of life. Offering startling new insights into Spinoza's famously enigmatic ideas about eternal life and the intellectual love of God, Carlisle uncovers a Spinozist religion that integrates self-knowledge, desire, practice, and embodied ethical life to reach toward our "highest happiness"--to rest in God.
Seen through Carlisle's eyes, the Ethics prompts us to rethink not only Spinoza but also religion itself.
Spinoza is widely regarded as either a God-forsaking atheist or a God-intoxicated pantheist, but Clare Carlisle says that he was neither. In Spinoza's Religion, she sets out a bold interpretation of Spinoza through a lucid new reading of his masterpiece, the Ethics. Putting the question of religion centre-stage but refusing to convert Spinozism to Christianity, Carlisle reveals that "being in God" unites Spinoza's metaphysics and ethics. Spinoza's Religion unfolds a powerful, inclusive philosophical vision for the modern age--one that is grounded in a profound questioning of how to live a joyful, fully human life.
Like Spinoza himself, the Ethics doesn't fit into any ready-made religious category. But Carlisle shows how it wrestles with the question of religion in strikingly original ways, responding both critically and constructively to the diverse, broadly Christian context in which Spinoza lived and worked. Philosophy itself, as Spinoza practiced it, became a spiritual endeavor that expressed his devotion to a truthful, virtuous way of life. Offering startling new insights into Spinoza's famously enigmatic ideas about eternal life and the intellectual love of God, Carlisle uncovers a Spinozist religion that integrates self-knowledge, desire, practice, and embodied ethical life to reach toward our "highest happiness"--to rest in God.
Seen through Carlisle's eyes, the Ethics prompts us to rethink not only Spinoza but also religion itself.
288 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2021
85 people are currently reading
545 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
October 19, 2021
Resting in God
Baruch Spinoza is another intellectual hero of my youth. I have not read him to any significant degree since then. But reading Clare Carlisle’s interpretation of his Ethics reveals to me how much I had assimilated his thought and gradually came to presume it as my own. Perhaps this demonstrates just how important - and potentially dangerous - learning is. We inevitably become what we are taught. The principal task of old age may be to decide if we have been taught well. Carlisle’s book convinces me that I probably was.
Spinoza was an honest man. I mean this is a very specific sense which I think Carlisle captures without giving it a name. His honesty is not simply that of saying what he thought - that trait is obvious from the difficulties which ensued from it - or of following a logic no matter where it might lead - such a compulsion is indistinguishable from a sort of intellectual fanaticism which he didn’t have. Rather, Spinoza’s honesty was about what he didn’t know. Sometimes this appears as ambiguity, but I find what he has to say - about God, religion, and eternal life - as modest and circumspectly precise rather than vague. He is explicit as he can be, but no more than that. In short, Spinoza’s honesty extends to his own intellectual limitations. He doesn’t claim to know how the world works but only his part in it, and not even that with complete certainty.
Carlisle insists that for Spinoza religion has nothing to do with creeds, doctrine, or confessional statements. She’s right to do so. These are words, and regardless of their purported origin, remain words which cannot represent the life of the Spirit. For Spinoza, religion is a virtue, that is to say, a manner of behaving, a code perhaps, that guides our actions in light of their effects on others. His religion is truly ethical in that it begins and ends with consideration of not just the well-being of fellow-humans but also of the entire cosmos. This is the exact opposite of dogmatic religion which attempts to derive ethics from theological propositions. As Carlisle points out, Spinoza was devoted to his work but not a man of passionate obsession with its content. He criticised himself as much as others did.
Spinoza was not a contrarian interested in making a name for himself, with controversial views, in academia, the church, or businesss. He was aware of his attraction to honour and reputation, but rejected them as incompatible with the need to express that which he felt important. Although he started from a different set of intellectual presumptions than those prevailing at the time, he frequently ended with the endorsement of religious views from Judaism, Catholicism, and Calvinism. He ‘purified’ relevant teachings in a manner entirely different from that of Luther, for example, who started with a list of objections from which he created a movement that in time took on the character of the institution he challenged. Spinoza had no interest in a political or religious movement of reform. His goal was intelligent conversation with whoever found such conversation useful. His intention was never to convert, or even convince, but to remind us of truths we might already know.
Spinoza did not engage in his intellectual journey in order to direct the course of the lives of others but to seek the wisdom that would change the plan of his own life that he then shared with others - much in the manner of Ignatius Loyola with his Spiritual Exercises. He practised what he preached as his primary mode of preaching. Later psychological science might call his personality integrated or whole in the sense that his spiritual, intellectual, and physical life were constantly present to his awareness. His ultimate goal was not to do good in the sense that idealists use that term but to rest in the good, to literally enjoy the peace of a reflective existence in a cosmos that wished him neither good nor evil. This commitment conforms with the Christian and Jewish mandate to consider others before oneself. The implication is that the ultimate good, that is God, is literally the service of oneself to the rest of creation however that may arise given one’s abilities and situation.
It was Spinoza who led me into the philosophy of purpose of C S. Peirce, Josiah Royce and a certain school of American Pragmatism. The first rule of life for Spinoza was to speak in order to provoke a response which required listening. Through listening the intentions of others could be heard and incorporated into one’s own purpose. By so doing, one’s own intellect is healed of its deficiencies and in that sense purified. This still seems to me a radical philosophy. Although I am no longer as confident as my youthful self of its feasibility, I remain emotionally committed to its possibility, as I also do to the consequences of what he called ‘a turning of the soul,’ an attitude which doesn’t anticipate redemption in some other world but a life of loving kindness in this world.
It was the first Christian, Paul of Tarsus, who redefined religion as belief rather than virtuous living. His metaphysics of Christus Victor, Christ Triumphant, was an infectious neurosis that spread rapidly because of its simple demand for its followers to have faith in its complex trinitarian God and to state the necessary formulae of their belief publicly. In response Judaism became, even to itself, an opposing faith despite its ethical core and ancient m0nolatry. Islam arose in the context of a world of religion already defined in terms of faith with its belief in an unambiguously monotheistic God. Spinoza was the first to recover the pre-Pauline idea of religion as a ritual and ethical practice. Remarkably, it was Spinoza who anticipated a growing interest in virtue ethics among Catholics from the middle of the 20th century.
The principle of Spinoza’s religion is straightforward: Acting one’s way into a new way of thinking is far more effective than trying to think one’s way into a new way of acting. This is pure Spinoza. I think that this is the path to the place of rest he found for himself and left for the rest of us.
Baruch Spinoza is another intellectual hero of my youth. I have not read him to any significant degree since then. But reading Clare Carlisle’s interpretation of his Ethics reveals to me how much I had assimilated his thought and gradually came to presume it as my own. Perhaps this demonstrates just how important - and potentially dangerous - learning is. We inevitably become what we are taught. The principal task of old age may be to decide if we have been taught well. Carlisle’s book convinces me that I probably was.
Spinoza was an honest man. I mean this is a very specific sense which I think Carlisle captures without giving it a name. His honesty is not simply that of saying what he thought - that trait is obvious from the difficulties which ensued from it - or of following a logic no matter where it might lead - such a compulsion is indistinguishable from a sort of intellectual fanaticism which he didn’t have. Rather, Spinoza’s honesty was about what he didn’t know. Sometimes this appears as ambiguity, but I find what he has to say - about God, religion, and eternal life - as modest and circumspectly precise rather than vague. He is explicit as he can be, but no more than that. In short, Spinoza’s honesty extends to his own intellectual limitations. He doesn’t claim to know how the world works but only his part in it, and not even that with complete certainty.
Carlisle insists that for Spinoza religion has nothing to do with creeds, doctrine, or confessional statements. She’s right to do so. These are words, and regardless of their purported origin, remain words which cannot represent the life of the Spirit. For Spinoza, religion is a virtue, that is to say, a manner of behaving, a code perhaps, that guides our actions in light of their effects on others. His religion is truly ethical in that it begins and ends with consideration of not just the well-being of fellow-humans but also of the entire cosmos. This is the exact opposite of dogmatic religion which attempts to derive ethics from theological propositions. As Carlisle points out, Spinoza was devoted to his work but not a man of passionate obsession with its content. He criticised himself as much as others did.
Spinoza was not a contrarian interested in making a name for himself, with controversial views, in academia, the church, or businesss. He was aware of his attraction to honour and reputation, but rejected them as incompatible with the need to express that which he felt important. Although he started from a different set of intellectual presumptions than those prevailing at the time, he frequently ended with the endorsement of religious views from Judaism, Catholicism, and Calvinism. He ‘purified’ relevant teachings in a manner entirely different from that of Luther, for example, who started with a list of objections from which he created a movement that in time took on the character of the institution he challenged. Spinoza had no interest in a political or religious movement of reform. His goal was intelligent conversation with whoever found such conversation useful. His intention was never to convert, or even convince, but to remind us of truths we might already know.
Spinoza did not engage in his intellectual journey in order to direct the course of the lives of others but to seek the wisdom that would change the plan of his own life that he then shared with others - much in the manner of Ignatius Loyola with his Spiritual Exercises. He practised what he preached as his primary mode of preaching. Later psychological science might call his personality integrated or whole in the sense that his spiritual, intellectual, and physical life were constantly present to his awareness. His ultimate goal was not to do good in the sense that idealists use that term but to rest in the good, to literally enjoy the peace of a reflective existence in a cosmos that wished him neither good nor evil. This commitment conforms with the Christian and Jewish mandate to consider others before oneself. The implication is that the ultimate good, that is God, is literally the service of oneself to the rest of creation however that may arise given one’s abilities and situation.
It was Spinoza who led me into the philosophy of purpose of C S. Peirce, Josiah Royce and a certain school of American Pragmatism. The first rule of life for Spinoza was to speak in order to provoke a response which required listening. Through listening the intentions of others could be heard and incorporated into one’s own purpose. By so doing, one’s own intellect is healed of its deficiencies and in that sense purified. This still seems to me a radical philosophy. Although I am no longer as confident as my youthful self of its feasibility, I remain emotionally committed to its possibility, as I also do to the consequences of what he called ‘a turning of the soul,’ an attitude which doesn’t anticipate redemption in some other world but a life of loving kindness in this world.
It was the first Christian, Paul of Tarsus, who redefined religion as belief rather than virtuous living. His metaphysics of Christus Victor, Christ Triumphant, was an infectious neurosis that spread rapidly because of its simple demand for its followers to have faith in its complex trinitarian God and to state the necessary formulae of their belief publicly. In response Judaism became, even to itself, an opposing faith despite its ethical core and ancient m0nolatry. Islam arose in the context of a world of religion already defined in terms of faith with its belief in an unambiguously monotheistic God. Spinoza was the first to recover the pre-Pauline idea of religion as a ritual and ethical practice. Remarkably, it was Spinoza who anticipated a growing interest in virtue ethics among Catholics from the middle of the 20th century.
The principle of Spinoza’s religion is straightforward: Acting one’s way into a new way of thinking is far more effective than trying to think one’s way into a new way of acting. This is pure Spinoza. I think that this is the path to the place of rest he found for himself and left for the rest of us.
March 25, 2025
A Scholar's Engagement With Spinoza
Clare Carlisle's book "Spinoza's Religion: A New Reading of the Ethics" (2021) offers an interpretation of Spinoza that is both scholarly and erudite and deeply felt. Professor of Philosophy at King's College London, Carlisle has written on Kierkegaard and has edited George Elliot's translation of Spinoza's "Ethics", the first translation into English. Kierkegaard seems an unlikely philosopher to pair with Spinoza, but Carlisle puts his thought, and much else, to good use in her understanding of Spinoza.
Carlisle does not dwell upon her own background in this study, but what she says is important. She grew up "without a religion" while becoming fascinated with Spinoza and philosophy as an undergraduate. Carlisle says that she has been drawn deeply into questions about God and religious life and has learned from Eastern religion and from Catholic mysticism while not seeing herself clearly within any religious category. In a way contrary to how many people view religion, she says "I have come to think that religion, for me, is not a matter of identity at all." I agree. Carlisle's discussion of how her study of Spinoza has helped her own search for religious understanding frames the book and the interpretation of Spinoza's thought that she develops. She writes:
"[A]lthough I have studied and taught philosophy and theology for more that twenty years, and should perhaps be expected to have formed opinions about religious questions, I have until quite recently felt rather tentative and uncertain about my relationship to these questions. My experience did not match the ready-made images of religionI saw around me, and so I wondered whether I was getting something wrong. For example, the questions, 'Does God exist?' and 'Do you believe in God' confused me. Neither 'yes' nor 'no' feels like the right answer, and this is not because I am agnostic, but because the wording of these questions seems somehow to lead away from what is meaningful and important to me. 'Are you religious' is, similarly, a perplexing question, to which the best answer I can offer is a not-very-illuminating 'yes and no'. Reading Spinoza more deeply and pursing the question of his religion has helped me think more clearly and confidently about my own religious inclinations -- and to understand my own resistance to the ways religion is usually represented and discussed".
In addition to her own search for religious understanding, Carlisle draws on many sources. She shows a thorough familiarity with the contemporary literature on Spinoza, from America and Britain and from the Continent. (The bibliography is a joy to read in itself as are the detailed endnotes.) But the sources on which she draws for her interpretation are perhaps more important. Scholars of Spinoza tend to emphasize either his relationship to the philosophical thought of his contemporaries, particularly Descartes, or his relationship to the Jewish philosophy he studied in his youth, particularly the thought of Maimonides. Carlisle argues that after his Excommunication, age 23, from the Jewish community, Spinoza had little contact with and evidenced little interest in Judaism but rather lived and philosophized within a Christian community. While Spinoza was highly critical of much Christian theology and was far from a convert, Carlisle finds some broad parallels between Christian thought and Spinoza. In particular, she often tries to elucidate Spinoza's views by comparison to the thought of Aquinas, Anselm, and Augustine.
Carlisle offers a detailed reading of both the "Ethics" and the "Theological Political Treatise" and tries to show how Spinoza's great works are related. Unsurprisingly, she finds Spinoza's religious teaching ambiguous in view of the competing interpretations that tend to be offered. She tries to work between the secularist, naturalistic interpretation on one hand in the romantic picture of the "God intoxicated man" on the other hand. Her chief insight is that readers tend to rely too heavily and uncritically on Spinoza's phrase "God or Nature" in understanding his thought. Relying solely on this phrase "God or Nature" encourages interpretations of Spinoza as a naturalist or as a pantheist. But that phrase needs to be read in light of a more fundamental, developed teaching of Spinoza which Carlisle finds in "Being-in-God" which she describes as "the fundamental tenet of Spinoza's thought". It is found at first in Part One, proposition 15 of the "Ethics", "Whatever is, is in God" and is referred to and expounded upon by Spinoza repeatedly throughout the work. Much of Carlisle's reading of Spinoza is based upon her understanding this proposition and following it through the various parts of the "Ethics".
Expanding upon "Being-in-God", Carlisle argues that Spinoza's thought is more akin to panentheism than to either naturalism or pantheism. Reality, for Spinoza. consists of the single substance and of modes, which are dependent upon substance. The dependent, partial modes, including human beings do not exhaust substance but are "in" it or "participate in" it. In successive chapters of her book, Carlisle explores what it means for modes, such as persons, to "participate in" substance as a matter of ontology, epistemology, psychology, and ethics. Her discussions are complex and frequently deeply insightful.
In chapter 6, "Acquiescentia", Carlilse develops Spinoza's statement in Book Four of the "Ethics", pP.52, that "Self-esteem is really the highest we can hope for" and ties this statement in with her understanding of humans being modes participating in God. This becomes a pivotal concept for Carlisle's understanding of religion in Spinoza as she writes: "{T]he thing itself is very simple. Do we feel anxious or contented? Are we agitated or at peace. Spinoza offers this feeling of being ourselves as a guide to the depth of our self-understanding, the adequacy of our metaphysics and our theology, the truth of our religion." As Carlisle works through the "Ethics", her chapters are arranged as concentric circles, almost as independent essays which say similar things about Spinoza and his understanding of religion but with different emphases. The focus is on an ultimately non-dualistic understanding of the relationship between persons and God. And she rejects what she understands as modernity's and secularism's attempts to objectify religion by defining it in terms of creeds. She argues that Spinoza held to instead a concept of religion more akin to the ancient and medieval concepts of virtue; it is internalized and individual and shows in one's acceptance of oneself and lovingkindness towards others. Carlisle sees religion and philosophy as practiced by Spinoza not as a doctrine but as a way of life. Spinoza devoted his life and his gifts to his search for wisdom and understanding. It is this focus and commitment in living a human life that constitutes the religious search.
"Spinoza's Religion" is a splendid and moving book that reminded me of the inspiration I have drawn from Spinoza at many times during my life. Carlisle's book has the rare accomplishment of being deeply personal and intellectually challenging. Not the least of the book's virtues is how it shows philosophers re-engaging with broad questions of reality when these questions, not long ago, had seemingly been abandoned. Readers with a passion for Spinoza and for philosophy will love this book.
Robin Friedman
Clare Carlisle's book "Spinoza's Religion: A New Reading of the Ethics" (2021) offers an interpretation of Spinoza that is both scholarly and erudite and deeply felt. Professor of Philosophy at King's College London, Carlisle has written on Kierkegaard and has edited George Elliot's translation of Spinoza's "Ethics", the first translation into English. Kierkegaard seems an unlikely philosopher to pair with Spinoza, but Carlisle puts his thought, and much else, to good use in her understanding of Spinoza.
Carlisle does not dwell upon her own background in this study, but what she says is important. She grew up "without a religion" while becoming fascinated with Spinoza and philosophy as an undergraduate. Carlisle says that she has been drawn deeply into questions about God and religious life and has learned from Eastern religion and from Catholic mysticism while not seeing herself clearly within any religious category. In a way contrary to how many people view religion, she says "I have come to think that religion, for me, is not a matter of identity at all." I agree. Carlisle's discussion of how her study of Spinoza has helped her own search for religious understanding frames the book and the interpretation of Spinoza's thought that she develops. She writes:
"[A]lthough I have studied and taught philosophy and theology for more that twenty years, and should perhaps be expected to have formed opinions about religious questions, I have until quite recently felt rather tentative and uncertain about my relationship to these questions. My experience did not match the ready-made images of religionI saw around me, and so I wondered whether I was getting something wrong. For example, the questions, 'Does God exist?' and 'Do you believe in God' confused me. Neither 'yes' nor 'no' feels like the right answer, and this is not because I am agnostic, but because the wording of these questions seems somehow to lead away from what is meaningful and important to me. 'Are you religious' is, similarly, a perplexing question, to which the best answer I can offer is a not-very-illuminating 'yes and no'. Reading Spinoza more deeply and pursing the question of his religion has helped me think more clearly and confidently about my own religious inclinations -- and to understand my own resistance to the ways religion is usually represented and discussed".
In addition to her own search for religious understanding, Carlisle draws on many sources. She shows a thorough familiarity with the contemporary literature on Spinoza, from America and Britain and from the Continent. (The bibliography is a joy to read in itself as are the detailed endnotes.) But the sources on which she draws for her interpretation are perhaps more important. Scholars of Spinoza tend to emphasize either his relationship to the philosophical thought of his contemporaries, particularly Descartes, or his relationship to the Jewish philosophy he studied in his youth, particularly the thought of Maimonides. Carlisle argues that after his Excommunication, age 23, from the Jewish community, Spinoza had little contact with and evidenced little interest in Judaism but rather lived and philosophized within a Christian community. While Spinoza was highly critical of much Christian theology and was far from a convert, Carlisle finds some broad parallels between Christian thought and Spinoza. In particular, she often tries to elucidate Spinoza's views by comparison to the thought of Aquinas, Anselm, and Augustine.
Carlisle offers a detailed reading of both the "Ethics" and the "Theological Political Treatise" and tries to show how Spinoza's great works are related. Unsurprisingly, she finds Spinoza's religious teaching ambiguous in view of the competing interpretations that tend to be offered. She tries to work between the secularist, naturalistic interpretation on one hand in the romantic picture of the "God intoxicated man" on the other hand. Her chief insight is that readers tend to rely too heavily and uncritically on Spinoza's phrase "God or Nature" in understanding his thought. Relying solely on this phrase "God or Nature" encourages interpretations of Spinoza as a naturalist or as a pantheist. But that phrase needs to be read in light of a more fundamental, developed teaching of Spinoza which Carlisle finds in "Being-in-God" which she describes as "the fundamental tenet of Spinoza's thought". It is found at first in Part One, proposition 15 of the "Ethics", "Whatever is, is in God" and is referred to and expounded upon by Spinoza repeatedly throughout the work. Much of Carlisle's reading of Spinoza is based upon her understanding this proposition and following it through the various parts of the "Ethics".
Expanding upon "Being-in-God", Carlisle argues that Spinoza's thought is more akin to panentheism than to either naturalism or pantheism. Reality, for Spinoza. consists of the single substance and of modes, which are dependent upon substance. The dependent, partial modes, including human beings do not exhaust substance but are "in" it or "participate in" it. In successive chapters of her book, Carlisle explores what it means for modes, such as persons, to "participate in" substance as a matter of ontology, epistemology, psychology, and ethics. Her discussions are complex and frequently deeply insightful.
In chapter 6, "Acquiescentia", Carlilse develops Spinoza's statement in Book Four of the "Ethics", pP.52, that "Self-esteem is really the highest we can hope for" and ties this statement in with her understanding of humans being modes participating in God. This becomes a pivotal concept for Carlisle's understanding of religion in Spinoza as she writes: "{T]he thing itself is very simple. Do we feel anxious or contented? Are we agitated or at peace. Spinoza offers this feeling of being ourselves as a guide to the depth of our self-understanding, the adequacy of our metaphysics and our theology, the truth of our religion." As Carlisle works through the "Ethics", her chapters are arranged as concentric circles, almost as independent essays which say similar things about Spinoza and his understanding of religion but with different emphases. The focus is on an ultimately non-dualistic understanding of the relationship between persons and God. And she rejects what she understands as modernity's and secularism's attempts to objectify religion by defining it in terms of creeds. She argues that Spinoza held to instead a concept of religion more akin to the ancient and medieval concepts of virtue; it is internalized and individual and shows in one's acceptance of oneself and lovingkindness towards others. Carlisle sees religion and philosophy as practiced by Spinoza not as a doctrine but as a way of life. Spinoza devoted his life and his gifts to his search for wisdom and understanding. It is this focus and commitment in living a human life that constitutes the religious search.
"Spinoza's Religion" is a splendid and moving book that reminded me of the inspiration I have drawn from Spinoza at many times during my life. Carlisle's book has the rare accomplishment of being deeply personal and intellectually challenging. Not the least of the book's virtues is how it shows philosophers re-engaging with broad questions of reality when these questions, not long ago, had seemingly been abandoned. Readers with a passion for Spinoza and for philosophy will love this book.
Robin Friedman
Read
September 11, 2021If you just glance at this book's title, you'll be immediately intrigued, since Benedict Spinoza, famously, valorously, had no religion. Clare Carlisle, whose edition of Spinoza's great "Ethics" (translated by George Eliot!) I very strongly recommend, knows this as well as anybody - she opens her book by admitting it. What she seeks to do here is far, far more intriguing than simple contrarianism could ever be: in these pages she offers a fresh, informed, and invigorating reading of both the "Ethics" and Spinoza's broader intellectual life. If you're new to the whole subject, read Carlisle's "Ethics" - and then come back for this wonderfully thoughtful book.
September 10, 2021
This book by Professor Carlisle ( King's College, London ) is quite exceptional. Though a former Philosophy undergraduate for whom philosophy has been the primary interest of my life, Spinoza's work - the 'Ethics' in particular - continued to perplex and yet 'haunt' me. I examined 'companion' books and 'guide' books aplenty - yet still I felt I was not 'getting' something vital, something 'more', something other than the doggedly secular and naturalistic interpretation that appears so widely held by Spinoza scholars of our time. It seemed to me that too much over-emphasis was given to the 'Nature' component of 'God, or Nature' rather than 'God' ( in Spinoza's definition ) - to 'Natura' rather than 'Deus'. Indeed, Clare Carlisle points out that the famous phrase of Spinoza - 'Deus sive Natura' is only used, in a particular explanatory context, in the fourth part of Ethics and not at all in the first part, 'Of God', wherein Spinoza is expounding his metaphysics; this was quite an eye-opener for this reader who had received this definition as 'gospel' -
as it would appear to have been by many Spinoza commentators ( a lesson in actually READING the text, perhaps? ).
Carlisle demonstrates chapter by chapter, that Spinozan scholarship - particularly in the modern era - has been prejudiced towards a secular, hard materialist or pantheistic interpretation of the Ethics which disregards much of which Spinoza sets out not only in the Ethics but elsewhere including his political treatises and letters. This naturalistic/pantheistic misunderstanding stretches as far as dismissing the whole of part five of Ethics as 'confused', as where Spinoza 'loses the plot'. It seems to me an outrageous arrogance to castigate an entire ( and ultimate ) section of a steadfastly rational work of philosophy ( and a classic of early modern philosophy at that ) because it doesn't 'fit' with one's desired interpretation of the whole.
Professor Carlisle has a more independent and clear-sighted approach. We are led - 'by hand', as Spinoza might say - to see the Ethics as an almost 'revelatory' (my description) text; a text that by the very act of reading/ studying it transforms our thinking process/es. Through reading the propositions, definitions, axioms and scholia of Spinoza's geometrical structure and their many back-references, the reader's understanding is clarified to a deep knowledge of the metaphysical structure of the nature of things and the path of virtuous behaviour that is consequent upon such an understanding. In Spinoza's epistemology there are three levels of knowledge; a) what might be called opinion - often superficial or confused; b) rational knowledge ('ratio') - perhaps empirically based and c) Intuitive understanding - 'scientia intuitiva' - a profound knowledge of the KNOWN ( ie. that doesn't even require the rational 'steps' to arrive at ). In a beautiful metaphor, Carlisle compares this to the sun appearing from behind clouds - the ( as I might put it ) 'Aha!' moment as propositions and explanations of the Ethics unfold and reveal their truths.
In one chapter, Clare Carlisle convincingly expounds how this wisdom has been inherent in religious thought ( Professor Carlisle focusses on the Christian tradition - Augustine, Anselm and Aquinas - though there is no attempt to suggest a specifically Christian reading of Spinoza ) but argues that Spinoza's Ethics can bridge the religious-atheist divide and that between religions more generally.
Although each chapter can stand on its own, read in sequence they bring the attentive reader to perhaps get a glimpse of Spinoza's concept of 'blessedness' and the 'intellectual love of God' - together with the path of virtuous understanding they describe.
This is a book that will repay previous experience of philosophy and Spinoza particularly but should be accessible to the intelligent reader with little experience of either. It will richly reward the reader through repeated readings - as indeed, Clare Carlisle exposits the benefits and training of re-reading that is so vital a part of the deliberate architecture so inherent in the Ethics itself.
I believe it is no exaggeration to state that henceforth Spinoza Studies will be divided into pre and post 'Spinoza's Religion' - that it will put the proverbial 'cat among the pigeons' in those circles is surely a certainty. Professor Carlisle's book is of such sound scholarship, however, that I anticipate hard work for those who would refute it.
This is a book that will 'open up' Spinoza's Ethics for the reader in a manner no other text achieves, to my knowledge. More than that, it offers - it extends an invitation - to a fulfilling path of philosophical, ethical and spiritual living and understanding.
as it would appear to have been by many Spinoza commentators ( a lesson in actually READING the text, perhaps? ).
Carlisle demonstrates chapter by chapter, that Spinozan scholarship - particularly in the modern era - has been prejudiced towards a secular, hard materialist or pantheistic interpretation of the Ethics which disregards much of which Spinoza sets out not only in the Ethics but elsewhere including his political treatises and letters. This naturalistic/pantheistic misunderstanding stretches as far as dismissing the whole of part five of Ethics as 'confused', as where Spinoza 'loses the plot'. It seems to me an outrageous arrogance to castigate an entire ( and ultimate ) section of a steadfastly rational work of philosophy ( and a classic of early modern philosophy at that ) because it doesn't 'fit' with one's desired interpretation of the whole.
Professor Carlisle has a more independent and clear-sighted approach. We are led - 'by hand', as Spinoza might say - to see the Ethics as an almost 'revelatory' (my description) text; a text that by the very act of reading/ studying it transforms our thinking process/es. Through reading the propositions, definitions, axioms and scholia of Spinoza's geometrical structure and their many back-references, the reader's understanding is clarified to a deep knowledge of the metaphysical structure of the nature of things and the path of virtuous behaviour that is consequent upon such an understanding. In Spinoza's epistemology there are three levels of knowledge; a) what might be called opinion - often superficial or confused; b) rational knowledge ('ratio') - perhaps empirically based and c) Intuitive understanding - 'scientia intuitiva' - a profound knowledge of the KNOWN ( ie. that doesn't even require the rational 'steps' to arrive at ). In a beautiful metaphor, Carlisle compares this to the sun appearing from behind clouds - the ( as I might put it ) 'Aha!' moment as propositions and explanations of the Ethics unfold and reveal their truths.
In one chapter, Clare Carlisle convincingly expounds how this wisdom has been inherent in religious thought ( Professor Carlisle focusses on the Christian tradition - Augustine, Anselm and Aquinas - though there is no attempt to suggest a specifically Christian reading of Spinoza ) but argues that Spinoza's Ethics can bridge the religious-atheist divide and that between religions more generally.
Although each chapter can stand on its own, read in sequence they bring the attentive reader to perhaps get a glimpse of Spinoza's concept of 'blessedness' and the 'intellectual love of God' - together with the path of virtuous understanding they describe.
This is a book that will repay previous experience of philosophy and Spinoza particularly but should be accessible to the intelligent reader with little experience of either. It will richly reward the reader through repeated readings - as indeed, Clare Carlisle exposits the benefits and training of re-reading that is so vital a part of the deliberate architecture so inherent in the Ethics itself.
I believe it is no exaggeration to state that henceforth Spinoza Studies will be divided into pre and post 'Spinoza's Religion' - that it will put the proverbial 'cat among the pigeons' in those circles is surely a certainty. Professor Carlisle's book is of such sound scholarship, however, that I anticipate hard work for those who would refute it.
This is a book that will 'open up' Spinoza's Ethics for the reader in a manner no other text achieves, to my knowledge. More than that, it offers - it extends an invitation - to a fulfilling path of philosophical, ethical and spiritual living and understanding.
September 7, 2024
It gets five stars because Carlisle is great and her exploration of Spinoza is informative, thought provoking, and, as always, well-written. She’s definitely one of my favorite authors. Don’t love Spinoza though 😂
March 20, 2022
I read this directly after finishing Carlisle's excellent book on Kierkegaard (Philosopher of the Heart) and once again had a fantastic experience. Spinoza's Religion is a very different book from Philosopher of the Heart - it's much more academic - but it's also lucid and for me at least deeply engrossing. It made me realize how much I agree with what I now understand to be Spinoza's philosophy, and encouraged me to pick up a copy of his Theological-Political Treatise and his Ethics.
November 5, 2021
Carlisle has delivered a methodical explication of Spinoza's religion, and it's not what most people think it is. She convincingly argues against a pantheist or atheist interpretation, instead demonstrating that (a) Spinoza was in fact a deeply religious thinker, and (b) that religion is a panentheist, non-interventionist one that is compatible with, but distinct from, a huge spectrum of doctrinal positions. In Carlisle's telling, Spinoza's appreciation for the wonder of "being-in-god" can be tailored to fit the devout Christian or the nature-loving atheist.
She explains why the famous phrase "Deus sive Natura" is misleadingly emphasized in the secondary literature but is not a "load-bearing element" in Spinoza's thought. He wasn't reducing god to nature; in Spinoza's view, nature in its modes as thought and extension are only two of infinite attributes possessed by "god." And god is perhaps just a name for infinite being itself, the principle of all that exists or can exist. But Spinoza also emphasizes that that plenitude is not static, but must be understood as constitutively dynamic: natura naturans, not natura naturata. Nature naturing is not the same as nature as a reified object of consideration.
One can see that this is a different bogeyman than many religious thinkers believe lurks in his thought, but maybe it's equally as challenging to those who need a sky-daddy to make the bad people pay? The dominant strain of modern religion belongs to a (cowardly and) superstitious lot, and they may take cold comfort in the idea of a deity who is so immanent that it appears everywhere in everything, but cannot be called upon to intervene to smote those they believe really, really deserve it. And maybe the hardcore materialist atheists believe talk of god adds nothing to the discussion, but there are purely instrumental reasons to prefer Spinoza's approach: his view resacralizes the world without reinjecting any dangerous doctrinal mummery that could blunt our moral obligations to one another and the world. Spinoza's religion would encourage us to be better stewards of the environment, better neighbors, and better scientists. For his god can and should be known, making curiosity about the machinery of the universe into a religious virtue.
Which leads to the second surprising thing about Spinoza as described by Carlisle: while he's often described as an arch-rationalist, his tripartite epistemology actually places scientia intuitiva above rational explication as the gold standard of knowledge. Most people are flailing around in the shallow end of imagination/opinion, and Spinoza does describe sequential reasoning as superior to that type of knowledge. But rational argument is limited because you have to reason one syllogism at a time. Spinoza believes there is a kind of knowledge that is not so temporally-constrained, but can instead grasp fundamental truths as a gestalt.
Interestingly, that faculty of intuition bears a lot of similarities to thinkers in the apophatic or mystical tradition. Perhaps Spinoza, King of the Rationalists, is actually, heaven forfend, some species of nature-mystic?? Further, it's hard to tell how the phenomenology of scientia intuitiva would differ from imagination. Can you tell if you're having a genuine mystical insight into the ground of reality or just imaginatively interpreting the electrical static of your brain-meat? One can see some shadowy precursor of Kierkegaard's knight of faith lurking in Spinoza's vision of the philosophical sage.
Carlisle is an excellent guide to all of these questions. She proceeds systematically through the sequence of Spinoza's thought, taking care to establish definitions of terms and linking up ideas across passages to elucidate the structure of the argument. She injects biographical information where it illuminates an aspect of his philosophy, but doesn't overdo it by psychologizing his system. My only real complaint is that Carlisle is a bit too careful: she only lets her personal opinions peek through in a couple places, but I would have welcomed a little more personality flourish. (I liked her acknowledging her complicated relationship to concepts like "god" and "faith!") This is an excellent study of Spinoza and likely to yield fresh insights to those with an open mind. Highly recommended.
She explains why the famous phrase "Deus sive Natura" is misleadingly emphasized in the secondary literature but is not a "load-bearing element" in Spinoza's thought. He wasn't reducing god to nature; in Spinoza's view, nature in its modes as thought and extension are only two of infinite attributes possessed by "god." And god is perhaps just a name for infinite being itself, the principle of all that exists or can exist. But Spinoza also emphasizes that that plenitude is not static, but must be understood as constitutively dynamic: natura naturans, not natura naturata. Nature naturing is not the same as nature as a reified object of consideration.
One can see that this is a different bogeyman than many religious thinkers believe lurks in his thought, but maybe it's equally as challenging to those who need a sky-daddy to make the bad people pay? The dominant strain of modern religion belongs to a (cowardly and) superstitious lot, and they may take cold comfort in the idea of a deity who is so immanent that it appears everywhere in everything, but cannot be called upon to intervene to smote those they believe really, really deserve it. And maybe the hardcore materialist atheists believe talk of god adds nothing to the discussion, but there are purely instrumental reasons to prefer Spinoza's approach: his view resacralizes the world without reinjecting any dangerous doctrinal mummery that could blunt our moral obligations to one another and the world. Spinoza's religion would encourage us to be better stewards of the environment, better neighbors, and better scientists. For his god can and should be known, making curiosity about the machinery of the universe into a religious virtue.
Which leads to the second surprising thing about Spinoza as described by Carlisle: while he's often described as an arch-rationalist, his tripartite epistemology actually places scientia intuitiva above rational explication as the gold standard of knowledge. Most people are flailing around in the shallow end of imagination/opinion, and Spinoza does describe sequential reasoning as superior to that type of knowledge. But rational argument is limited because you have to reason one syllogism at a time. Spinoza believes there is a kind of knowledge that is not so temporally-constrained, but can instead grasp fundamental truths as a gestalt.
Interestingly, that faculty of intuition bears a lot of similarities to thinkers in the apophatic or mystical tradition. Perhaps Spinoza, King of the Rationalists, is actually, heaven forfend, some species of nature-mystic?? Further, it's hard to tell how the phenomenology of scientia intuitiva would differ from imagination. Can you tell if you're having a genuine mystical insight into the ground of reality or just imaginatively interpreting the electrical static of your brain-meat? One can see some shadowy precursor of Kierkegaard's knight of faith lurking in Spinoza's vision of the philosophical sage.
Carlisle is an excellent guide to all of these questions. She proceeds systematically through the sequence of Spinoza's thought, taking care to establish definitions of terms and linking up ideas across passages to elucidate the structure of the argument. She injects biographical information where it illuminates an aspect of his philosophy, but doesn't overdo it by psychologizing his system. My only real complaint is that Carlisle is a bit too careful: she only lets her personal opinions peek through in a couple places, but I would have welcomed a little more personality flourish. (I liked her acknowledging her complicated relationship to concepts like "god" and "faith!") This is an excellent study of Spinoza and likely to yield fresh insights to those with an open mind. Highly recommended.
June 15, 2025
I read Spinoza as an atheist. I've seen this book discussed many times now by people who read him otherwise, and hoped it would give some good arguments from that side. Having read this book, it just wasn't as deep or detailed as I would have hoped. A lot of the material is gestural, and it reads in critical places less like a work of philosophy than as a work of contemporary religious studies or theology. There is a lot that is very good in here, but as for the notion that it contributes to the ongoing debate about the religious status of Spinoza's philosophy, sadly I do not feel it makes much progress.
August 15, 2024
See Robin’s review! Nothing to add.
May 12, 2022
I have so many unread books on my shelves, but after reading this exquisite book, I will have to read Spinoza's Ethics again. And I can hardly wait to start!
November 18, 2025
Dutch philosopher and theologian Benedict de Spinoza was indeed a very brilliant person, albeit one who is hard to understand. Clare Carlisle gave a great explanation as to what Spinoza believed in “Spinoza’s Religion”. While I did enjoy this book and the discussion of it, I am now surprised that I agree less with Spinoza.
I thought of myself as believing in “Spinoza’s God”. When I read “The Ethics” I did not agree with everything, but I did enjoy it and agreed with a lot that was said. Like many, I interpreted “Spinoza’s God” as pantheistic, but according to Carlisle, I was mistaken. As Carlisle states, Spinoza was a panentheist and not a pantheist. Although I am disappointed in myself that I, as many others have, intercepted Spinoza wrong I am also disappointed that I agree less with Spinoza.
Carlisle wrote, “Spinoza never claims that a human being – or any other finite being or thing – is ‘part of God’, while he frequently asserts that we are ‘part of Nature’.”
To me panentheism makes no sense. Although I admit it could be the truth, I do not have the evidence to believe it. Pantheism at least makes sense to me as I see God and Nature as the same. I also had no idea that Spinoza shared a lot in common with Thomas Aquinas, although they also would have disagreed a lot too.
I guess I see Spinoza as my Aquinas. While I do disagree with Spinoza on many things, I still very much agree with him a lot as well. Spinoza’s focus on Nature is very compelling and it is wonderful how he talks about love.
Carlisle wrote, “We are beings-in-God who cannot see the whole of God, and our perspective is limited to the elements (or the attributes) in which we live and move and have our being.”
I thought that Carlisle’s discussion on Spinoza was wonderful and let me learn more about him. I would recommend this to someone who maybe did not understand “The Ethics”.
I thought of myself as believing in “Spinoza’s God”. When I read “The Ethics” I did not agree with everything, but I did enjoy it and agreed with a lot that was said. Like many, I interpreted “Spinoza’s God” as pantheistic, but according to Carlisle, I was mistaken. As Carlisle states, Spinoza was a panentheist and not a pantheist. Although I am disappointed in myself that I, as many others have, intercepted Spinoza wrong I am also disappointed that I agree less with Spinoza.
Carlisle wrote, “Spinoza never claims that a human being – or any other finite being or thing – is ‘part of God’, while he frequently asserts that we are ‘part of Nature’.”
To me panentheism makes no sense. Although I admit it could be the truth, I do not have the evidence to believe it. Pantheism at least makes sense to me as I see God and Nature as the same. I also had no idea that Spinoza shared a lot in common with Thomas Aquinas, although they also would have disagreed a lot too.
I guess I see Spinoza as my Aquinas. While I do disagree with Spinoza on many things, I still very much agree with him a lot as well. Spinoza’s focus on Nature is very compelling and it is wonderful how he talks about love.
Carlisle wrote, “We are beings-in-God who cannot see the whole of God, and our perspective is limited to the elements (or the attributes) in which we live and move and have our being.”
I thought that Carlisle’s discussion on Spinoza was wonderful and let me learn more about him. I would recommend this to someone who maybe did not understand “The Ethics”.
April 9, 2022
I found this a lucid and compelling introduction to Spinoza's Ethics and, through that lens, to his religion. I had never really engaged with Spinoza as a philosopher, having focused more on the ancient Greeks than on the 'early moderns', but the parallels between Spinoza and Plotinus (3rd century CE) are intriguing. What I especially liked about this book is that the author does not try to make Spinoza a mouthpiece for her own philosophical worldview (a not uncommon tendency among philosophers!) but allows his thinking to illuminate her spiritual search and mediates that illumination to the reader. Having gone into philosophy myself in a spirit of seeking truth through reason after half a lifetime of seeking it through revelation, I rediscovered 'God' in these pages in a way that was both new and familiar: new in that 'God' for Spinoza is impersonal, not anthropomorphic, not the subject of doctrines; familiar in that Spinoza's God is the ground of all being, the highest good and worthy of our love. For Spinoza, love of God necessarily includes love of oneself and of others as beings-in-God. This gives rise to a religious ethic, in which the virtues of justice, loving-kindness and mercy guide our actions and are their own reward.
April 9, 2024
Cool book about religion in Spinoza’s Ethics. I like the panenthiesm (not pantheism) interpretation of Spinoza that cuts a nice balance between a godless mechanical world where God is just nature and one where God is completely separate from nature. Some heavy-ish metaphysical reading to understand Spinoza’s conception of God if one isn’t familiar with it, but Carlisle is good at this exposition. Very nice use of Christian theology to illuminate points about Spinoza’s idea of religion as a virtue and the exposition of the Ethics to get to that point makes it all the more worthwhile. I wish there would’ve been a little more cross talk with Protestant theologians, since religion for Spinoza is so similar to Aquinas’s conception of religion. I would’ve loved to think through what Spinoza would’ve done with the challenge of religion only being a matter of faith, rather than also virtuous practice, that we see in Lutheranism.
November 17, 2024
Carlisle puts forth a solid effort to cast Spinoza's monism as a "religion," including a nifty interpretation of Book 5 of the Ethics. I think it's fair to say that Spinoza was a theist, assuming that there is nothing tautological about his defining God as Totality, but she has to stretch a bit (and quibble over the definition of religion) to argue that Spinoza espouses a religion per se. Much of her argument depends on the Theological-Political Treatise, so this "New Reading of the Ethics" goes beyond the Ethics for support. There's nothing disingenuous about this, but it involves a very loose interpretation of "religion." Spinoza's theology runs up against the same problem that any universalism has to deal with: the loss of the self. It cannot account for the individual as a real substance. (Hence all the rigmarole about modes in the Ethics.) The first, mostly unspoken, tenet of Spinoza's religion is that the human soul is not particular to individual human beings. It's very curious that Carlisle is also a Kierkegaard scholar, because it's precisely this kind of universalism that Kierkegaard rails against when it developed as Hegelianism.
December 19, 2022
The author heroically tackles the perspective on God and religion of the C17 philosopher. By considering the posthumously-published Ethics rather than earlier, more overtly religious, works, she is able to suggest things that many other writers on this subject have not been able to. The author's expositions are so clear, in fact, that, when we encounter (translated) sections of Spinoza's own words, the result of thus being plunged back into the convoluted language of philosophy is disconcerting.
August 24, 2022
Einstein said, when he was pressed by Rabbi Herbert Goldstein about his belief in God, that, he “believed in Spinoza’s God, who is revealed in the lawful harmony of the world not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and doings of mankind.”
God is central to Spinoza’s philosophy. But who is Spinoza’s God? This is the question that made Clare Carlisle reexamined Spinoza’s the Ethics. Throughout the book Carlisle argued and showed how Spinozist philosophy have led to the derivation of the concept of ‘being-in-God’, as the utmost goal of a man, from the propositions in Chapter I of the ethics- concerning of God.
I would say that this book will likely become one of the most important literary and scholarly work about Spinoza. For one, it substantiate the claim that Spinoza is neither an atheist nor a pantheist, and that his whole Philosophy (metaphysics, epistemology, ontology and moral philosophy) is, in fact, as what Clare have presented, a religion (not in the sense of what we mean about religion-as a dogma) that integrates self-knowledge, desire, practice, and embodied ethical life to reach toward our “highest happiness” - to rest in God or being-in-God
I think that anyone who are not yet familiar with the Ethics should at least read it in order to really understand and appreciate Carlisle’s “Spinoza’s Religion”.
God is central to Spinoza’s philosophy. But who is Spinoza’s God? This is the question that made Clare Carlisle reexamined Spinoza’s the Ethics. Throughout the book Carlisle argued and showed how Spinozist philosophy have led to the derivation of the concept of ‘being-in-God’, as the utmost goal of a man, from the propositions in Chapter I of the ethics- concerning of God.
I would say that this book will likely become one of the most important literary and scholarly work about Spinoza. For one, it substantiate the claim that Spinoza is neither an atheist nor a pantheist, and that his whole Philosophy (metaphysics, epistemology, ontology and moral philosophy) is, in fact, as what Clare have presented, a religion (not in the sense of what we mean about religion-as a dogma) that integrates self-knowledge, desire, practice, and embodied ethical life to reach toward our “highest happiness” - to rest in God or being-in-God
I think that anyone who are not yet familiar with the Ethics should at least read it in order to really understand and appreciate Carlisle’s “Spinoza’s Religion”.
June 30, 2023
I have read the Ethics in fits and spurts, off and on through the years but never in a truly concentrated way. Professor Carlisle's book was so good I feel inspired to go back and dive in. The writing is of course academic, but it was very accessible as well. It had a nice flow to it and wove in other sources seamlessly. An absolutely lovely book with an excellent message.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews