At the same time Hobbes was putting forth in England his theory regarding the absolute authority of a secular ruler, Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) was in the Netherlands doing something very similar. Spinoza is actually seen by many to be one of the first men to advance what is called “historical criticism” of the Bible. At the same time, his motivation was hardly noble. His historical criticism of the Bible was done with one goal in mind: to prove how stupid and superstitious it was.
Spinoza was no Christian. In fact, he attempted to completely de-spiritualize any notion of “God” by identifying “God” with the very matter of nature itself. For Spinoza (a) all reality was only matter in the natural world, and (b) “God” was all reality, therefore (c) the only “God” that existed was the natural world itself. In other words, Spinoza adhered to complete materialist monism.
Spinoza’s effect on Western thought centers around his view of humanity and his understanding of the role of government. For Spinoza, there were essentially three kinds of people:
- First, there are the philosophic elite: the small number of truly rational people with the true understanding and intellectual vision to know what is best for society.
- Second, there is a middle class of people: the group of scientifically-minded experts, slightly larger in number than the philosophic elite. These people are clearly rational and devoted to understanding the world in solely scientific/materialistic terms, but aren’t as “with it” as the philosophic elite. Namely, they don’t have the intellectual vision for what is truly best for society that the philosophic elite have.
- Thirdly, though, there is the vast majority of people who are stupid, vulgar, ignoramuses. These people are completely incapable of putting any kind of rational thought together, and are complete slaves to their imaginations, passions, and irrational superstitions (i.e. religion).
Given this is just the way things are, Spinoza mused that it is absolutely necessary for the philosophic elite to rule over the vulgar masses. They’re the only ones rational enough to do so! So the natural question becomes this: “What is the determining factor as to whether or not one was truly rational?”
Spinoza’s answer was simple: whether or not you believed in God (i.e. immaterial reality). If you did, then you weren’t rational, and were thus a vulgar idiot. But if you didn’t believe in God, that meant you were a materialist, and potentially rational and deserving enough to be a member of the philosophical elite who should rule over the ignorant masses.
The Mass of Religious Idiots: What’s the Best Way to Control Them?
Spinoza, though, realized there was the looming problem: the fact is, the majority of people did believe in God, and that the philosophic elite didn’t rule society. So the next question became, “What are the philosophic elite to do?” Well, Spinoza channeled his inner Machiavelli (whom he incidentally called “that most farseeing man”) and said that the philosophic elite had to somehow “regain control of the state and put the church completely at its service; the church itself must be transformed so that it becomes an instrument of the secularizing liberal state” (Wiker, Worshipping the State 148).
Spinoza’s battle plan was simple: get State power, co-opt the Church, then manipulate it and use it as a tool of the government to help rule over the idiots who actually believe that crap!
To this end, Spinoza suggested the necessity of certain institutional mechanisms that the State should use—things like public education. Now, throughout the Middle Ages, it was the Church that championed and promoted education throughout Europe. For Spinoza’s plan to work, though, that had to change. And so, Spinoza said that the State should wrest the task of education from the Church, so that it could control education itself, and thus could effectively indoctrinate the ignorant masses to be good, obedient servants of the State. Now, he wouldn’t exactly say it that way. He rather said that the aim of government was to free people from fear so they could enjoy liberty. But what fear was he talking about, other than the fear and superstition of religion?
And the beauty of this scheme was that the State would use religion to accomplish its ends. The State wouldn’t teach the masses that there was no God—they were too ignorant and stupid to get their minds around that one! Instead, the State would simply emphasize certain parts of the Bible more than others. We must remember that Spinoza considered the Bible to be a vulgar book of superstitious nonsense that nevertheless had tremendous sway over the mass of vulgar and superstitious people. I mean, come on: the Bible claimed Jesus healed the sick, cleansed, lepers, and raised from the dead, after all! How stupid can you be?
Historical Criticism…a Tool For the State?
Philosophic elitist materialists like Spinoza knew that such miracles don’t happen—they violate the laws of nature…and nature is God…and God can’t violate himself! In addition, there are other claims made in the Bible that just cannot be scientifically proven and that people often got in arguments over: is Jesus just a man, or is he God, or is he both? Such arguments never got anyone anywhere, and just stoked the fires of intolerance and hostility. Something had to be done to tame this vulgar and volatile book! Spinoza thought he was just the man to lead the philosophic elite in that endeavor.
Therefore, Spinoza went about the task of historical criticism of the Bible in order to prove that miracles didn’t happen, so that the philosophic elite could then effectively leave those “miracle parts” out, focus on just the good, moral teachings of the Bible, and emphasize those parts to the vulgar masses in the public square. Simply put, Spinoza wanted to reduce the Bible into a morality tale that just taught good moral lessons. Those were the things that should be emphasized in the State-sponsored type of Christianity for the public square.
But as for belief in miracles, or speculations regarding the finer points of unscientific doctrine—well, believe what you want in private, you certainly have that right to believe whatever you personally prefer, but those things don’t have their place in the public sphere. Or as Benjamin Wiker puts it, Spinoza’s brand of Christianity was this: “You don’t need the Nicene Creed if you’re nice. People who fight over inconsequential dogmas are not nice. They’re intolerant” (155).
Religious Belief: It’s a Private Affair, so Keep it in the Closet
And voila—there you have it! The vulgar, superstitious masses are pacified! Just tell them they have a right to believe whatever they want, as long as they keep it private and out of public life! And then use those state-sponsored mechanisms of public education to teach the vulgar masses, not that Christianity isn’t true, but rather that Jesus’ core teaching was about tolerance for everyone’s personal beliefs, no matter how irrational or superstitious they may be, just as long as they are kept behind closed doors! But if someone tries to bring out their personal beliefs to the public square, well then, such a person is intolerant and not nice—and how can you call yourself a Christian if you’re intolerant and not nice? And who is going to keep order to insure that such intolerant, hateful, and irrational beliefs are not forced on anyone else? The secular state, that’s who!
Such is the program Spinoza put forth to effectively con the vulgar, superstitious mass of Christians into reducing Christianity into a “private affair,” and letting a secular state ruled by philosophic elites effectively keep traditional Christian belief and practice out of public life. As Wiker rightfully puts it, “There’s a world of difference between respecting religious liberty because you believe that human beings have a fundamental need to be persuaded by truth, and hence to freely and sincerely assent to it, on the one hand, and, on the other, thinking with Spinoza that, since religion is irrational and based merely on one’s subjective feelings and desires, it should be confined to the realm of taste, ‘to each his own’” (161).
Spinoza didn’t want to allow room in the public square for debates on truth—he already knew what was true, and he already knew that the vulgar masses were too stupid to recognize truth. So why bother? Just manipulate their own religion to suit your ends.
Conclusion
Now, to be clear, historical criticism of the Bible today is not practiced the way Spinoza envisioned. And in fact, Spinoza really did open the door to a fascinating academic field of study of the Bible. And even though there are some historical-critical biblical scholars who don’t believe that the miracles and supernatural events recorded in the Bible really happened, there are a whole lot that do. Simply put, historical-criticism is not a tool of the State used to de-legitimize the Christian faith.
But truth be told, disbelief that the events recorded in the Bible really happened is quite prevalent in this day and age. The stereotypical accusation made by your run-of-the-mill atheist often sounds something like this: “Oh the BIBLE is just full of superstitions and fairytales! No RATIONAL person believes any of that stuff!” And the irony is that I doubt many of them realize that they’re just blindly regurgitating the same rhetoric, not simply of Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, but of men like Baruch Spinoza. They are, in fact, the products of Spinoza’s educational dream: indoctrinated by the subversive agenda of men like Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Spinoza, whose aim was to have the ignorant masses be ruled by an amoral, absolute dictator.
I doubt that many people really understand just how influential Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Spinoza really have been in Western culture. If you found yourself thinking, as you’ve read these past three posts, “Yikes! That is the mindset and worldview that I see all the time in today’s America,” I doubt you’re alone. Yes, we are outwardly religious in this country; we sing “God Bless America” at sporting events sometimes as we fly the American flag. Is it really the worship of the state using the language of religion? Politicians attend national prayer breakfasts to show everyone that they take “faith” seriously, and then they go out and play some of the dirtiest political games imaginable.
Men like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison might have been the Founding Fathers of our country, but we need to realize that Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Spinoza are the Founding Fathers of the modern mindset and worldview.
