Skip to content
Blogcritical thinking
Einstein, Spinoza and the Logic of God cover
13
Reza Zad's avatarReza Zad
𝕏in

Listen: Einstein, Spinoza and the Logic of God

0:000:00

Einstein, Spinoza and the Logic of God

In 1929, a New York rabbi sent a short telegram to Albert Einstein. A Catholic cardinal had just accused Einstein of leading people toward atheism, so the rabbi wanted to hear it from Einstein himself.

“Do you believe in God?” he asked.

Einstein did not send a long essay. He replied with one famous line:

“I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of the world,
not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.”

In German, he said:

Ich glaube an Spinozas Gott, der sich in der gesetzmäßigen Harmonie des Seienden offenbart,
nicht an einen Gott, der sich mit Schicksalen und Handlungen der Menschen abgibt.

Einstein was a physicist, not a priest. When he said “Spinoza’s God”, he pointed to a very special way of thinking about God, built by the philosopher Baruch Spinoza in the 17th century.

This article is about that way of thinking.

You do not need a background in philosophy. You also do not need to agree with Spinoza. What matters here is how he reasons, step by step, and how that kind of reasoning can train our own critical thinking.

Philosophy as a practice, not a rule book

Many people think philosophy tries to give final answers: what to believe, how to live, who is right.

There is another way to look at it.

You can read philosophy as a record of how great thinkers used their minds. You watch how they define words. You watch how they move from one idea to the next. You see how they try to avoid contradictions.

In this article, Spinoza is not our “guru”. He is more like a chess master. We are not here to worship every move. We are here to see how he plays.

This is a practice of critical thinking:

  • We slow down.
  • We follow the logic.
  • We ask “If this is true, what follows?”
  • We notice where it clashes with other beliefs, like the God of Abrahamic religions.

You can fully disagree with his picture of God and still learn a lot from the way he builds it.

First, the usual picture of God

In Jewish, Christian, and Muslim traditions, God is often seen like this:

  • A personal being
  • Outside and above the world
  • Creator of the universe from nothing
  • With will, desire, and choice
  • Who can answer prayers, do miracles, forgive, punish, and reward
  • Separate from nature, but able to intervene in it

This is a personal God. You can pray to this God. This God can be pleased or angry. God is not the world. God is the creator of the world.

Spinoza did not accept this image. He thought this picture shrinks God to something like a super human: bigger and stronger, but still a kind of person.

So he started somewhere else.

Spinoza’s God in very simple words

Spinoza gives a famous definition in Latin:

Per Deum intelligo ens absolute infinitum.
“By God I understand a being absolutely infinite.”

Let us unpack what this means in plain language.

1. God as the one infinite substance

Spinoza says there is only one basic “something” that truly exists in itself. He calls it “substance”. Everything else depends on this substance.

For him, that one substance is God.

  • God is absolutely infinite.
  • Nothing can exist outside God.
  • Nothing can limit God.
  • God does not depend on anything else to exist.

So God is not a person floating above the universe. God is the deepest level of reality itself.

2. God exists by necessity, not by choice

Spinoza also wants to show that this God cannot fail to exist.

He asks: in general, why might something not exist?

He offers three simple options:

  1. There is no cause or reason for it.
  2. There is some outside obstacle that blocks it.
  3. The thing itself is impossible, like a “square circle”.

Now he applies this to God.

  • Option 1: No cause.
    Spinoza says God is infinite, so nothing can be outside God to cause him. God must be the cause of himself. So lack of an outside cause cannot explain God’s non-existence.

  • Option 2: Outside obstacle.
    If God is absolutely infinite, there is nothing outside God. So nothing external can block God.

  • Option 3: Inner impossibility.
    If God were impossible inside, it would mean there is some limit or contradiction in God’s nature. A limit would mean God is not absolutely infinite.

For Spinoza, none of the three options explain “God does not exist”. That means God’s non-existence is impossible. So God must exist by the very nature of what God is.

In his style, he writes like a geometry book, not like a sermon. He treats “God exists” as a logical result of definitions and steps.

3. God has no parts

Spinoza also says God cannot be made of pieces.

Anything that has parts is limited. One part is here, another is there. Each part has a border. So the whole thing is bounded.

An absolutely infinite being cannot be bounded.

So God must be one and simple, without pieces. Spinoza sometimes calls this substantia una et unica which means “one single substance”.

4. “Deus sive Natura” – God or Nature

Now comes his bold move.

Spinoza says in Latin:

Deus sive Natura.
“God, or in other words, Nature.”

Why does he say God and nature are the same reality?

He reasons like this:

  • If God is absolutely infinite, nothing can be outside God.
  • Nature exists.
  • So nature cannot be outside God.

Then we have two options:

  1. Nature is only a part of God.
  2. Nature is God.

But God has no parts. So nature cannot be just a piece. The only option left is that God and nature are one and the same reality, seen in two ways.

So when Spinoza says “God”, he does not mean a person. He means the whole of reality, the one infinite substance, expressing itself in many forms.

He sometimes explains this with images similar to these:

  • Imagine the ocean as the one substance.
  • Each wave is a “mode” or expression of the ocean.
  • Waves appear and disappear, but the ocean remains.

In the same way, for Spinoza, your body, your mind, stars, and trees are modes or expressions of that one infinite reality.

5. No “before” and “after” creation

In this view, creation is not an event where God, sitting alone, suddenly decides to make a world.

If God and nature are one, there is no time when God exists without nature. The substance and its expressions go together.

Also, if God is absolutely complete, God cannot gain something by creating. A decision usually comes from a lack, a wish, or a need. Spinoza thinks an infinite being cannot have such needs.

So he sees the universe as a necessary expression of God’s nature, not as a free project of a personal creator.

He also thinks everything follows the laws of nature with full necessity. There are no miracles that break those laws, no special exceptions. What people call “miracle” is just something they do not yet understand.

Where Spinoza clashes with Abrahamic faiths

Now you can see why Spinoza’s view caused such anger among Jewish, Christian, and Muslim thinkers of his time.

For them:

  • God is a person, with will, love, anger, and mercy.
  • God is separate from the world and freely creates it.
  • God can choose, decide, change plans, and answer prayers.
  • God can act in history, send prophets, give laws, and judge souls.

For Spinoza:

  • God is not a person.
  • God has no will like ours and no changing moods.
  • God does not sit outside the world, God is the world at its deepest level.
  • There is no plan in the human sense, only necessary order.
  • Prayer does not change God or nature. At best, it changes us.

So Spinoza’s God cannot be the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Jesus, or Muhammad in the usual sense.

Einstein’s line looks clearer now. When he says he believes in “Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of the world”, he means he finds something sacred in the order of nature. He does not believe in a personal, watching, judging God that cares about each individual act and each sin.

What this has to do with critical thinking

You might love Spinoza’s idea. You might dislike it. That is not the main point here.

The deeper lesson is in how he thinks.

Spinoza:

  • Starts with clear definitions.
  • Follows the logic, even when it goes against tradition.
  • Checks possible options and rules them out one by one.
  • Refuses to adjust his reasoning just to protect a popular belief.

This is critical thinking in action.

You can use a similar approach in your own life, even for non-philosophical questions.

What we can learn from Spinoza’s reasoning

Here are a few simple habits we can borrow from him:

  1. Define your words.
    Before you argue about “success”, “freedom”, or even “God”, ask: “What do I mean by this word?”
    Spinoza begins with Per Deum intelligo… He tells you exactly what he means.

  2. List the options.
    When you face a claim, ask: “In how many ways could this be false or true?”
    Spinoza asks: “In how many ways can something fail to exist?” He finds three options, then tests each one.

  3. Follow the implications.
    Ask: “If my definition is right, what must follow?”
    Spinoza says that if God is absolutely infinite, nothing can be outside God. From this, he later reaches Deus sive Natura.

  4. Look for hidden limits.
    When you call something “infinite” or “perfect”, check carefully. Are you secretly adding limits?
    Spinoza notices that a God who changes mind, feels anger, or needs worship is not really infinite in the way he defines.

  5. Separate logic from comfort.
    An idea can feel safe and familiar, like the image of a personal God. Another idea can feel cold or strange. Critical thinking asks: “What follows from the reasons, not from my feelings?”

Spinoza had a small word engraved on his ring: Caute which means “Carefully”. It is a nice reminder. Think carefully. Move slowly. Check each step.

One last thought

You do not have to become a Spinozist. You do not have to agree with Einstein.

But you can let their way of thinking sharpen your own mind.

When you read philosophy as a record of careful reasoning, not as a set of commands, you train your inner logic muscle. You learn to see how ideas are built, how they support each other, and where they collapse.

Spinoza’s God might stay just an idea for you. Or it might deeply change how you see the world. In both cases, the practice of walking through his arguments can make you a more awake, more patient, more independent thinker.

And that is the real gift here.

Picks for you

The AI Race Is Not a Technology Race

The AI Race Is Not a Technology Race

The AI race is often framed as a competition of intelligence, models, and algorithms, but this essay argues that it is fundamentally an energy allocation problem hidden beneath a narrative of innovation. AI scales not like software but like heavy industry, consuming vast amounts of electricity and triggering political, social, and infrastructural constraints that code alone cannot solve. The real bottlenecks are not technical breakthroughs, but governance issues such as permitting, grid capacity, public consent, and price stability. In this context, energy geopolitics matter less for directly powering servers and more for creating political slack, cushioning public backlash, and making controversial reallocations of power socially tolerable. The true strategic challenge is not building smarter machines, but justifying why machines should receive scarce energy before people, and doing so without eroding trust or legitimacy. If the AI era succeeds, it will be because societies align energy, politics, and meaning through a story people can live inside; if it fails, it will be because that bargain is rejected.

Read more
2026 and the Return of the Whole Mind

2026 and the Return of the Whole Mind

As we move toward 2026, many of us are sensing a quiet imbalance. We think faster, consume more information, and rely heavily on analysis, yet feel less grounded, less certain, and more disconnected from ourselves. This essay argues that the problem is not thinking itself, but thinking in isolation. For decades, logic, efficiency, and control have been rewarded while intuition, emotion, imagination, and embodied knowing were sidelined. AI now exposes this imbalance by outperforming humans in pure analysis, making it clear that competing on cognition alone is a dead end. What remains distinctly human is the ability to sense context, notice subtle signals, integrate feeling with reason, and act with timing rather than urgency. Burnout, anxiety, and chronic overthinking are framed not as weaknesses but as signals of misalignment, where inner intelligence has been ignored too long. The future will favor integrated minds, people who can think clearly while also listening inwardly, adapting without panic, and making meaning from lived experience. The return of the whole mind is not nostalgia or softness, but a necessary evolution: a widening of intelligence that allows humans to partner with technology without losing themselves.

Read more
Why Immigration Feels More Dangerous Than It Statistically Is

Why Immigration Feels More Dangerous Than It Statistically Is

Why Immigration Feels More Dangerous Than It Statistically Is explains how fear can grow even when reality stays relatively stable. Most of what we believe about crime and immigration does not come from direct experience but from repeated images, clips, and headlines designed to capture attention. The human brain uses a shortcut called the availability heuristic, it assumes that what comes to mind easily must be common. In a media environment where rare but extreme incidents are replayed endlessly, exposure replaces frequency, and repetition starts to feel like evidence. Immigration becomes a perfect container for this fear because it is complex, emotional, and easy to turn into a story with faces and villains. Long-term data often shows a calmer picture than our instincts suggest, but fear moves faster than context. The essay argues that critical thinking is not about dismissing fear, but about pausing inside it and asking whether our feelings reflect reality or visibility. When we hold that pause, understanding has room to return, and attention becomes a responsibility rather than a reflex.

Read more
Emotion as Navigation

Emotion as Navigation

Emotion as Navigation argues that emotions are not irrational reactions or inner verdicts, but feedback signals that indicate how our current reality relates to an underlying goal. We do not perceive the world neutrally and then feel about it; perception, emotion, and action form a single system oriented toward movement and adjustment. Positive emotions signal alignment, while negative emotions signal friction, misalignment, or outdated assumptions. Problems arise when we treat emotions as authority instead of information, or when the goals guiding our lives remain unexamined. Critical thinking does not suppress emotion, it interprets it by asking what aim the feeling is responding to and whether that aim still deserves commitment. When emotions are read as data rather than commands, they become a navigational compass rather than a source of confusion. A meaningful life, then, is not emotionally smooth but directionally coherent, guided by alignment rather than by the pursuit or avoidance of feelings themselves.

Read more
Thinking Under Pressure in the Age of AI

Thinking Under Pressure in the Age of AI

Thinking Under Pressure in the Age of AI argues that the real risk of AI is not incorrect answers, but how its speed, clarity, and confidence interact with human cognitive biases. Our minds rely on shortcuts designed for efficiency, and AI amplifies these shortcuts by making information feel complete, authoritative, and easy to trust. Biases shape what we notice, how we judge probability, how we commit to decisions, and how emotion quietly leads reasoning, often without awareness. Critical thinking today does not mean rejecting AI or eliminating bias, but slowing down enough to recognize when judgment is being bent by familiarity, confidence, framing, or emotional ease. As AI accelerates information flow, human responsibility shifts toward interpretation, verification, and self-awareness. When we notice our own thinking habits, AI remains a tool; when we do not, it quietly becomes the driver.

Read more
Good, Bad, and the Direction of Attention

Good, Bad, and the Direction of Attention

Good, Bad, and the Direction of Attention argues that we do not experience the world as inherently good or bad, but as helpful or obstructive relative to an often unexamined aim. Our attention, emotions, and moral judgments are shaped by the direction we are moving in, not by neutral facts. What accelerates our path feels “good,” what slows it feels “bad,” even though neither quality exists on its own. This is why people can react morally in opposite ways to the same event, they are oriented toward different goals. The danger arises when the aim itself remains invisible, because alignment then masquerades as virtue and resistance as evil. Critical thinking begins by asking what aim is generating a reaction, not by defending the reaction itself. When we examine direction before judgment, we regain freedom to question whether speed equals progress, whether friction equals harm, and whether what feels urgent actually leads somewhere meaningful.

Read more
What If We Are Living in a Simulation?

What If We Are Living in a Simulation?

What If We Are Living in a Simulation? treats simulation theory not as sci-fi speculation but as a lens for understanding why the world looks the way it does. Simulations exist to explore unknown outcomes, not to preserve harmony, and when viewed this way, suffering, chaos, and instability stop looking like errors and start looking like data. Human history, with its late arrival, layered complexity, religions, governments, markets, and now AI, resembles a staged experiment where new parameters are introduced to increase unpredictability. Meaning, in this frame, does not disappear, it intensifies. If outcomes are uncertain, then choices matter more, not less. Whether the universe is simulated or not, we already live inside conditions where agency, values, and response shape trajectories. We are not spectators waiting for answers, but variables whose actions feed the system itself. The unfinished nature of reality is not proof of meaninglessness, but evidence that participation is the point, and that how we act under uncertainty is the real test.

Read more

Comments

Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…