A short essay written for Saints, Heretics, and Atheists: An Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. The essay summarizes the first of three points made by Spinoza in the appendix to Chapter 1 of the Ethics.
In the Appendix to Part I of the Ethics, Spinoza makes three main points. Identify one of those points and explain it clearly. You may argue that it is either convincing or not convincing, but, given the space constraints, all that is required is a clear explication of the point you select.
In Part I of the Ethics, Spinoza argues for an understanding of God opposing the prevailing view of God at his time. Rather than portray God with human-like qualities like a free will and judgement, Spinoza portrays God as a natural phenomenon like nature. Because so many people are inclined to agree with the first portrayal of God, Spinoza addresses it in the Appendix of Part I of the Ethics. Spinoza believes that people are psychologically inclined to imbue God with human qualities, such as judging, because people falsely assume that “all things in Nature are like themselves in acting with an end in view” (Spinoza 57). This paper will explain Spinoza’s explanation for why people project this quality of acting with an end in view onto Nature and God.
There are three universal facts that Spinoza assumes to be true. First, people are born without an understanding of causes. Second, everyone has a desire to seek their own advantage. Third, that everyone is aware that they hold this desire. Assuming these three statements to be true, Spinoza conclude that people are likely to believe in free will. Spinoza believes that when people examine the reasons they took an action, they will believe that they took an action because of their desire. Because people are unaware of the causes of their desires, they falsely attribute their desire to free will as opposed to an original cause. As a result of believing in their own free will, people are likely to project this belief onto others and believe that others have free will and also work the ends of their actions in mind.
Spinoza then reasons that humans examine the world around them and are lead to believe that the world was created for them because there are so many useful things that were not created by humans, such as fish and sunlight. Thus, people would reason that someone else created these items. In particular, God must have created these items with the express purpose of allowing humans to thrive. However, because people act with their own ends in mind, and they project this view onto others, people are inclined to believe that God created fish and sunlight in order to benefit God himself. Thus, people reason that because they things were designed for humans by God, humans must be a means to God’s ends. Thus, from the first three principles and the projection of our understanding onto others and God, Spinoza explains why humans believe that they should worship God.
Ultimately, Spinoza’s explanation may not be a compelling one to many. Though Spinoza makes use of some reasonable arguments about human psychology, the argument has too many areas that could be contested. Thus, his argument is most likely to appeal to those already inclined to believe in the conclusions as others would be more likely to find faults with Spinoza’s assumptions. While I found the argument compelling, it is unlikely to convince others on the basis of its logic alone.
Textual Interpretation. I’m putting textual interpretation in the AoI category also. For although there are parts of the paper that are quite solid interpretively, there are other parts that are less so. For instance, you say in paragraph three that we believe that God created fish, etc. to benefit God himself. But that’s not exactly what Spinoza says. He says that we believe God wants to be worshipped and praised, but not quite benefitted. The benefit redounds to us (we get to eat the fish), and we owe worship to God.
Philosophical Analysis. In the final paragraph, you address the optional part of the prompt, which is to talk about whether you find S’s point convincing. While it’s perfectly fine to do this (since it was indeed an option for you), you don’t really say very much about why you find it convincing or why others would not. You mention that there are assumptions others could question, but you don’t mention what they are. What you might have done is explain why exactly you are convinced or why others may be unconvinced.