I briefly read the essays. I think it is cumbersome that the author devotes large amounts of his (relatively short) writing into specifying his own beliefs, while generalizing other beliefs and philosophies in short sentences and then proceeding to argue as if these were undoubtedly correct.
You can't and shouldn't sum up Spinoza's theology in one sentence. For example the author bases musings on Spinoza's "God is everything", and then proceeds to argue as if this was the entirety of Spinoza's theories:
He writes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kowalski
"So, eating a piece of bread is, with the proper kavanah (כַּוָנָה), “intention,” a reference to molecular biology, fusion, geology, paleontology , and more. Arguably, the entirety of science is contained within a single piece of bread. This, again, is consistent with Spinoza's "God is everything" view"
But this is at best wrong and at worst a horrible misrepresentation. Spinoza's arguments are largely based on logically proving that everything is a property of an infinite God, not logically deducing that God is to be found in nature. And even this is simplifying Spinoza down to a level that is dangerously iffy, as everyone who has read Spinoza or about Spinoza know that he is not an easy man to sum up.