(a) Write an essay on Spinoza's notion of God and His attributes. (10 marks) (b) "One can have morality without religion but not…

(a) Spinoza's Notion of God and His Attributes

Spinoza rejects traditional theistic dualism, identifying God with the totality of reality through his pantheistic formula Deus sive Natura (God or Nature). God is the sole, self-caused (causa sui), and infinite Substance (substantia) that exists in itself and is conceived through itself. Spinoza defines an attribute as that which the intellect perceives of Substance as constituting its eternal and infinite essence.

While God possesses infinitely many attributes, the finite human intellect can comprehend only two: Thought (cogitatio) and Extension (extensio). These are not separate parts of God, but distinct expressions of the same single reality. Individual finite things, including human minds and physical bodies, are merely modes (modi)—the temporal affections or modifications of God's attributes (Natura naturata as opposed to God as Natura naturans).

Spinoza decisively eliminates anthropomorphism, transcendent agency, and divine teleology. God does not act out of free will or purpose, but from the absolute necessity of His own nature.

(b) Morality without religion, religion not without morality

The autonomy of morality from religion is well demonstrated in philosophical ethics. Immanuel Kant establishes that moral duty originates from practical reason and the categorical imperative, making morality logically prior to and autonomous from religion; religion is merely the recognition of our duties as divine commands. Plato’s Euthyphro dilemma similarly demonstrates that the Good is independent of divine will. Secular systems—such as utilitarianism and constitutional human rights—further prove that robust ethical frameworks function without supernatural presuppositions.

Conversely, a religion devoid of morality ceases to be a genuine spiritual pursuit. As Swami Vivekananda observed, religion is "the manifestation of the Divinity already in man". Divorced from ethical righteousness, religion degenerates into hollow ritualism, dogma, or fanatical intolerance. Therefore, while morality stands independently on rational and humanist foundations, religion fundamentally relies on a moral core to retain its spiritual validity and normative authority.

(c) Rebirth without an immortal soul in Buddhism

Orthodox Indian systems, such as Nyaya-Vaisheshika and Advaita Vedanta, hold that an eternal, unchanging soul (Atman) is an indispensable substratum for transmigrating across births to reap the fruits of karma.

Buddhism fundamentally challenges this postulate through its twin doctrines of Anatta (non-soul) and Anicca (impermanence). Buddhism denies the existence of any immortal, substantial self. Rebirth is explained not through the migration of an enduring entity, but via the dynamic causal mechanism of Pratityasamutpada (dependent origination). Rebirth is the unbroken stream of psycho-physical aggregates (khandha-santāna or citta-santāna), where the last moment of consciousness in one life causally conditions the first moment in the next. In the Milindapanha, Bhikkhu Nagasena clarifies this to King Menander using the chariot analogy: just as a chariot is merely a functional assembly of parts without an independent essence, a person is a stream of ever-changing states. Rebirth is like lighting one lamp from another—the flame is causally transmitted without any substantial transfer.

Critically, Buddhism demonstrates that continuity does not require static identity. The immortal soul is not a necessary postulate for rebirth; dynamic causal continuity is philosophically sufficient.

(d) Faith and revelation

Revelation (sruti or divine self-disclosure) refers to the communication of truths that lie beyond the reach of natural human cognition. While classical thinkers like Thomas Aquinas maintained that natural theology can prove basic truths like God's existence through reason, revealed dogmas (such as the Incarnation or Grace) strictly demand faith (fides).

In modern theology, the connection between revelation and faith is organic. Karl Barth argues that revelation is God's sovereign self-manifestation, which cannot be objectified by empirical or rational faculties and can only be received through faith awakened by divine grace. Søren Kierkegaard contends that divine revelation presents an objective paradox to finite human reason, requiring a passionate "leap of faith" rather than intellectual assent. Paul Tillich emphasizes correlation: revelation is the objective divine self-disclosure, while faith is the subjective state of being grasped by an "ultimate concern."

Without faith, revelation is reduced to an inert, external text or myth. Faith constitutes the necessary epistemological condition through which revelation is actualized as transformative divine truth.

(e) Cognitivist and Non-Cognitivist Approaches to Religious Language

The statement "God exists" is interpreted divergently by cognitivist and non-cognitivist traditions in religious epistemology.

Cognitivism holds that "God exists" is an indicative, truth-apt assertion that makes a factual claim about an objective reality. Logical positivist A.J. Ayer rejected it as cognitively meaningless, arguing it fails empirical verification. Antony Flew challenged cognitivism via his falsification principle, arguing that if no empirical circumstance can count against "God exists," it dies "the death of a thousand qualifications." Defending cognitivism, John Hick proposed "eschatological verification," asserting that the statement entails factual expectations testable after death.

Non-cognitivism denies that "God exists" describes empirical facts. Instead, it interprets the statement as an expression of existential attitudes, values, or commitments. R.M. Hare interprets religious claims as unfalsifiable foundational worldviews or bliks. R.B. Braithwaite views "God exists" as an intention to adopt an agapic way of life. Ludwig Wittgenstein treats it within a distinct "language game," while Paul Tillich interprets it symbolically as pointing to the "Ground of Being." Cognitivism treats the statement as an objective truth claim, whereas non-cognitivism views it as an existential and regulative expression.