An Analysis of Spinoza's Narrative Arguments in Justifying Secular Government

Some political thinkers religiously justified secular governments. This approach, in addition to strengthening the secularization of government, contributed to the development of secular governments among Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Secular government is not a legitimate and divine government and its realization disturbs the true and promised divine government of religions. Establishing a true divine government theoretically requires the critique of disturbing governments. The seventeenth-century Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza, while famous for his rationalism, in his book the Theological-Political Treatise, has provided proves from the Old and New Testaments to justify secular government. His book contributed greatly in spreading democracy in the Jewish and Christian communities. The secularization of government should be seen as a major global stream. Hobbes, Spinoza, and John Locke are prominent thinkers and origins of this post-medieval movement, which their views have also had a great impact on secularism in the Islamic world. Using a rational method with meta-religious indicators and criteria, this paper seeks to analyze the Spinoza's narrative arguments in justifying secular government. The results indicate that Spinoza did not have sufficient scientific competence to deduce the rules from the Scripture. His wrong assumptions have led to wrong inferences. Methodically, Spinoza's inferences from religious texts face significant problems, such as eisegesis, lack of a comprehensive view of all Biblical verses, and inconsistency with religious beliefs and the conduct and history of the prophets (PBUT).