Spinoza

I still don't understand why it's atheists? Why is a pantheist actually an atheist?
What's the difference between what he says and pananatheists? Why do you actually think that there's nothing hidden behind these words and that they're just words?
I understand that calling things by their names doesn't mean anything when there's nothing behind them, but why is there nothing behind the words here?
Maybe in other words I don't really understand what it means “God is nature ” and what is the general method of Spinoza and his ilk, and in general why does it contradict the approach of Judaism and theism in general.? (And I'd be happy to explain, of course..)
Thank you very much!!

You wrote, “When you call the totality of reality God, it is just giving it another name.” What is unbelieving about that? What is atheistic about that sentence?

I answered and exhausted myself. I see no point in repeating the same explanation a third time. All the best.

If I may, look at the second notebook on the cosmological argument and the third notebook on the pisco-theological proof (if I wrote it down correctly). From there it becomes clear why this bothers Rav Michi so much.

Personally, I'm not so sure that there is no point in Spinoza, but it seems to me that Spinoza himself would not have minded being an atheist, so there is no reason why the honorable questioner would mind it.

And with the rabbi's permission, I will expand.

You could say that Spinoza has what we today call a religious experience of the universe. In practice, he is an atheist, but he has a religious experience of the universe. But as Alan Bloom wrote in the book “The Depletion of the Spirit in America” ‘religious experience’ It is like an old, toothless lion that sociologists and anthropologists tie up near the house to experience the thrills of the jungle. From the perspective of Rabbi Michy, it is not serious. In fact, this is exactly what Rabbi Michy has been fighting against for twenty years. From his perspective, the religious experience makes no difference here or there. Either there is a God and His command is absolute, or there is not, and then you leave me.

There is a bit of fear in this approach. What will happen if Rabbi Michy suddenly decides that the evidence he is writing does not hold up and he and his entire audience of followers decide that this is not the work of God? And yet “for not before him shall flattery come”. It is impossible to flatter the heavens. Things must be true and true to the end.

And so Spinoza is not interesting to Rabbi Michi. As a philosopher, he is interested to see if he can learn something. But Spinoza's religious experiences interest Rabbi Michi as much as the peel of garlic. Hence his harsh response.

I don't know about the fear of the worthlessness of working from an experience without faith. It's worthless. Isn't that something to be afraid of?

But is there a place in your system for faith without evidence, only from the tradition I received from my ancestors?
In other words, what is the role of evidence in your system, to guide traditional faith or replace it?

Absolutely yes. If the tradition seems credible enough to you, this is also perfectly acceptable proof. Proof is always based on assumptions, and therefore it is no substitute for them. The function of proof is to convince myself that I do believe, and if such a conviction is not needed, then I don't.
See a bit about the role of proof here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%90%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%94%D7%9D-%D7%90%D7%91%D7%99 %D7%A0%D7%95-%D7%95%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%95-%D7%91%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%97-%D7%94%D7%A0%D7%97%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%91%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%A9/
And also in two strollers (and true and unstable) of course.