Stephen, Jon, List, SJ: Too many Western interpretations are tinged with anthropocentric (god-leaning) biases, and that’s why I am more inclined to Eastern interpretations, which leave the god-question open.
I too am more and more inclined to "leave the god-question" open, although I still consider myself something of a 'Cosmic Christian' in Matthew Fox's sense of Christ as Logos and Pantokrator (Fox follows de Chardin and Meister Eckhart, for example, in seeing Christ as a cosmic reality, as an energy pattern, a presence pervading the universe) However, this is for me likely an interim measure as I move further from traditional theism to I know not what (none of the Eastern religions either). So, in a word: the spirit of the "Religions of the Book" and those of the East are, in my view, quasi-necessary; the language, symbols, doctrines and dogmas, however, are mainly insufficient for the needs of our era. On the other hand, I didn't comment in the Planck/Peirce discussion that both thinkers were wholly opposed to atheism and made many statements to that effect. And I too am opposed to materialism, nothing-but-ism, social Darwinism, irreverence (for people, animals, the earth), etc. As did First Nations people of the Americas, I see all of nature as sacred. And *Tat Tvam Asi*. My own thinking to date is that *some* Eastern thought posits Mind in a way which not only leaves 'the god-question open' but which offers such stimulating ideas as expressed in a Tibetan Buddhist tantra I read decades ago which opens: *Samaya: Gya, Gya, Gya*, translated, *Universal Mind: Vast, Vast, Vast*. And I am inspired by those metaphysical ideas which suggest that we are of the very nature of that Vast Intelligence. For example, Vedanta, *Tat Tvam Asi *(translated*, You* *Are That:* 'Tat' = 'That', 'Tvam = 'You', 'Asi' = 'Are') identifies the person with the essence of *Tat*. So I welcome a discussion of how some Eastern thought can help us find a way to see Vast Intelligence at the core of the cosmos without making *That * 'an anthropomorphic God' as Peirce and billions of Jews, Muslims, and Christians do. I have great respect for those who hold such beliefs as they all have at least the potential value of finding life -- and not only human life, but all life -- valuable, sacred. Jon: Despite viewing consciousness as "limited to embodied and living beings," Peirce considered the "anthropocentric bias" of Western philosophy to be a feature, not a bug. . . Applying this directly to "the god-question," he preferred "the anthropomorphic conception" of "an old-fashioned God" as "more likely to be about the truth" than "a modern patent Absolute". Gary: I would agree that for many an abstract 'Absolute' resonates very little with the sense of the profound mystery of our being in this vast cosmos (just spend a little time with the images take by the Webb telescope to get a sense of what I mean by 'vast cosmos'), that for some of us our 'intellect' and 'soul' or 'spirit' senses a connection to something profoundly Real/Vital which the extant religions no longer adequately address. The 'old-fashioned God' of the "Religions of the Book " has apparently worked well enough for multitudes and for centuries, and still has a powerful grip on many today. But there seems to be an increasing desire among some for a faith which, if not exactly 'scientific', is at least not at odds with science (again, neither Peirce nor Planck thought it need be). Still, should it ever evolve, that now quite inconceivable religion will need symbols more powerful than those of the existing major religions which, however, and in my personal experience as a Christian, are very powerful indeed in pointing the way to the sacred. Perhaps there's a truth in what Jon quoted Peirce as saying ". . .that each of us believes in God, and that the only quest is how to believe less crudely." Best, Gary R On Sat, Aug 16, 2025 at 1:08 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > Stephen, List: > > SJ: Too many Western interpretations are tinged with anthropocentric > (god-leaning) biases, and that’s why I am more inclined to Eastern > interpretations, which leave the god-question open. > > > Despite viewing consciousness as "limited to embodied and living beings," > Peirce considered the "anthropocentric bias" of Western philosophy to be a > feature, not a bug, because "every scientific explanation is a hypothesis > that there is something in nature to which the human reason is analogous" > (CP 1.316, 1903). "To say, therefore, that a conception is one natural to > man, which comes to just about the same thing as to say that it is > anthropomorphic, is as high a recommendation as one could give to it in the > eyes of an Exact Logician" (CP 5.47, EP 2:152, 1903). Applying this > directly to "the god-question," he preferred "the anthropomorphic > conception" of "an old-fashioned God" as "more likely to be about the > truth" than "a modern patent Absolute" (CP 5.47n, EP 2:152; see also CP > 8.168, 1902). > > Of course, Peirce famously professed his own belief that God is "Really > creator of all three Universes of Experience" (CP 6.452, EP 2:434, 1908), > and he even asserted, "It may, therefore, truly be said that each of us > believes in God, and that the only quest is how to believe less crudely" > (SWS 283, 1909). However, he also insisted that "'God' is a vernacular word > and, like all such words, but more than almost any, is *vague*," going on > to suggest that the reason why many people erroneously deny that they > believe in the reality of God is because "they precide (or render precise) > the conception, and, in doing so, inevitably change it; and such precise > conception is easily shown not to be warranted, even if it cannot be quite > refuted" (CP 6.494-6, c. 1906). After all, he adds a few paragraphs later, > "it is impossible to say that any human attribute is *literally *applicable" > to God (CP 6.502); so, accordingly, "we must not predicate any Attribute of > God otherwise than vaguely and figuratively" (SWS 283). > > My forthcoming paper in *Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society*, > "Peirce's Cosmological Argumentation: God as *Ens necessarium*," explores > Peirce's answer to "the god-question" in greater detail. As usual, I will > post a link and the abstract when it is published, presumably in the next > issue. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 8:11 AM "Stephen Jarosek" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Gary, List >> >> Gary R: “While Planck was cautious about explicitly theological language >> (although he was a practicing Lutheran), my sense is that he tended towards >> a view in which the universe’s ultimate reality is mind-like, far more >> general than human consciousness, perhaps more like a universal cosmic >> field in which human minds participate.” >> >> >> >> Resonates with aspects of Quantum Field Theory (QFT) and the quantum >> void. Peirce’s and Planck’s interpretations are exceptional. Peirce, for >> example, appreciates that “consciousness seems limited to embodied and >> living beings”, and this resonates nicely with my own thinking. However, >> my exchanges with Grok focus more on Eastern philosophies, rather than >> Western. Too many Western interpretations are tinged with anthropocentric >> (god-leaning) biases, and that’s why I am more inclined to Eastern >> interpretations, which leave the god-question open. >> >> >> >> In my latest research (current paper under review with a journal), I >> factor in the parallels between the quantum void and Sunyata (the creative >> void of Buddhism/Hinduism), within a Peircean-semiotic context. My >> extensive convo with Grok covers the “creative void” in greater detail, >> around the notion that the “tensions” in the void (its potentialities) are >> essentially semiotic. If anyone is interested, DM me and I can send you a >> Word transcript of my convo with Grok… or I can post it to the forum, if >> there’s a way of doing this. >> >> >> >> If anyone is interested in my current paper that is under review, here’s >> a link to a preprint on Academia.edu: >> >> >> https://www.academia.edu/129898049/UPDATE_Association_as_Downward_Causation >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> sj >> > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] > . > ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]?subject=SIG%20peirce-l";>UNSUBSCRIBE > FROM PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your > default email account, then go to > https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . > ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and > co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]?subject=SIG%20peirce-l";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email account, then go to https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
