Ivar, List,
I think, a physical (as opposed to metaphysical) belief may be refuted by deduction or complete induction, that is, proven the opposite. For example most conspiracy theories. A metaphysical belief can be altered too, but not proven the opposite. It is vulnerable only by incomplete induction, or abduction. So it can only be gradually altered, by showing, that it is e.g. less probable or less plausible, than the believer thought it was. But, has it been a belief then, or a supposition? I would say, supposition is belief too, a weak one, and a metaphysical belief can only be a supposition (of probability or plausibility). But when I talk to religious or quasi-religious (ideological) believers, I see, that their beliefs are absolute. How can that be? I guess, they have had visions. A former german chancellor, Helmut Schmidt, said: "Anyone who has visions should go to the doctor". The revelation by John in the bible to me does give me the impression of someone who has eaten magic mushrooms with a problematic mood. On the other hand I have respect for introspect experiences in meditation. Then belief is based on experience, but an introspect experience´s reality cannot be proven.
Well, the only conclusion i so far have, is to agree with the claim, that theology should be kept out of a scientific discussion. And other metaphysical beliefs, like in this or that semiotical or philosophical model, should be treated as probabilities or plausibilities, but not with pure hermeneutics, because to apply pure hermeneutics performatively shows absolute belief.
Best, Helmut
24. August 2025 um 21:58
Ivar <[email protected]>
wrote:Helmut, List,
Interesting topic!
Right of the bat I just want to challenge your claim that metaphysical beliefs cannot be criticized. For example. Many have scratched their heads about Kant's Ding-an-Sich. As regulative ideas they work quite unproblematically, but to strictly block access to them, on apriori grounds, was something Peirce objected to on grounds of blocking the way of inquiry (as I recall it at least!). It reminds me of Sisyphos, why go on exploring if we never will get to an end, per Kant? Returning to the claim again, are metaphysical beliefs only epiphenomenal objects of consciousness? Are they not produced and altered by inquiry?
On another note. My guess as to why you feel closer connection to will rather than belief as being real might relate to their experiential closeness. I believe will is closer to our experience, as being sensed somehow ("I really want some candy now"), whereas beliefs are more abstract, theoretic entities encoding behaviour. Can we sense beliefs the same way we sense a will? Though, beliefs seems almost necessary for willing too. Why would something will anything if it was not motivated by some conscious or unconscious prediction? I feel an itch in my throat, a will is introduced towards water, based on the belief that water will cure the itch.
Perhaps beliefs look more real on paper, while will feels more real in person.
I apologize if I have been unclear. This post was made a bit hasty, but I will gladly return with a better formulation soon and connect to Peirce more.
Best regards
Ivar
-------- Message d'origine --------
Le 24/08/2025 21:13, Helmut Raulien a écrit :
Jon, List,my motivation about this topic "Will and Belief" is awakened by a talk I had with an otherwise very rational thinker (engineer), who also nevertheless is a strong christian believer. I was scared by his belief in hell.I feel to experience, that in reality, will and belief are sometimes relatedly positively coupled, sometimes contingent with each other, and sometimes lead to polar opposition. Examples:-- Relatedly positively coupled: A missionary man wants others to want to believe. So he sees belief as a function of will. I too often, introspecting myself, see, that I believe what I want to be real (wishful thinking). And things like self-fulfilling-prophecy, placebo-, and nocebo- effect, are obviously real.-- Contingent: A person can not be blamed for her/his metaphysical belief, is not responsible for it. The consistence of physical theory might be proved by some consistent metaphysical theory, if there was any, but not the other way (Goedel). Meaning, if we have a consistent physical theory, we are not able to prove the consistency of any metaphysical theory by it. If I have understood it correctly. Metaphysical belief thus is not susceptible to critique, is neither verifiable, nor falsifiable. It is logically isolated, contingent, one cannot be blamed for it.-- Leads to polar opposition: The polar opposition is between good and bad in its thirdness extremes benevolent and evil: If a missionary man, who believes in hell, tries to convince others of hell´s existence, he wants to warn about it, and save people from going there. So his belief in hell is benevolent. But if someone´s will is, that there be a hell, he is extremely evil, as hell is meant to be a place people go to, so he wishes for these people to go to hell. So belief in, and will of, a hell, are polar opposites.At Peirce, I have not found an explicit relation between will and belief, though one might say, that will takes part in habit-formation, and belief is some sort of habit. But both are not part of a common classes or modes system or the like, as far as I have found. Will is a sub-sub-aspect of consciousness: Consciousness has the modes primsense (1ns), altersense (2ns), and medisense (3ns), and altersense has the modes sensation (2.1.), and will (2.2.). Belief has four fixing kinds: A priori, tenacity, authority, scientificness. I think, Peirce´s "A priori" means instinct or intuition, so is not identical with the Kantian "A priori", but that is a different topic.My conclusion is: I don´t have any. The relation or non-relation between will and belief is a mystery to me. Some neuroscientists say, will is an illusion, I rather feel, that belief is an illusion. Or are both illusions? My will is, that will is real. About belief I don´t emotionally care.Best, Helmut23. August 2025 um 20:51"Jon Alan Schmidt" <[email protected]>wrote:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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] . ► UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L . 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.Helmut, List:Peirce unambiguously and repeatedly professed theism, conceiving God as the non-immanent creator of the entire universe. Nevertheless, I have always acknowledged that many of his ideas are at least potentially amenable to pantheism, panentheism, and even atheism. He evidently did not consider the words of the Bible to be the very words of God, but many Christians throughout the centuries did and still do, viewing God as its primary author and various humans as its secondary authors, in accordance with texts like 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and 2 Peter 1:20-21.I could elaborate, but as Gary R. reminded everyone yesterday, we need to stick to the thread topic. Moreover, the List guidelines stipulate keeping our discussions Peirce-related and philosophical, which precludes us from getting any more deeply into theology as distinguished from metaphysics. Accordingly, I recommend that we leave it at that.Regards,Jon
On Sat, Aug 23, 2025 at 8:07 AM Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote:Jon, Liat,with "leaving the God-question open", I did not mean, whether God exists or not, but the choice between pantheism, panentheism, and theism, and also "special" revelation (hell, original sin,....). I am happy to read from you, that Peirce denied the certainty of such special revelations. Do (proper) christians really believe, that the bible is the words of God? I mean, the chapters are named after their authors, who are not God. So the bible clearly is secondary literature. I know one who says that the bible is the very word of God, but she is very orthodox. I am glad Peirce didn´t.Best, HelmutHelmut, List:Gnosticism is considered to be a heresy by orthodox Christians, including Augustine and Luther. The doctrines that you mentioned are derived from the text of the Bible itself, which Christians believe to be the very Word of God--special revelation, the kind embraced by all the "Religions of the Book." As I have pointed out before, Peirce did not deny the possibility of such revelation, only its certainty (CP 1.143, c. 1897); but he was much more interested in general revelation and natural theology, the latter being a term that he used in several drafts of his "Neglected Argument" article and its "Additament" (R 842-844, 1908).Accordingly, Peirce did not "leave the God-question open," he reframed it. "[I]t is unscientific to inquire whether there be a God; the only rational question being what sort of God there is ... it is far more consonant with the method of science to formulate the problem by asking what sort of a mind God is" (CP 8.168, 1902). "[I]f contemplation and study of the physico-psychical universe can imbue a man with principles of conduct analogous to the influence of a great man's works or conversation, then that analogue of a mind ... is what he [the pragmaticist] means by 'God'" (CP 6.502, c. 1906).Regards,Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAStructural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
On Thu, Aug 21, 2025, 5:50 PM Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote:Jon, List,I fully agree with what you wrote. We may (or even "must") have a direct perception of God. We just can't see the forest for the trees. But isn´t this view a contradiction to gnosticism and its influence to christianity at e.g. Augustinus and Luther? All these from dull to frightening dogmas about two realms, hell, original sin, and the like?Best, Helmut_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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="">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.
