1. God is real but does not exist: so the best way to worship him is through 
the religion of science

I thought this sums up nicely Section 9.6 in Kees' book and was a good way to 
start the discussion of: God, science and religion. Peirce's theory of the 
relation between science and religion is one of the most controversial aspects 
of his pragmaticist semiotics  only second to his evolutionary objective 
idealism influenced by Schelling (Niemoczynski  and Ejsing) and based on  his 
version of Duns Scotus' extreme scholastic realism, which Kees' did an 
exemplary presentation of as well. Peirce's view of religion and how science is 
deeply connected to it in a way that differs from what any other philosopher 
has suggested except Whitehead's process philosophy, but there are also 
important differences here.

I have no quarrels with Kees' exemplary understandable formulations in the 
short space he has. That leaves opportunity for us to discuss all the 
interesting aspects  he left out like Peirce's Panentheism (Michael Raposa , 
Clayton and Peacock), his almost Neo-Platonist (Kelly Parker 
http://agora.phi.gvsu.edu/kap/Neoplatonism/csp-plot.html )  metaphysics of 
emptiness or Tohu va Bohu  (see also Parker) and ongoing  creation in his 
process view, and from this basic idea of  emptiness ( that is also 
foundational to Nargajuna's Buddhism of the middle way ) a connection to 
Buddhism. This was encouraging Peirce to see Buddhism and Christianity in their 
purest mystical forms integrated into an agapistic Buddhisto-Christian process 
view of God. Brent mentions an unsent letter from Peirce's hand describing a 
mystical revelation in the second edition of the biography. This idea of 
Buddhisto-Christianity was taken up by Charles Hartshorne - one of the most 
important philosophers of religion and metaphysicians of the twentieth century 
- http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hartshorne/  who also wrote about 
Whitehead's process view of the sacred (see references).
I have collected many of the necessary quotes and interpreted them in this 
 , and in Brier 2012 below.

Even Peirce's evolutionary objective idealism is too much to swallow for most 
scientists who are not fans of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. So even today it is 
considering a violation of rationality to support an evolutionary process 
objective idealism like Peirce's, which include a phenomenological view. Even 
in the biosemiotic group this is dynamite. We have had the most wonderfully 
heated metaphysical discussion and quarrels about what it means to be 
scientific. That is when Marcel Barbieri left the group being tired of 
Peirceans "unscientific stance".

In my days studying in the sciences it was really a problem to be a true 
religious Christian and a scientist at the same time as one of my teachers in 
comparative physiology was. She reflected a lot on it in some interesting 
seminars. (By the way I am not a member of any church or religion). But it is 
difficult to be part of main stream science today if you are an objective 
evolutionary idealist and you have the Peircean family's conviction (see some 
of Steven Ericsson-Zenith's contributions to this list and Benjamin Peirce's 
book on Ideality in The Physical Sciences) that science reveals the truth about 
God's nature. Look for the truth and you will find God seems to be their view. 
Science is driven by the ethic of finding truth and as such in the end it is a 
religious search, as Pierce has integrated phenomenology with ethics and 
aesthetics in his theory of science. Not keeping them apart as traditional 
views of science does in the slip stream of logical positivism.

But, what is also interesting is, that Peirce's view is close to a combination 
of modern quantum field physics, thermodynamics, systems theory and 
self-organization theory - except for his integration of phenomenology, ethics 
and aesthetics in his theory of science. No  system theorist and cyberneticians 
have made this including, though there are some objective idealists like Erwin 
Làszló standing out  in meticulously working an integrated view of modern 
physics with a pure mystical objective idealism and system thinking through a 
concept of information. See for instance Science and the Akashic Field: An 
Integral Theory of Everything.  But he also started as a musician 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ervin_L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3 .

Let us end with John Sheriff's wonderful summarizing statement about Peirce's 

"It places humans in a universe of signs that connect mind and matter, inside 
and outside, transcendence and immanence. It gives us a theory of human and 
cosmic meaning that does not lead to the dead-end nothingness of pure form or 
to the decentering of the human subject, but to the possibility of unlimited 
intellectual and moral growth..."
                                                          (Sheriff 1994 p. XVI).
Interesting works dealing with Peirce's view on religion and science:

Brent, J. (1938): Charles S. Peirce: A Life, Revised and Enlarged Edition 
(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998).
Brier, S. (2010): The Conflict between Indian Vedic Mentality and Western 
Modernity. I: Mentality and Thought: North, South, East and West. red. / Per 
Durst-Andersen ; Elsebeth F. Lange. Frederiksberg: Copenhagen Business School 
Press, 2010: 53-86.
Brier, S. (2012). C. S. Peirce's Complementary and Transdisciplinary Conception 
of Science and Religion, Cybernetics & Human Knowing, Volume 19, Numbers 1-2, 
2012: 59-94
Corrington, R. S. (2000) An Introduction to C.S. Peirce: Philosopher, 
Semiotician, and Ecstatic Naturalist  (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 
1993) and A Semiotic Theory of Theology and Philosophy (New York: Cambridge 
University Press, 2000),
Clayton, P. and Peacock, A. (2004). In Whom We Live and Move and Have Our 
Being: Panentheistic   Reflections on God's Presence in a Scientific World, 
Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Ejsing, A. (2007). Theology of anticipation: A constructive study of C. S. 
Peirce. Princeton Theological Monograph Series. Eugene, OR: Pickwick 
Hartshorne, C. (1972). Whitehead's philosophy. Lincoln, NE: University of 
Nebraska Press.
Hartshorne, C. (1984). Towards a Buddhisto-Christian religion. In K. K. Inada & 
N. P.  Jacobson  (Eds.), Buddhism and American thinkers (pp. 1-13).  Albany, 
NY: State University of New York Press.
Innis, R.E. (2013). The Reach of the Aesthetic and Religious Naturalism: 
Peircean and Polanyian Reflections, 
Orange, D. M. (1984). Peirce's Conception of God: A Developmental Study 
(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984),
Peirce, B. (1881). Ideality in the Physical  Sciences , Boston: Little , Brown, 
and Company.
Potters, V.G. (1997): Charles S. Peirce: On Norms & Ideals, American Philosophy 
Series, Fordham University Press.
Raposa, M.  (1993).Peirce's Philosophy of Religion (Bloomington: Indiana 
University Press, 1993)
Sheriff, J.K. (1994): Charles Sanders Peirce's Guess at the Riddle: Ground for 
Human Significance, Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Niemoczynski , L. (2011). Charles Sanders Peirce and a Religious Metaphysics of 
Nature (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2011).

Best wishes

                                                  Søren Brier

Professor in the semiotics of information, cognition and commmunication science,
department of International Business Communication, Copenhagen Business School,
Home page: www.cbs.dk/staff/sbibc<http://www.cbs.dk/staff/sbibc>. , 

PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Reply via email to