A marvelous study of Peirces integration of science and religion, Søren!
I wonder if you might comment, from your perspective, on one aspect of
Peirces religious belief which appears relatively conservative to most of
us: his avowed anthropormorphism. Although Peirce does not see this as
unscientific, it does seem to be in some tension with some of his other
views about science, such as his avoidance of psychologism in logic.
Consider for instance this passage from EP2:152 (second Harvard Lecture,
1903):
Anthropomorphic is what pretty much all conceptions are at bottom;
otherwise other roots for the words in which to express them than the old
Aryan roots would have to be found. And in regard to any preference for one
kind of theory over another, it is well to remember that every single truth
of science is due to the affinity of the human soul to the soul of the
universe, imperfect as that affinity no doubt is. 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.
I have after long years
of the severest examination become fully satisfied that, other things being
equal, an anthropomorphic conception, whether it makes the best nucleus for
a scientific working hypothesis or not, is far more likely to be
approximately true than one that is not anthropomorphic. Suppose, for
example, it is a question between accepting Telepathy or Spiritualism. The
former I dare say is the preferable working hypothesis because it can be
more readily subjected to experimental investigation. But as long as there
is no reason for believing it except phenomena that Spiritualism is equally
competent to explain, I think Spiritualism is much the more likely to be
approximately true, as being the more anthropomorphic and natural idea; and
in like manner, as between an old-fashioned God and a modern patent
Absolute, recommend me to the anthropomorphic conception if it is a question
of which is the more likely to be about the truth.
Do you see this as perfectly compatible with Peirces panentheism, or (more
important) his way of integrating religion and science? (I think I do, but
Id like to hear it from you.)
gary f.
} The human body is the best picture of the soul. [Wittgenstein, PI II.iv) {
<http://www.gnusystems.ca/gnoxic.htm> www.gnusystems.ca/gnoxic.htm }{
gnoxics
From: Søren Brier [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 28-May-14 5:56 PM
---------------------------------------------
Peirces philosophical work proceeds in a way that suggests a new
understanding of science and religion as well as the relation between them,
which transcends our usual way of thinking of these matters in the West
Peirces triadic semiotics worked on an original solution to the
metaphysical problems connected to the relation between science, philosophy,
mathematics and religion in the modern world. Peirce was truly a
mathematical philosopher, believing that philosophy must begin with logic
resting in turn upon pure mathematics.
-----------------------------
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] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
