Contradictory and I doubt Peircean. Steven
On Monday, May 19, 2014, Søren Brier <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > article > http://www.transpersonalstudies.org/ImagesRepository/ijts/Downloads/A%20Peircean%20Panentheist%20Scientific%20Mysticism.pdf > , 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 h >
----------------------------- 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 .
