Gary, Helmut, List: I think that questions of religion come *after *the kinds of cosmological questions that we have been addressing lately. Once we establish the necessity of God's Reality for the existence of our universe, we can *then *start inquiring about the details. As Peirce wrote in "A Neglected Argument" ...
CSP: The hypothesis of God is a peculiar one, in that it supposes an infinitely incomprehensible object, although every hypothesis, as such, supposes its object to be truly conceived in the hypothesis. This leaves the hypothesis but one way of understanding itself; namely, as vague yet as true so far as it is definite, and as continually tending to define itself more and more, and without limit (CP 6.466, EP 2:439) Peirce saw humanity's primary role in God's ongoing creative activity as learning more and more about both God and God's creations--i.e., the contents of the three Universes of Experience--thus contributing to the *summum bonum*, which is the development of Reason (CP 1.615, EP 2:255; 1903). However, since God is infinite, it will take us all of eternity to get to know Him. With that in mind, a unique aspect of Christianity is its startling affirmation that God Himself entered into Actuality--into our existing universe--in the person of Jesus. His claim to divinity thus offers us a significantly more definite concept of God for our consideration; and if he truly rose from the dead, as his followers have been asserting for nearly 2,000 years, then that claim has been decisively validated. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Helmut, List, > > Thanks for this, Helmut. When I was studying comparative and > inter-religion for about a decade a couple of decades ago, I found the > distinction 'esoteric' vs 'exoteric' of help, for example, in such a > discussion as we're having. Your pointing to what some scholars refer to as > the esoteric dimension of religion (Sufism in Islam, Kabbala in Judaism, > Meister Eckhard and certain other mystics in Christianity, Zen in Buddhism, > etc.) would seem to reflect that distinction. > > And I believe that you are also quite right to point to the religious > practices of probably many people who want something other than a 'vague' > concept of God to, as for example, you mentioned, to pray to, namely, a > more personal God. There are places where Peirce suggests as much, while in > the N.A. and the early cosmological discussions, e.g., that in RLT (1898), > it seems to me that he has a somewhat different, at least > *quasi*-scientific--but > certainly, logical--goal in mind. > > In any event, religious tolerance (which in my thinking includes tolerance > of agnosticism and atheism) is for me a desideratum, one often lacking in > especially our public discourse. > > But these are just a few idle thoughts thrown off quickly as I am > currently dealing with some personal matters which need my full attention. > I'll want to think further on these matters over the next few days, but > will probably have little time to respond online. > > Best, > > Gary R > > [image: Gary Richmond] > > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > *C 745* > *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: > >> Gary, list, >> I see the necessity for leaving the God-concept vague. On the other hand, >> people use "God" for somebody to pray to, for religion in the sense of >> reconnection with something spiritual and all-encompassing. So they have to >> visualize God as non-vague to get a feeling of connection, I think. So one >> who wishes to pray has to decide, which of the many varieties of God Clark >> wrote about to imagine, eg. impassive or passionate. I guess the solution >> of this dilemma may be to have the confidence, that seeming contradictions >> between the varieties will be "aufgehoben" in a Hegelian dialectic sense >> (raised, abolished) along with further inquiries to come. This means two >> things: It is ok to temporally have a non-vague God-concept, and second the >> dogma, that a religion must be non-exclusive, but open and tolerant to >> other religions. On the other hand there may be religions which are not >> based on synechism and agapism. But I guess, that the mystic parts of quite >> all religions are based on universal concepts that resemble agapism and >> synechism, eg. Sufism, Kabbala, Meister Eckhard, other than the prophetic >> parts of eg. Islam, Judaism, Christianity. So maybe the dogma has to be >> modified: Openness and tolerance towards other religions, except you should >> never trust a prophet, not of the other religions, and neither of yours. >> Best, >> Helmut >> >> 29. Oktober 2016 um 01:31 Uhr >> "Gary Richmond" <gary.richm...@gmail.com> >> >> Clark, list, >> >> Clark wrote: >> >> >> The more I think on it the more my own view is that Peirce’s process >> approach to epistemology offers the best solution. Our beliefs are not >> volitional. All we can do is inquire. If we really inquire carefully and >> still believe, well that seems a good basis from which to believe (or >> disbelieve) >> >> >> The N.A. is, as I see it, an invitation to inquire in just this sense, >> while Peirce strongly suggests that such an inquiry *will tend* to lead >> to belief and not its opposite. >> >> As Peirce remarks, the meaning of 'God', being a vernacular word, is >> necessarily vague. If that word is left vague. then it is possible to >> inquire into it such that an *argument* for the reality (not the >> existence, as Jon has repeated emphasized) can be developed. In the N.A. >> Peirce makes clear that by "argument" he means "any process of thought >> reasonably tending to produce a definite belief" (this opposed to its use >> in normative logic where it means the inference from premises to a >> conclusion: an argumentation). >> >> So, musement, he suggests, can give rise to an hypothesis (and, perhaps >> later, a belief) that there is indeed a creator of the three Universes of >> Experience, and that one will then be *struck by the beauty* of this >> hypothesis, and by even the practical usefulness of it, especially in >> guiding ones conduct in conformity to it, that is, supplying an i*deal >> to ones conduct* in life. One will come to love this purely >> "hypothetical God" and act lovingly in accordance with what follows from >> one's belief (including love of ones brothers and sisters). >> >> And, further, it is belief in this God-hypothesis which offers >> "plausibility" and coherence to the notion of three Universes of >> Experience, offering "a thoroughly satisfactory explanation" of it. >> >> Reflections on the God hypothesis following from Peirce's early >> evolutionary cosmological thought leads him to, albeit tentative. >> conclusions regarding God's purpose: that God has always been and is ever >> creating the Universe (perhaps multi-universes as I've suggested in earlier >> posts). Of course we have no way of knowing God's knowledge or power (or >> any specific characteristic), but we have hints--and more than hints--that >> God's thought is creative. But since God's thought is *utterly unlike >> our own*, we can only get a very fragmentary sense of it. Therefore, it >> is, again, wise to leave the God-idea vague and to not attribute specific >> characters to it (like omniscience, infallibility, all-powerfulness, etc., >> which characters are, after all, themselves vague). >> >> So, in brief, because of a synechistic (and agapastic) tendency in >> cosmological evolution as Peirce envisions it, in the N.A. he claims that >> the God-hypothesis is most worthy of further inquiry. In this essay Peirce >> seems, at least to me, to prepare the grounds for an integration, even a >> unification of science and religion. What Peirce envisions is a scientific >> religion which, on the one hand, deemphasizes religious doctrines, dogmas, >> and creeds, while on the other hand, develops the notion that science can >> be seen as in support of religion, not necessarily opposed to it in >> principle. It is my understanding that all this follows from his principle >> of fallibilism. >> >> In good part I follow Thomas Knight's thinking in this matter (see his >> slim volume, *Charles Peirce* in The Great American Thinkers Series). >> >> Best, >> >> Gary R >> >> xx >> >> xx >> >> [image: Gary Richmond] >> >> *Gary Richmond* >> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* >> *Communication Studies* >> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* >> *C 745* >> *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* >> >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Oct 28, 2016, at 2:17 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: >>> >>> Thank you, Clark, for this nutshell summary of God-concepts since the >>> Greek abstraction. >>> >>> >>> After I wrote it I worried I’d come off as being patronizing as I know >>> many here knew all this. I just put it in that form because I think the >>> unifying of God as ground of being and God as intervening high power >>> needn’t be unified. So I hope the tone didn’t come off wrong. >>> >>> >>> >>> So it (your summary) is a basis for getting a feeling, or different >>> feelings towards the different varieties of "God": Pity? (So alone), Envy? >>> (No.), Worship? (missing information about better or worse worlds.), >>> Empathy? (yes, in case of process theology.) Maybe people can choose their >>> belief in order to have a feeling they like to have, and maybe this is ok, >>> if they reflect, why they want to feel this or that way, and not have an >>> unreflected feeling like revenge, superiority, and then construct a >>> God-concept out of that. I am too confused now to tell which feeling about >>> God I want to have, but confusion (Tohu Va bohu) is always a good start. >>> >>> >>> Well I’m not sure I want to get into religion proper from a personalist >>> perspective here. After all most of us likely have our own views on God (or >>> whether there is anything like an interventionist God). While I personally >>> have trouble with many elements of of the Whitehead/Hartshorne process >>> theological God, it does seem a position that can’t be neglected. >>> >>> I’ve read some of the works on Peirce’s religion and I confess I’m >>> really still not sure what he really believed. (Not God as real but not >>> actual that’s discussed in the NA but the other aspects he brings up at >>> times) Where I’m most sympathetic to Peirce’s view of religion is that >>> whatever our views, it seems like inquiry has to proceed empirically in >>> some fashion. >>> >>> My sense, perhaps completely wrong, is that most people either proceed >>> to think about God on the basis of religious experience or via a more >>> traditional kind of rational transcendental argument for metaphysics. The >>> latter tend to focus on God as being in some sense. The former tend towards >>> atheism or agnosticism depending upon their experiences (or lack thereof) >>> and skepticism towards others experiences. A few people believe in a theist >>> type of God on the basis of experience, but I assume most reason poorly. >>> (That’s not a knock on religious believers just that most people don’t >>> reason carefully so it’d follow that most don’t about religion either) >>> >>> The more I think on it the more my own view is that Peirce’s process >>> approach to epistemology offers the best solution. Our beliefs are not >>> volitional. All we can do is inquire. If we really inquire carefully and >>> still believe, well that seems a good basis from which to believe (or >>> disbelieve) >>> >>> So to answer your question while maintaining a connection to Peirce, I >>> suspect the answer ends up being a question about what experiences we are >>> analyzing. >>> >>
----------------------------- 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 .
