> On Oct 31, 2016, at 3:52 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I also share Clark's interest in learning more, if possible, about what > Peirce thought regarding the divinity Jesus. The only published comment on > it that I could find is CP 6.538 (c.1901). > > CSP: I do not assent to the contention of many theologians that the miracles > of Jesus can properly convince a modern man of the divinity of Jesus. On the > contrary, all the evidence which can now be presented for them is quite > insufficient, unless the general divinity of the Christian religion be > assumed. The evidence which may have been overwhelming for eye witnesses and > persons near them is of a very different and inferior character to that which > may weigh with a modern Christian.
There are several other references in the CP such as 1.88. Usually they have a fairly skeptical aspect to them characteristic of the educated class of that era. Now a finite number divided by infinity is exactly zero. That Pythagoras had a golden thigh is the testimony of history. It is asserted by Aristotle, of all possible authorities the highest, by both Porphyry and Jamblichus after Nicomachus, by Herodotus, by Plutarch, Diogenes Laertius, Aelian, Apollonius, etc. This is far stronger testimony than we have for the resurrection of Jesus. Are we then to admit as a part of the science of history that Pythagoras had a golden thigh? However that 6.537 “The Meaning of Miracles” really is good at getting at Peirce’s fair skepticism of a more traditional reading of scripture. Although he justly takes Hume to task with injecting metaphysics into the notion of miracle. (That was a pet peeve of mine long before I found Peirce noting the same problem) There is a pretty interesting reference in CP 8.50 though. This is his response to Royce’s Hegelianism. (I think this is in the EP but I don’t have my volume 1 handy) [Royce] having stated the above argument with admirable clearness, fills a hundred pages with a perhaps not altogether necessary, though a charmingly written and highly interesting elaboration and illustration of it. He here passes in review a goodly number of the ethical theories which have been proposed at different times. After the Sophists, Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics, he criticizes what he conceives to be the ethics of Jesus. Every christian will tell him that he makes the mistake of viewing that as a theory or speculation which is really a spiritual experience; -- another example of his neglect of the volitional element. For instance, he asks, "If I feel not the love of God, how prove to me that I ought to feel it?” (CP 8.50) I think this gets directly at the more evidential approach to religion that some push. It’s interesting seeing Peirce note the distinction between having an experiment and demanding knowledge without the experience. He makes a similar point earlier in the paper. The moral stand-point from which every man with a christian training sets out, even if he be a dogmatic atheist, is pretty nearly the same. He has a horror of certain crimes and a disapproval of certain lesser sins. He is also more or less touched with the spirit of christian love, which he believes should be his beacon, and which in point of fact, by its power in his heart, shall and will govern him in all questions of disputed morals. More or less, in all of us, this sentiment replaces and abolishes conscience; like Huckleberry Finn, we act from christian charity without caring very much whether conscience approves of the act or not. (CP 8.47) This experience of Christian love seems to be the key empirical evidence for much of his religious views even if he casts a more skeptical eye towards scripture. Of course Peirce’s view of evolutionary love both in religious and more general cosmological views is well known. Joe Ransdell as a great paper on that. http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/bycsp/evolove/evolove.htm <http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/bycsp/evolove/evolove.htm>
----------------------------- 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 .
