Stephen J, List, Neither Jon S nor I have been arguing for or against our own personal religious views in this discussion, but only affirming *Peirce's own stated views*. We are, it would seem, in agreement as to what those views are since Peirce was quite explicit about them.
Our own personal views regarding God and religion, at least as I understand them, are similar to Peirce's principally in that we are theists, but different from his in many regards. And I know from off-list discussions with Jon that his and my beliefs are very different from each other's. Meanwhile, all that Jon has said on list about his own personal beliefs is that he is a theist and a Lutheran, while I have commented (although not in the present discussion) that some of my views are, as I see them, similar to Peirce's while some are quite different. For example, regarding one difference, like you I especially struggle with the notion of a personal God. But, again, our personal religious views in this discussion have *never even once* been the issue. We, like many--perhaps virtually all--who have studied Peirce's religious views, simply affirm that Peirce held a belief in the Reality of God, that is, that he was a theist. *CSP: T*he word "God," so "capitalised" (as we Americans say), is *the* definable proper name, signifying *Ens necessarium*; in my belief Really creator of all three Universes of Experience. That is all. One can agree or disagree with his religious views, his theism, but he was most definitely a theist, not an atheist, not an agnostic. And, again, we are not arguing pro nor con regarding theism. As for whether any individual in this forum or, for that matter, *anywhere* is a theist or an atheist, that matters not a whit to me. I am married to an agnostic, and the most beloved living member of my family, my sister, is an atheist, her husband a Buddhist. The agnostics and atheists whom I know personally and call friends are all very good and ethical people in my opinion. The theists I know personally and call friends are all very good and ethical people. And I should add that I have friends, colleagues, and students who are Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, Baha'i, and Muslim, one of the delights of living in as culturally rich a city as New York City is. Perhaps the greatest teacher in my life, Da Liu, was Taoist. Best, Gary *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *718 482-5690* On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 6:28 AM, Stephen Jarosek <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> wrote: > Gary, list > > I find the certainty with which positions are taken here, and asserted, > rather disconcerting. I am not an expert on Peirce at all, so I cannot > comment on the verity of what he had said or intended. > > My own position on the nature of God? I keep out of that conversation. I > can no more know God than I can know the “true” nature of empty space. It > does not interest me to conjecture about gods, for my mind-body is not > equipped to apprehend such an entity… any more than a neuron is equipped to > understand me. > > Here is a poem that I wrote around 2005. People can read into this pretty > much whatever they want. Is God implied? Merely a metaphor? Or is he real? > Maybe a personal god who affects us directly? Take your pick… though I > should add that I find the idea of a personal god especially troublesome, > nay self-indulgent, as per my views on human exceptionalism… in a universe > comprised of trillions of billions of planets (by current conservative > guesstimates), as if each and every one of us could be so important. > > > I AM CULTURE > > Sociologists studied the behaviors of crowds, and never saw my > essence. > Psychologists analyzed the behaviors of individuals, and never saw > my form. > Others - also with their own personal problems and private lives - > have categorized, labeled and pigeonholed me. > They call me “Culture”. > > But you don’t know me. > Indeed, very few people can even guess how I might affect their > lives. > Yet I am responsible for the way that you and all your brothers > and sisters live and interact. > I am responsible for the successes and failures of each and every > one of your kind. > I am more powerful than you could ever have imagined. > Yet whole lives can be lived without ever knowing - or caring - > that I exist. > > Everyone sees and responds to the consequences of my power. > Each and every thought, each and every action is a direct result > of interactions with my power. > Even if one of your kind knew me - even if he could know my power > and would choose to rebel against it, he would be powerless. > For he is but one against..... the world? > And I would cast him out. For I AM his world. And he knows no > other. > > For I have taught him how to interpret all he experiences. > And how to respond to all he experiences. > I have taught his parents and their parents before them. > For I am the source of his knowledge of Being. > I am his reality. > > I reside within him and he, within me. > My form - his reality - is duplicated in his mind. > In isolation, he is like a piece removed from a hologram - for he > contains most of the information required to duplicate my form. > Should he turn against me, he would only be turning against > himself. > For I am all he knows. > This would be his demise. > For me, his demise is without consequence. > For my form lives on, in the minds of each and every one of you. > And I will continue to be, long after you have been survived by > your children. > And I would banish him to beyond the fringes of the all the > world’s mythos’. > I would leave him to wander in a penumbral limbo - left to stumble > in the quagmire of his own insanity. > > And for me, nothing changes. > > I am history. > I am the present. > I am the words in your language. > I am the collective consciousness of all of you. > I change only when you all change, together. > I am you, the self is the other. > I am your reality. > > You think you are superior to nature’s beasts, yet you are > governed by the same laws. > For all life, all logics of every organism that has ever been are > governed by the laws of habit, association, choice and desire. > You think that you are so independent, > Yet everything you know, you’ve imitated from me. > Can you really believe yourself to be beyond beast? > You, the beast with human body, > You, the beast with tongue with which to speak and hands with > which to work, I give of myself that you might be. > For without me you can only ever revert to the beast whence you > came, > The beast you deny, the beast that lurks in the shadows of your > subconscious mind. > > You, the beast of human form. > You perceive the illusion of the power that you have over your own > life. > With obligations to no-one but those you know. > Trapped by the illusion of your ego. > > You perceive the illusion because you can choose that which you > desire. > But it is I that shapes your desires. > It is I and I alone, that delivers the options from which you must > choose. > For in reality, your own life - everything you have been and will > become - is intertwined with the lives of others. > A complex web of action, interaction and reaction. > Culture. > > The person who understands me understands himself. > He who understands me knows heaven and hell and everything between. > He who truly understands me knows thought and the sculptor of life. > > And he knows to be humble. > > For each of you is but a neuron in the mind of One that is far > greater. And me, I am but one of His thoughts in time. > > > *From:* Gary Richmond [mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com > <gary.richm...@gmail.com>] > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 15, 2018 3:23 AM > *To:* Peirce-L > *Subject:* Re: : [PEIRCE-L] The failure of Intelligent Design > > > > Edwina, list, > > > > You can obstinately stand by your views, but that won't make them any more > logical. You wrote: > > > > ET: 1] . . . I repeat; the terms of God and Real are vague and can mean > anything that one subjectively wishes. > > 2] With regard to the second point - same problem; the terms are vague. > > You totally misconstrue what Peirce means by 'vague' and how he uses it in > many discussions, often in consideration of logical issues where he > distinguishes the vague from the general. For example: > > 1905 | Issues of Pragmaticism | EP 2:351; CP 5.447-448 > > [A]nything is *general* in so far as the principle of excluded middle > does not apply to it and is *vague* in so far as the principle of > contradiction does not apply to it. > > 1904 | Foundations of Mathematics [R] | MS [R] 10:1-2 > > If a sign allows the utterer a certain latitude of choice as to what his > meaning may be; so that he may perhaps defend its applicability in several > ways […] then the sign may be said to be *vague*, or *non-definite*. > > As to the vagueness involved in the ideas 'God' and the 'Real', Jon has > already discussed this at some length, so again I won't repeat his > discussion of how Peirce employs the idea of 'vagueness' in those context. > But for Peirce "vague" *in any context *certainly does *not* "mean > anything that one subjectively wishes." That is patent nonsense. > > Peirce's offers several definitions of the vague and vagueness which are > fairly similar and seem to me to apply to the current discussion. > > 1904 | Foundations of Mathematics [R] | MS [R] 11:1 > > If a sign allows a latitude of choice to the utterer in certain respects > and within certain limits, as to what its object or meaning shall be, it > may be called *vague*, or *non-determinate*. > > Note, the "latitude of choice" is "in certain respects and within certain > limits." > > > > Peirce defines both "God" (as Ens Necessarium and as Real Creator of the > Three Universes, and all that these concepts, albeit, vaguely imply); and > he defines the "Real": > > > > 1905 | Materials for Monist Article: The Consequences of Pragmaticism. > Vols. I and II [R] | MS [R] 288:117 > > A real is anything that is not affected by men’s cognitions *about it*. > > > > ET: 3] No - I cannot offer any retraction, since I don't accept your view. > > There's a huge difference in meaning between 'Creator' and 'creating'. > > In the present context, this is not so as Peirce sees it. From A Neglected > Argument for the Reality of God: > > *T*he word "God," so "capitalised" (as we Americans say), is *the* definable > proper name, signifying *Ens necessarium*; in my belief Really creator of > all three Universes of Experience. > > You conclude: > > > > ET: That is- God/Mind is creating the universe - and, as outlined in > Peirce's description of the emergence of Mind-as-Matter, in 1.412, this > constant action of creation is not via some prior Supreme Power, not via > some Supreme Design, not via some metaphysical Agency, but is an ongoing > Complex Self-Organized Action. Therefore - I do not see God as the Creator; > I read Peirce to outline how Mind/Matter are constantly forming, > dissipating and forming novel matter within a complex > self-organized interaction of the Three Categories. > > Well, I can certainly agree that, as you wrote, "God/Mind is creating the > universe." But, in my opinion, you ought to consider not only 1.412 but > also the final lectures of the 1898 series (not in the CP) where Peirce > radically modifies his view of the emergence of the cosmos. Jon's recent > paper takes this up rather masterfully, in my opinion. Your autopoietic > (self-organizing) view of the emergence of the cosmos would be news to > Peirce, while I think that he would find it valuable in consideration of > the emergence of biological life. > > > > Edwina, I am personally getting tired of this "debate." You seem married > to your positions and unwilling to reconsider any one of them or any part > of any one of them. I find your analysis of Peirce's views of God and > religion illogical. At this point and out of intellectual exhaustion I > usually say, you can have the last word. > > > > Best, > > > > Gary > > > > > > > > > *Gary Richmond* > > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > > *Communication Studies* > > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > > *718 482-5690* > > > > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 7:47 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > wrote: > > Gary R, list: > > I stand by my views. > > 1] I wrote: " its premises could be false. The problem is: the > terms: God, Real - are vague and therefore, can mean anything that one > subjectively wishes." > > And I repeat; the terms of God and Real are *vague* and can mean anything > that one subjectively wishes. > > 2] With regard to the second point - same problem; the terms are *vague*. > > 3] No - I cannot offer any retraction, since I don't accept your view. > Peirce wrote: "Do you believe this Supreme Being to have been the creator > of the universe"? Not so much to have been as to be now creating the > universe. 6.505 > > There's a huge difference in meaning between 'Creator' and 'creating'. > > That is- God/Mind is creating the universe - and, as outlined in Peirce's > description of the emergence of Mind-as-Matter, in 1.412, this constant > action of creation is not via some prior Supreme Power, not via some > Supreme Design, not via some metaphysical Agency, but is an ongoing Complex > Self-Organized Action. Therefore - I do not see God as the Creator; I read > Peirce to outline how Mind/Matter are constantly forming, dissipating and > forming novel matter within a complex self-organized interaction of the > Three Categories. > > Edwina > > > > *On Mon 14/05/18 6:46 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com > <gary.richm...@gmail.com> sent:* > > Jon, Edwina, list, > > > > Jon, responding to Edwina wrote: > > > > 1. Defining "God" and "Real" as Peirce did in CP 6.452-453, which of my > premises is false, such that the conclusion is false? > > > > 2. The subject at hand is not what one *can *say, but what Peirce *did *say; > he believed in God, *and *affirmed His Reality. > > > > 3. It is demonstrably false that "Peirce denies God as the Creator"; on > the contrary, he explicitly affirmed it, over and over. > > > > 1. Your premises are not false, Jon, and this nonsense coming from Edwina > is strictly illogical > > > > 2. Peirce most certainly said "he believed in God, and affirmed His > Reality" and to attempt to deny this is simply absurd. > > > > 3. Saying, as Edwina did, that "Peirce denies God as the Creator" is false > and the whole of her absurd illogic on this matter is becoming offensive. I > would like to strongly suggest that you offer a retraction of that last > statement, Edwina. > > > > Best, > > > > Gary (writing at 3. as list moderator) > > > > > > > > > *Gary Richmond* > > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > > *Communication Studies* > > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > > *718 482-5690* > > > > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 5:58 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt < > jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Edwina, List: > > > > 1. Defining "God" and "Real" as Peirce did in CP 6.452-453, which of my > premises is false, such that the conclusion is false? > > > > 2. The subject at hand is not what one *can *say, but what Peirce *did *say; > he believed in God, *and *affirmed His Reality. > > > > 3. It is demonstrably false that "Peirce denies God as the Creator"; on > the contrary, he explicitly affirmed it, over and over. > > > > Jon S. > > > > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > wrote: > > JAS, list: > > 1] Your argument may be logically valid as a basic syllogism but its > premises could be false. The problem is: the terms: God, Real - are vague > and therefore, can mean anything that one subjectively wishes. > > 2] Yes - I suggest that one can say "I believe in god' and yet, deny god's > reality - since the terms are vague [god, reality]..Furthermore, such vague > beliefs are, in themselves, without anything other than emotional meaning > and strictly personal and subjective. > > 3] Peirce denies God as the Creator - instead, his complex semiosis means > that matter is always being created, Mind-as-Matter. > > Edwina > > *On Mon 14/05/18 4:41 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com > <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> sent:* > > Edwina: > > > > This is one of two posts that I am sending more or less simultaneously; > please read the other one first. > > > > Here is the only formal *argument *that I offered below; note that it is > deductively valid. > > > > Someone who believes that God is Real is a theist. > > Peirce believed that God is Real. > > Therefore, Peirce was a theist. > > > > Since you deny the conclusion, which premise do you deny? The first is a > straightforward definition, and the second is something that Peirce > explicitly affirmed. > > > > 1. Are you seriously suggesting that someone can say, "I believe in God," > and yet deny that God is Real? That strikes me as completely incoherent. > > > > 2. Again, I stated quite plainly, " a theist is *by definition* someone > who believes in God." Are you operating with some other idiosyncratic > definition of "theist"? > > > > 3. Peirce explicitly defined both "God" and "Real" at the beginning of "A > Neglected Argument," and plainly described God (so defined) as being " in > my belief Really [so defined] creator of all three Universes of > Experience" (CP 6.452-453). "Theistic God" is redundant; what kind of God > could possibly be "non-theistic"? If what you are really questioning is > whether Peirce believed in a *personal *God, then there is likewise no > need to speculate. > > > > CSP: The mere carrying out of predetermined purposes is mechanical. > This remark has an application to the philosophy of religion. It is that *a > genuine evolutionary philosophy, that is, one that makes the principle of > growth a primordial element of the universe, is so far from being > antagonistic to the idea of a personal creator that it is really > inseparable from that idea*; while a necessitarian religion is in an > altogether false position and is destined to become disintegrated. But a > pseudo-evolutionism which enthrones mechanical law above the principle of > growth is at once scientifically unsatisfactory, as giving no possible hint > of how the universe has come about, and hostile to all hopes of personal > relations to God. (CP 6.157; 1892, emphasis added) > > > > CSP: A difficulty which confronts the synechistic philosophy is this. In > considering personality, *that philosophy [synechism] is forced to accept > the doctrine of a personal God*; but in considering communication, it > cannot but admit that if there is a personal God, we must have a direct > perception of that person and indeed be in personal communication with him. > Now, if that be the case, the question arises how it is possible that the > existence of this being should ever have been doubted by anybody. The only > answer that I can at present make is that facts that stand before our face > and eyes and stare us in the face are far from being, in all cases, the > ones most easily discerned. That has been remarked from time immemorial. > (CP 6.162; 1892, emphasis added) > > > > CSP: But when a person finds himself in the society of others, he is just > as sure of their existence as of his own, though he may entertain a > metaphysical theory that they are all hypostatically the same ego. In like > manner, *when a man has that experience with which religion sets out, he > has as good reason--putting aside metaphysical subtilties--to believe in > the living personality of God as he has to believe in his own* . Indeed, > belief is a word inappropriate to such direct perception. (CP 6.436; 1893, > emphasis added) > > > > 4. There has to be some common denominator that warrants categorizing all > theists *as *theists; such is the nature of *any *general term. Peirce's > point was that this common denominator is necessarily vague, rather than > definite. Demanding "evidence of what exactly a 'vague concept of God' > specifically means" is self-contradictory; "vague" is the *opposite *of > "exact" and "specific." > > > > 5. The Five Ways are indeed deductively valid, but this merely entails > that their conclusions follow necessarily from their premises. Can you > provide evidence that *all *Christians subscribe to *every single one* of > those premises? On the contrary, I am a Christian, but neither a Roman > Catholic nor a Thomist; consequently, while I certainly embrace *some *of > Aquinas's premises, I do not hold to *all *of them. > > > > Regards, > > > > Jon S. > > > > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 1:07 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > wrote: > > JAS, list: > > Those are all circular and thus invalid arguments. > > 1] To equate someone who says: 'I believe in God' with a claim that this > person is also saying: 'God is Real' - is an invalid argument - both > syllogistically and informally, [the latter since the terms of 'real' > and god are undefined'.] and syllogistically since thee are only two terms > :god/real] > > 2] To equate someone who says: 'I believe in God' to be a 'theist' is also > an invalid argument, since yet again, the terms 'theist' and God are not > defined. > > 3] You can't claim that the use of the terms '[God, Real] are the same for > everyone - so, your assertion that Peirce's 'God' is a theistic God - is > unfounded. > > 4] Please provide evidence for your assertion that 'a vague conception of > God that is common to most or all theists". I am not aware of such evidence > and await your proof. Please also provide evidence of what exactly a 'vague > concept of God' specifically means! > > My understanding of Peirce's equation of God with Mind is a very specific > equation. Nothing vague about it at all. > > And please provide evidence that the Five Ways - which is a famous > argument which you seem to be unaware of - is held by only a certain subset > of Christians and held only by the use of Authority rather than Reason. > [Note - I don't accept the Five Ways - but, that doesn't take away from > their deductive validity]. > > Edwina > > *On Mon 14/05/18 1:19 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com > <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> sent:* > > Edwina, List: > > > > When someone says, "I believe in God," it is bordering on the ridiculous > to assert that the person is not saying that God is Real; and it is > *completely > *ridiculous to claim that the person is not a theist, since a theist is *by > definition* someone who believes in God. It gets worse for your > position, though--in Peirce's case, he stated not only that he believed in > God, but also--quite explicitly--that he believed God to be Real. There is > simply no getting around this--someone who believes that God is Real is a > theist, and Peirce believed that God is Real; therefore, Peirce was a > theist. > > > > The allegation that there is "a multitude of descriptions" of God is a red > herring. Again, Peirce quite deliberately argued for a *vague *conception > of God that is common to most or all theists, while the Five Ways advocate > a *definite* conception of God that is held only by a certain subset of > Christians. The latter do not at all deal with "different subjective > descriptions of the term 'God'," but a very specific definition; and they > are strictly "Authoritative" only for Roman Catholic Thomists. > > > > Regards, > > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSch midt > <http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > > > On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 9:16 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > wrote: > > Hey, John - you forgot: Happy Mother's Day. > > [mutter, mutter, seethe, fume...if my kids ever did that..mutter, mutter]. > > By the way - I fully agree with your comments. I think it is bordering on > the ridiculous to declare that because someone says: > > "I believe in God'..that this means that 'God is Real'..and that this > person is also a theist...[That's a reverse and invalid Argument]...\\ > > ..and then, when asked to define the term. people.come up with a multitude > of descriptions which differ from those of other people - So, we cannot > conclude, as some would like to conclude: That God is Real. Nor can we > conclude that these people are all 'theists'. > > That's what the 'Five Ways' was meant to deal with; the different > subjective descriptions of the term 'God'. It certainly set up the > Authoritative definition of the Church, but as purely rhetorical it > doesn't, in my view, have any validity as an Argument. > > So- I think it remains; belief in God is subjective and the definition of > God is equally subjective. Therefore - to move from the subjective to the > objective [ie to declare that God is Real]...can't be done. > > Edwina > > *On Sun 13/05/18 9:41 AM , John F Sowa s...@bestweb.net <s...@bestweb.net> > sent:* > > On 5/13/2018 8:50 AM, John Collier wrote: > > I am afraid I do not find these arguments coherent with anything > > I was taught to be God. > > I recall a survey some years ago in which the interviewers asked > people two questions: (1) Do you believe in God? (2) How would > you describe God? > > What they found: No two people described God in the same way. > The descriptions by believers and non-believers showed the same > amount of variation. And from the way God was described, they > couldn't reliably distinguish believers from non-believers. > > This was not a statistically reliable survey. And very few > of the people they surveyed had studied any philosophical > or theological arguments. > > But from my own experience, I find it convincing. And from hearing > or reading what people who have studied philosophy or theology say, > I suspect that the results would have been the same, independently > of how much they had thought, read, or studied. > > Happy Sunday, Sabbath, Meditation Day, or Picnic Day to all, > > John > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
