Helmut, list
I don't agree with any kind of transcendental force/agency - so, I
wouldn't agree with either panentheism or theism, both of which
assume an agential force that transcends time and space. My problem
with pantheism, which does NOT have this transcendental agency but
instead, refers o an 'immanent agent' , is - what is their definition
of 'god'?
I don't think that psychology or semiotics can stop people from
acting out their emotional natures!
Edwina
On Sun 03/02/19 1:57 PM , "Helmut Raulien" [email protected] sent:
Edwina, list, You wrote: "I think that the ills of society are
caused by the human psychological nature - nothing to do with either
religion or science and following either will not change the effects
of a bad psychological nature. That is - the 'deadly sins' of greed,
lust, pride , envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth are psychological and
can only be dealt with by deliberate personal reasoning and action.
Neither science nor religion plays any role." I think, that these
sins are of psychological and systemical and semiotic nature.
Therefore, sciences like psychology, systems theory and semiotics can
play a role. However, they cannot change human instinctive nature in
the way that they (the sciences) could take away the reasons for
these sins, but can help people (also people in leading positions) to
reflect their proneness to them, how they can better overcome them and
watch their own behaviour (civilize them). Religions play the role,
that they reduce the sins inside the belief community, but amplify
them between the belief communities. Separate theologies cannot
help, I think, but some kind of meta-theology can. Atheists and
theists will not change their beliefs, but to get them round the
conference table, I think it is good to reduce (temporarily for this
purpose) the God-concept to the common denominator "pantheism", or
"panentheism". I think, "panentheism" is better, because it does not
deny every kind of separatedness or otherness of God, so cannot be
denounced by theists as completely atheistic. Best, Helmut 03.
Februar 2019 um 15:24 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky" wrote:
Gary R
1] Just a comment on your view of the role of science and religion
in a society.
I don't agree that the cause of the 'ills' of society is a 'limited
view of god' or a chasm between science and religion. Such a
viewpoint suggests that atheism, my view, 'contributes to the ills of
society' - and of course I wouldn't agree with that.
Religion, of any type, is a belief system. You either believe in it
- or not. There is no evidence. Its axioms are infallible and outside
of debate. Science is subject to empirical objective and repeatable
evidence - and its axioms are fallible.
I don't see how anything can 'bridge this gap'.
I think that the ills of society are caused by the human
psychological nature - nothing to do with either religion or science
and following either will not change the effects of a bad
psychological nature. That is - the 'deadly sins' of greed, lust,
pride , envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth are psychological and can
only be dealt with by deliberate personal reasoning and action.
Neither science nor religion plays any role.
And therefore - nothing to do with gunpowder, fossil fuels or
Facebook. If mankind didn't have gunpowder - he's use spears, arrows
and poisons...to deal with his greed, envy, wrath etc. Fossil fuels
have enabled the growth of technologies that have benefited mankind -
from medical care, to heating and cooling our homes, to better
sanitation and health and water supplies, to enabling more people to
be provided with food and care, and travel and so on. As for Facebook
- no comment...other than gossip is gossip.
2] I will not get into any discussion about JAS's view of god and
Peirce - since I disagree with his interpretation and consider that
his own personal theism plays a large role in that outline.
My caution is that semiosis is a rational action, an action, as
Peirce said, of Mind - and we should be careful how we define Mind.
Edwina
On Sat 02/02/19 11:54 PM , Gary Richmond [email protected]
sent: Jon, list, Jon wrote: I am curious to learn
exactly how you . . . would define panentheism in this context, as
contrasted with theism, and then attempt to revise the major premise
accordingly in order to obtain a compatible conclusion. Peirce
explicitly described the Object as "something external to and
independent of the sign" . . ., rather than something greater than
but still somehow inclusive of the Sign; and he also stated plainly,
"In its relation to the Object, the Sign is passive ... the Object
remaining unaffected". . . One has at least to admit, I
think, in positing the Universe as Sign (Symbol) and God as the
Object of that Sign, that both are wholly unique, that they are
atypical, even peculiar among all other Signs and Objects: that they
are, indeed, sui generis both in themselves, so to speak, and in
their relationship. As for panentheism, it is generally held that
it is an attempt to avoid separating God from a (created) universe
(as theism does) while at the same time not identifying God with the
universe (pantheism). Panentheism, as you know, holds that God not
only pervades the cosmos and all that this universe includes and
involves, but also transcends it in the sense of simultaneously
being beyond space and time. [In my view it is possible that the
God of all possible Universes this Cosmos is not necessarily to be
identified with the God of our Universe. I'll admit, however, that
that sounds a bit odd even to me; yet I've been entertaining the idea
for many years now (this is not, btw, an argument for the
multi-universe theories prevalent in our time)]. JAS:
Frankly, I am seeking not only to argue for Peirce's views about God,
but also to demonstrate that his views about Signs and the Universe
warranted those views about God--perhaps even required them.
I agree with you that at first blush that Peirce's views about Signs
and the Universe "warrant, perhaps even require" something like the
theistic view you've been arguing for. Yet, while I think the
pantheistic view has been generally debunked, perhaps the
panentheistic notion that God creates but also transcends space and
time can help in your "attempt to revise the major premise
accordingly in order to obtain a compatible conclusion." Finally,
in my view, historically and to this day, our idea of God has been
far too small, far too limited, and often dogmatic and doctrinaire,
striking some (but not all) scientists as at least naive and
typically incompatible with science. I think these limited views of
God have in ways contributed to many of the "wicked problems" of our
world, not the least of which is the chasm that has been developing
for centuries between science and religion. It should be noted,
however, that science, at least as it has led to the development of
socially and environmentally problematic technologies (for example,
gun powder, fossil fuels, Facebook), has itself contributed to the
emergence of a number of horrifying"wicked problems. I believe that
Peirce's science, phenomenology, logic as semeiotic, cosmology,
scientific metaphysics, and theological insights might in time help
us to bridge the gap between religion and science, perhaps to finally
contribute evenkmj to solving some of those "wicked problems." Best,
Gary Gary Richmond Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Communication Studies LaGuardia College of the City University of New
York 718 482-5690
On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 7:30 PM Jon Alan
Schmidt wrote: Gary R., List: Thank you for your very kind
words. I look forward to further feedback and discussion. I
actually debated formatting the summary just as you proposed, but
ultimately decided to add the fourth bullet as tacit acknowledgement
that identifying God as the Object that determines the Universe as a
Sign is not strictly entailed by the syllogism itself. Instead, it
follows from the other considerations that I highlighted toward the
end of my original post. I am curious to learn exactly how you (or
others) would define panentheism in this context, as contrasted with
theism, and then attempt to revise the major premise accordingly in
order to obtain a compatible conclusion. Peirce explicitly described
the Object as "something external to and independent of the sign" (R
145; 1905), rather than something greater than but still somehow
inclusive of the Sign; and he also stated plainly, " In its relation
to the Object, the Sign is passive ... the Object remaining
unaffected" (EP 2:544n22; 1906). Frankly, I am seeking not only to
argue for Peirce's views about God, but also to demonstrate that his
views about Signs and the Universe warranted those views about
God--perhaps even required them. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt -
Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher,
Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2] On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 4:56
PM Gary Richmond wrote: Jon, list, This is, in my opinion,
a most impressive semeiotic argument (really, an extended
argumentation in Peirce's sense) for the Reality of God. This is to
say that it would seem to me to be an explication of Peirce's (and, I
assume, your) religious views as they relate to his sign theory,
representing a kind of outline of a Peircean semeiotic theology (of
course Peirce himself sometimes argued contra the theologians). It
brings together, at least as far as I can tell, the most salient
passages in Peirce relating to that argument in a forceful logical
tour de force. I have read many papers and several books on Peirce's
religious views, but I have found them all significantly wanting in
some respects. So, I'm eagerly anticipating studying your
argumentation to see how it holds up upon examination. For now, my
only very, very slight 'adjustment' to your post would be to make
your four summary points, three, since they obviously constitute a
syllogism. So:
*Every Sign is determined by an Object other than itself.
*The entire Universe is a Sign.
*Therefore, the entire Universe is determined by an Object other
than itself; and this we call God.
I can imagine that you'll get all sorts of push back from this
deductive argument, for example, from those who consider themselves
panentheists. But the response to that sort of difference of opinion
is simply that what you're arguing for is Peirce's view of the matter,
one which sees God as the Creator of the Three Universes; and how this
is clearly intimately tied up with his theory of signs. As for
purely logical issues that may arise upon examination of your
deductive argument, you'll have to take these as they come, I
suppose. And some will surely argue that such a deductive argument
can only be of so much value since, as they might see it, faith in
God is not essentially a logical matter. But for those philosophers
and semioticians who already hold a Creator view of God, the argument
surely offers considerable support. I have only read your argument
twice so far, and have not yet seen any logical flaws; of course
others may. However, the very clarity of your argumentation makes me
wonder anew about my own view of this matter. I have, perhaps, once
again begun to reflect on my own tendencies toward panentheism. I had
previously thought that my religious views were quite close to
Peirce's. But since I find your argument as following logically and
naturally from Peirce's semeiotic, the intra-personal tension it's
creating--between theism and panentheism--can only be of value to me
in the long run. Best, Gary Gary Richmond Philosophy
and Critical Thinking Communication Studies LaGuardia College of the
City University of New York 718 482-5690
----------------------------- 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 [3] .
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3] 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 [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 .
