Gene, List: Thanks for clarifying and elaborating on your previous post.
In the opening statement of my response, I suspect that I was mainly reacting to what I perceived (perhaps mistakenly) to be a presupposition that *all *claims about God are *strictly *human constructions, thus denying any direct and definitive *revelation *of God's Real attributes. Peirce might even have agreed with that, but I do not. In particular, you mentioned "the divinization and sacralization of a particular human being" by Christianity, which seems to dismiss the possibility that Jesus of Nazareth *Really was* God in human flesh before anyone else proclaimed Him as such. On the other hand, your points about "nature as a direct informing source of perceptive religious experience and valuation" are well-taken, in the sense that God also certainly reveals Himself and His will for us (i.e., natural law) in that way. Peirce's "Neglected Argument" indeed depends entirely on this, along with some of his more controversial assertions in what I quoted from R 641. Moreover, I consider humans to be God's appointed *stewards *of Creation; rather than treating it as an adversary to subdue, we should recognize it as a gift to be treasured and tended. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 5:00 PM Eugene Halton <[email protected]> wrote: > First, thanks for your previous post on direct and indirect experience. > You found some really interesting quotations on experience from Peirce. > > Regarding your post responding to me. You state: > > Jon S: “Allegedly historical accounts like those you cite presuppose the > *non-Reality* of God, such that God's attributes are whatever a > particular group of people ascribes to God, and thus can vary between > different cultures and over time within the same culture. Peirce obviously > had a different view, explicitly and repeatedly affirming the *Reality *of > God…” > > Your assumption that historical accounts presuppose “the *non-Reality* of > God” seems to me false. > > I also don’t know why you say “allegedly historical” other than that you > don’t believe me. You seem to be conflating histories that depict various > accounts of God by different peoples, including variations over time, with > God’s attributes. I do not. I actually agree with the “specific claims” > list you make later in your post. > > A history of a people’s ideas of God’s attributes can indeed show ways > that humans can project partial insights or even mirror worlds of > themselves onto concepts of the divine. Admitting this does not mean that > God’s attributes are not real, only that human constructions may be > limited, or may be mistaken. An account of the creation of humans from a > patriarchal bias that originates in a first man, an Adam, and woman, an > Eve, as a derivative of man, would be one example. Do you think it does > justice to God’s attributes? I don’t. > > There is also the alternative of fundamentalism, wherein a sacred text is > severed from context and treated as infallibly true, not subject to > historical or philological criticism. > > In my post I cited John Stuart-Glennie, who described the transformative > ideas centered roughly around the 5th-6th centuries BCE as “the moral > revolution,” more widely known now by Karl Jaspers’ term, “the axial age.” > Socrates, Buddha, Confucius, the Jewish prophets, and later Jesus, and > later again Mohammed, all were diverse expressions of that moral > revolution, in addition to their unique personalities, gifts, and ideas. I > argued that in the religions of the book, the greater significance of a > moral ethos and also transcendence, came at a cost of a distancing from > nature as an informing source of religious values. > > I also argued that “the loss of nature as a direct informing source of > perceptive religious experience and valuation was a grand historical > mistake.” Why would this be important? More specifically, why would this be > important in the context of Peirce’s argument for the reality of God? > > As you yourself have also argued, abductive inference is key to Peirce’s > Neglected Argument for the Reality of God. Peirce views abductive influence > as rooted in instinct. He states, “The mind of man has been formed under > the action of the laws of nature, and therefore it is not so very > surprising to find that its constitution is such that, when we can get rid > of caprices, idiosyncrasies, and other perturbations, its thoughts > naturally show a tendency to agree with the laws of nature” (ms. 692). And > “This faculty of guessing corresponds to a bird’s musical and aeronautic > powers; that is, it is to us, as those are to them, the loftiest of our > merely instinctive powers” (7.48). > > > Where did this great human gift for guessing come from? How did it evolve? > > If the human mind, freed from “caprices, idiosyncrasies, and other > perturbations,” is that which shows a tendency to agree with nature, > wouldn’t religions rooted in agreeing with the laws if nature better attest > to “God’s attributes?” Wouldn’t such religions nourish the instinctive > basis for abductive inference, for *il lume naturale?* For the neglected > argument? What would it mean to separate from that source at a certain > point, in favor of religions that would “subdue” (kabash) nature rather > than obey it, that would no longer take the wild earth’s lessons and limits > as a central source of spiritual life? > > The conversations with the earth through which we became human, through > which we bodied forth the instinctive abductive capacity, would be > forgotten. The earth would be regarded as neutral, or even evil. With such > religions it is doubtful that the instinct for abduction could have even > emerged. > > Gene Halton > >>
----------------------------- 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 .
