"Edwina Taborsky" <tabor...@primus.ca>
wrote:
JAS, list
The reason that I do not agree with your request: "Again, why not simply admit disagreement with his explicitly stated belief that God as traditionally defined is real, i.e., that God possesses all those attributes regardless of what anyone thinks about God?"
..is because I read OTHER passages from Peirce that argue against this 'traditional definition'. I have provided some of them with specific sites and dates.
That includes his cosmology - which, both early and late, denies a pre-Big Bang reality [of God]. ie, it denies that the universe is created by something OTHER than itself, since, before the Big Bang - there was 'nility'.
I'd say that Jon Awbrey's suggestion of 'deism' [vs 'theism' which as I understand it, is the traditional definition] might be a better fit for Peirce.
But I continue to stand by Peirce's references to god as 'Mind, Nature, Reason'. After all - he wrote about these analogies!
And again, I choose to separate the metaphysical analysis from the societal and psychological. That is, the belief in 'Mind' [God] as the infrastructure for the development of Matter --- is NOT the basis for religion. Religion is both a psychological, ie, individual and emotional, and a communal system of belief and behaviour. It acts as a cohesive and morality-inducing system within a population; it explains the origin and function of the population; it enables individual emotional traumas to be acknowledged and borne. It exists without any 'higher authority'; ie, you will find religion and all these aspects of belief and behaviour among populations with no notion of a singular God or even multiple gods.
But the concept of a singular god - found only in very large populations and therefore, only in the last few thousand years - is, I feel, a metaphysical analysis that should not be merged with the psychological and societal format of religion. Therefore - I choose to focus on Peirce's explanation of a 'god' force within his outlines of Mind-as-Matter, his outlines of the universal operation of Mind, his outlines of the emergence of Mind as Habit - and so on. I don't focus on his outline of religion, which I feel, is quite different.
What seems to be developing in this discussion - is that there are two Peircean outlines for god/religion...and I don't think that there is a 'final opinion' on them.
Edwina
On Fri 10/09/21 12:48 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent:
Edwina, List:ET: To write: God is "Really creator of all three Universes of Experience" is not a definition of 'God' that is any different from the term of 'Mind'.It is completely different if by "Mind" (or "Reason" or "Nature") one is referring only to our existing universe and claiming that it is somehow self-organized, rather than created by something (or someone) other than itself. The latter is Peirce's explicitly stated belief.ET: As for " the real, personal, and transcendent creator of the universe" - that description, to me, is an anthropomorphic outline and provides no analysis and moves, I feel, into the psychological.Again, it is Peirce's description, and he addresses the charge of anthropomorphism directly.CSP: But as to its being unscientific because anthropomorphic, that is an objection of a very shallow kind, that arises from prejudices based upon much too narrow considerations. "Anthropomorphic" is what pretty much all conceptions are at bottom; otherwise other roots for the words in which to express them than the old Aryan roots would have to be found. And in regard to any preference for one kind of theory over another, it is well to remember that every single truth of science is due to the affinity of the human soul to the soul of the universe, imperfect as that affinity no doubt is. To say, therefore, that a conception is one natural to man, which comes to just about the same thing as to say that it is anthropomorphic, is as high a recommendation as one could give to it in the eyes of an Exact Logician. ... I have after long years of the severest examination become fully satisfied that, other things being equal, an anthropomorphic conception, whether it makes the best nucleus for a scientific working hypothesis or not, is far more likely to be approximately true than one that is not anthropomorphic. Suppose, for example, it is a question between accepting Telepathy or Spiritualism. The former I dare say is the preferable working hypothesis because it can be more readily subjected to experimental investigation. But as long as there is no reason for believing it except phenomena that Spiritualism is equally competent to explain, I think Spiritualism is much the more likely to be approximately true, as being the more anthropomorphic and natural idea; and in like manner, as between an old-fashioned God and a modern patent Absolute, recommend me to the anthropomorphic conception if it is a question of which is the more likely to be about the truth. (CP 5.47-47n, EP 2:152, 1903)In fact, he straightforwardly identifies his "old-fashioned" notion of God as that of an anthropomorphist and a theist.CSP: To Schiller's anthropomorphism I subscribe in the main. And in particular if it implies theism, I am an anthropomorphist. But the God of my theism is not finite. That won't do at all. For to begin with, existence is reaction, and therefore no existent can be clear supreme. On the contrary, a finite being, without much doubt, and at any rate by presumption, is one of a genus; so that it would, to my mind, involve polytheism. In the next place, anthropomorphism for me implies above all that the true Ideal is a living power, which is a variation of the ontological proof due, I believe, to Moncure Conway's predecessor, William Johnson (not James) Fox. That is, the esthetic ideal, that which we all love and adore, the altogether admirable, has, as ideal, necessarily a mode of being to be called living. Because our ideas of the infinite are necessarily extremely vague and become contradictory the moment we attempt to make them precise. But still they are not utterly unmeaning, though they can only be interpreted in our religious adoration and the consequent effects upon conduct. This I think is good sound solid strong pragmatism. Now the Ideal is not a finite existent. Moreover, the human mind and the human heart have a filiation to God. That to me is the most comfortable doctrine. At least I find it most wonderfully so every day in contemplating all my misdeeds and shortcomings. (CP 8.262, 1905)From this passage, we can add living to the list of adjectives that Peirce uses in his verbal definitions of God, which achieve the second grade of clearness--thus going beyond the first grade of clearness, which is mere familiarity with the word and how to use it properly. Moreover, he affirms here that "our religious adoration and the consequent effects upon conduct" are valid pragmatistic interpretations of the concept of God, which achieve the third grade of clearness.CSP: The concept which is a logical interpretant is only imperfectly so. It somewhat partakes of the nature of a verbal definition, and is as inferior to the habit, and much in the same way, as a verbal definition is inferior to the real definition. The deliberately formed, self-analyzing habit,--self-analyzing because formed by the aid of analysis of the exercises that nourished it,--is the living definition, the veritable and final logical interpretant. (CP 5.491, EP 2:418, 1907)The final logical interpretant of the concept of God--its real and living definition--is the deliberately formed, self-analyzing habit of "religious adoration and the consequent effects upon conduct." Accordingly, Peirce's Neglected Argument for the reality of God "present[s] its conclusion, not as a proposition of metaphysical theology, but in a form directly applicable to the conduct of life, and full of nutrition for man's highest growth" (CP 6.457, EP 2:435, 1908). In other words ...CSP: [A]ny normal man who considers the three Universes in the light of the hypothesis of God's Reality, and pursues that line of reflection in scientific singleness of heart, will come to be stirred to the depths of his nature by the beauty of the idea and by its august practicality, even to the point of earnestly loving and adoring his strictly hypothetical God, and to that of desiring above all things to shape the whole conduct of life and all the springs of action into conformity with that hypothesis. Now to be deliberately and thoroughly prepared to shape one's conduct into conformity with a proposition is neither more nor less than the state of mind called Believing that proposition, however long the conscious classification of it under that head be postponed. (CP 6.467, EP 2:440, 1908)This is the sense in which, as Phyllis put it, "His [Peirce's] take on God was based on the conduct of human behavior."ET: I continue to think that Peirce's analogy of Mind, Reason, Nature is the most logical and scientific definition of the term of 'god'.According to Peirce, even just characterizing God as "Mind" is already anthropomorphic.CSP: To the same general tendency belongs an opinion, now very common, that it is unscientific to inquire whether there be a God; the only rational question being what sort of God there is. With this is naturally associated the further opinion that instead of its being shallow philosophy to suppose an "anthropomorphic" God, if by "anthropomorphic" be meant mental, it is far more consonant with the method of science to formulate the problem by asking what sort of a mind God is; and if we cannot in some measure understand God's mind, all science, it is said with some color of justice, must be a delusion and a snare. (CP 8.168, 1902)Again, why not simply admit disagreement with his explicitly stated belief that God as traditionally defined is real, i.e., that God possesses all those attributes regardless of what anyone thinks about God?Regards,Jon S.On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 9:54 AM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:JAS, list
To write: God is "Really creator of all three Universes of Experience" is not a definition of 'God' that is any different from the term of 'Mind'.
As for " the real, personal, and transcendent creator of the universe" - that description, to me, is an anthropomorphic outline and provides no analysis and moves, I feel, into the psychological.
I continue to think that Peirce's analogy of Mind, Reason, Nature is the most logical and scientific definition of the term of 'god'. . [2.24 1902] [8.212 1905]; [6.490 1908] [6.502 1908]
And his Cosmology [A Guess at the Riddle 1890]. 'The Origin of the Universe 6.214-, 1898 AND the NA 6.490 1908]. does not refer to an agential creator, but in all cases to an original nility and subsequent 'taking of habits'. .[See also that this adaptive evolution is continuous 6.505 ]
He does discuss religion, as, for example, in 6.395-- 1878 - but as I've suggested, religion and the idea of a god are not the same [Peirce makes this same point in this section and see 6.504 ]. I think that religious references to god - and Peirce does indeed include these, are psychological aspects of human behaviour: emotional.
I think that's 'where it's at', so to speak, in this discussion/debate.
Edwina
On Fri 10/09/21 10:13 AM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent:Edwina, List:ET: And I repeat - Peirce's cosmological outlines don't refer to god.And I repeat - "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God" is one of Peirce's cosmological outlines, perhaps the last that he wrote (1908), and obviously does refer to God in its very title. Its opening affirmation that God is "Really creator of all three Universes of Experience" is clearly a cosmological assertion.ET: Instead, his outlines show us that the universe is self-organized as a process of Mind-Matter in hylomorphic correlation.His earlier outlines, such as "A Guess at the Riddle" (1887-8), could be interpreted that way; but only by ignoring his later outlines, including but not limited to "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God." Why not simply admit disagreement with Peirce's explicitly stated belief that God as traditionally defined is the real, personal, and transcendent creator of the universe? Why keep insisting that he somehow meant something different from what his own words plainly state?Regards,Jon S.On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 7:30 AM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:JAS, list
1] I don't agree with you that Peirce rejects the concept that prayer is a psychological action. Your statement that it is a 'universal human instinct' - is psychological.
2] Our species' natural instinct' is the capacity to reason, to develop 'logical outlines/patterns/diagrams' of the world. This capacity is found in all of life - from protoplasm to bees to man. ..which is why it is "in accordance with natures".
With regard to mankind - This capacity to reason is NOT a knowledge-base but the capacity-to-develop-a knowledge base. Insects don't have this capacity; they have the capacity to 'reason' and interact but their knowledge base is heavily 'fixed' and innate. They can't develop a new method of interacting with the world. Man's knowledge base is not innate but is developed by the population over time and stored in our social memories. The advantage of this method of developing knowledge, of course, is its flexibility. Mankind can change his knowledge and move from gathering seeds to planting fruit trees.
3] And I repeat - Peirce's cosmological outlines don't refer to god. Instead, his outlines show us that the universe is self-organized as a process of Mind-Matter in hylomorphic correlation.
I think, as I've said before, that it is important to separate the analysis of Mind/God [whatever the term one uses to examine the ordering processes of our universe] from the analysis of Religion within human populations. They are, in my view, not the same and to merge the two can have disastrous societal and political results.
Edwina
On Thu 09/09/21 11:29 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent:Edwina, List:ET: Prayer is, in my view, a psychological form of behaviour - among ALL human populations.Okay, but clearly this is not Peirce's view. Again, he states plainly that prayer is a universal human instinct by which the soul expresses consciousness of its relation to God.ET: That is - since our knowledge base is not innate but learned, then, homo sapiens must function as a collective.On the contrary, according to Peirce, some of our "knowledge base" is instinctive rather than learned. After all, "unless man have a natural bent in accordance with nature's, he has no chance of understanding nature, at all" (CP 6.477, EP 2:444, 1908)ET: As a side note, to my awareness, Peirce's cosmology doesn't refer to 'god', [ie, compare with Aquinas' and Aristotle's unmoved Mover, First Cause, etc].Only if one blatantly begs the question by insisting that "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God" is somehow not an exposition of Peirce's cosmology. I obviously think that it is, given that I wrote a paper entitled "A Neglected Additament: Peirce on Logic, Cosmology, and the Reality of God" (https://tidsskrift.dk/signs/article/view/103187).Regards,Jon S.On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 6:26 PM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:List
Prayer is, in my view, a psychological form of behaviour - among ALL human populations.
It goes along with the awareness, in our human species, of our necessary functioning as a collective.
That is - since our knowledge base is not innate but learned, then, homo sapiens must function as a collective. The collective is the site of both stored and new knowledge.
I think that this fact - the fragility of knowledge - means that human beings are aware that the world functions in a far more complex manner than their knowledge base is aware of. So - this awareness of the complexity and magnitude of the universe leads to the development of communal narratives about birth, death, cosmology. And the fact that our species lives as a collective brings in awareness of the rules required for communal living; ie, morality - which is made authoritative by appeals to stronger and 'higher' powers [gods].
There isn't a population in the world, as far as I know, that has not developed an awareness and narrative of superior authorities than the human being [whether it be spirits, multiple gods, singular god, etc]. But my view is that this is due to the unique nature of the human species' socially generated knowledge base and communal living requirements.
As a side note, to my awareness, Peirce's cosmology doesn't refer to 'god', [ie, compare with Aquinas' and Aristotle's unmoved Mover, First Cause, etc].
Edwina
On Thu 09/09/21 6:29 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent:Gary R., Phyllis, List:Peirce did have this to say about prayer.CSP: We, one and all of us, have an instinct to pray; and this fact constitutes an invitation from God to pray. And in fact there is found to be not only soulagement in prayer, but great spiritual good and moral strength. I do not see why prayer may not be efficacious, or if not the prayer exactly, the state of mind of which the prayer is nothing more than the _expression_, namely the soul's consciousness of its relation to God, which is nothing more than precisely the pragmatistic meaning of the name of God; so that, in that sense, prayer is simply calling upon the name of the Lord. (CP 6.516, c. 1906)Regards,Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAStructural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran ChristianOn Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 6:46 PM Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote:Phyllis, List,PC: As I recall, Peirce said nothing about worship, devotion or heaven or hell.GR: I think this is basically correct, although he does speak of a simple, natural belief open to the humblest man or woman; he hasn't much good to say about most theologians, however, as it is they who confuse simple faith with, for example, notions of heaven and hell, etc.PC: His take on God was based on the conduct of human behavior.The conduct of a great man's behavior is offered by Peirce as a rough analogy to God. But the last of the 1898 Lectures, for example there are others) can be seen to position his idea of God within a vast cosmological context.Best,Gary R
“Let everything happen to you
Beauty and terror
Just keep going
No feeling is final”
― Rainer Maria RilkeGary RichmondPhilosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia College of the City University of New York
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
