Jon, List, Addressing Edwina, you wrote: "So I ask one more time--why not simply admit disagreement with his explicitly stated belief, at least toward the end of his life, that God as traditionally defined is the real and transcendent creator of the universe?"
Who would deny (except, obviously, Edwina) not so much that you have argued your position admirably well (which I believe you have), but that it has been through an abundance of textual support that there can be no serious substantive argument refuting that "at least toward the end of his life, that God as traditionally defined is the real and transcendent creator of the universe"? I think that your "at least" here is actually quite intellectually generous. So I am genuinely interested and do ask the List: are there other members of this forum who would deny that Peirce meant what he wrote when, for but one famous example from 1908 now oft repeated here, that *this* was his belief: "THE 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, who else here would deny that Peirce believed in a creator God? So far -- but I'm willing to be proved wrong -- it seems to me that Edwina simply refuses to account for or accept anything (notably, Peirce's own words) that conflicts with her apparently settled view of the matter, arguing that Peirce was *not* a theist? No doubt one could argue, as I suppose an atheist must, *contra* a creator God, on the basis of "self-organization," etc., etc. But I thought we were discussing here what *Peirce's views were*, not even whether they are correct, held by all theists, etc. As you've remarked, the views you're offered in quotation after quotation aren't even necessarily yours (nor mine, for that matter -- and some of them aren't mine) but, rather, Peirce's if we take him at his word in the myriad passages you've quoted. I'm actually surprised that you've hung in there as long as you have, Jon, against Edwina's obstinate refusal to admit what at this point in the discussion can't -- or so it seems to me -- reasonably be denied, namely, Peirce's theism. Parenthetically, I tend to interpret (or, perhaps, misinterpret) Peirce as a peculiar kind of theist, a kind of 'scientific theist', this idea based on, for prime example, the concluding lectures in the 1898 series published as *Reasoning and the Logic of Things,* where the blackboard example represents for me a kind of ur-continuity before the Big Bang, one which in my thinking, at least, suggests those conditions (of? in? the Mind of God) which have the capability to create not only *this* Universe but *every* possible one. But that could be an entirely different discussion altogether. If no one else but Edwina refutes the principal conclusion that you've argued for and texually supported, I would like to suggest, as Edwina already has, that there is hardly a reason to continue this discussion any further. I'm sure Edwina might want to take me to task for suggesting that she actually can be as obdurate as she once agreed with me on List that she can be (as I recall, we employed the word 'stubborn'). But her 'reasoning' in this matter is beyond at least my ken. Still, if anyone here *can* support *her* position as regards Peirce's beliefs, I for one would like to have them sound in on this. And, i'd add: if Peirce were not a theist, then what was he? Best, Gary R “Let everything happen to you Beauty and terror Just keep going No feeling is final” ― Rainer Maria Rilke *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 4:07 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Edwina, List: > > ET: The reason that I do not agree with your request ... is because I read > OTHER passages from Peirce that argue against this 'traditional definition'. > > > There is no passage whatsoever in Peirce's writings where he *explicitly > denies* that God as traditionally defined is the real and transcendent > creator of the universe. On the other hand, I have quoted several passages > where he *explicitly affirms* that God as traditionally defined is the > real and transcendent creator of the universe. Interpreting passages where > he discusses his cosmology without explicitly mentioning God at all as > somehow rejecting God's reality and transcendence as creator of the > universe *directly contradicts* what he says in those other texts, and is > thus untenable--unless one claims that he changed his mind at some point, > since those other texts are generally dated later. > > So I ask one more time--why not simply admit disagreement with his > explicitly stated belief, at least toward the end of his life, that God as > traditionally defined is the real and transcendent creator of the universe? > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 1:11 PM 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 >> > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ► 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.
