List, While Jon has shown that Peirce considered himself to be a theist "[b]y his own abundant and unambiguous testimony" in the near exhaustive group of quotations which he supplied. I would only add that, in my view, Peirce was a *peculiar* sort of theist, and certainly *not* an orthodox one. Indeed, as he wrote, he was "very far from being an orthodox Christian."
"I am very far from being an orthodox Christian; but as I see deeper into the creeds than the men who merely mouth them, and see them in a different way, I see more clearly their preciousness" (In a letter to William James dated November 25, 1902) I would suggest that this passage reflects Peirce's nuanced and personal interpretation of the creeds (and not only the creeds), differing from more conventional understandings and beliefs held by many -- if not most -- others in his congregational circle(s). [I had earlier noted that from my youth I too have 'translated' the myths, rituals, and Christian creeds into ideas that were also anything but orthodox and conventional, such as my c onception of the Cosmic Christ. I think it likely that others, perhaps many others, have done something like that (or how would one ever arrive at such a concept as the Cosmic Christ?)] As for Peirce's views, as remarked, Jon has convincingly and, as he sees it, *decisively* argued that Peirce was a theist, although he adds that Peirce presents his theistic position as "but a highly plausible hypothesis. " JAS: In the state of things logically antecedent to the three universes (and corresponding categories), which was utterly devoid of any phenomena whatsoever, there must have been *something else* real that produced all observable phenomena (contingent being), namely, that which is real in *every possible* state of things (necessary being). He presents this as neither a hard fact nor a mere opinion, but a highly plausible hypothesis, and elsewhere directly addresses the charge of anthropomorphism. CSP: 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. ... [A]s 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 5.47n, EP 2:152, 1903) Jon is saying that Peirce's views are both theistic *and* anthropomorphic, and these two are conjoined: "[Peirce] even explicitly endorses anthropomorphism in conjunction with theism." CSP: To Schiller's anthropomorphism I subscribe in the main. And in particular if it implies *theism*, I am an anthropomorphist. GR: But regarding anthropomorphism, Peirce tellingly writes elsewhere: If I were to attach a definite meaning to “anthropomorphism,” *I should think it stood to reason that a man could not have any idea that was not anthropomorphic*, and that it was simply to repeat the error of Kant to attempt to escape anthropomorphism (emphasis added). MS [R] 293:1-2; NEM 4:313 1906-7 Here Peirce says that he considered it "reasonable" to believe that all our ideas are necessarily anthropomorphic. However, as both Peirce and Schiller were pragmatists, their anthropomorphism involves -- to some smaller or greater extent -- their understanding that we humans naturally understand the world and concepts, including God, through our own experiences and characteristics. Thus, when thinking about God, people quasi-necessarily ascribe human qualities, emotions, and intentions to the divine. Further, Peirce's and Schiller's anthropomorphism seems tied to their both being pragmatists in the sense that understanding God in human terms makes the concept of God more relatable and meaningful than the abstractions of the Enlightenment and, in particular, German Idealism. Finally, an anthropomorphic God is one with whom humans can seemingly have a personal relationship. Jon concludes that "It would be disingenuous for any purported Peirce scholar to claim otherwise [than that Peirce was a theist and an anthropocentrist in his conception of God]. That may be so as far as it goes, although stated in a rather hubristic way. But as I see it there is *much* more to be said about the *character* of Peirce's theism, his *un-orthodox Christianity*, and his anthropocentrism which holds that *we can have no ideas which are not anthropomorphic. * But for me, perhaps an even more important consideration is that there is most certainly *very much* more to inquire into as to how his metaphysics might be used -- and, indeed, is being used -- to explore metaphysical and religious positions *other than theistic and anthropocentric ones*. As I previously remarked, I do not want to get into religious metaphysical discussions with Jon, now for several reasons. Best, Gary R On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 6:14 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > List: > > Again, self-organization is not self-creation. Nothing comes from nothing. > > > CSP: I show that logic requires us to postulate of any given phenomenon, > that it is capable of rational explanation. Now, I say that the co-reality > of the three universes 1st of Ideas, 2nd of Occurrences (existent things > and actual events), 3rd of powers to bring two substances into relation to > each other, (and I will call powers of this sort *Reasons*) must, > accordingly, be supposed capable of rational explanation. (R 339:[293r], > 1908 Aug 28) > > > The first sentence is Peirce's version of the Principle of Sufficient > Reason (PSR), and the second is its application to the three universes (and > corresponding categories). There is no legitimate "understanding of Peirce" > in which he treats them as somehow self-generating or otherwise > inexplicable, especially since he would have considered that to be a > paradigmatic example of blocking the way of inquiry (CP 1.139, EP 2:49, > 1898). Instead, he goes on to suggest a rational explanation for them, > which I have quoted previously. > > > CSP: Cosmology or the explanatory science of the Three Universes shows > then plausibly at least how the Three Universes were produced, from an > antecedent state. But their Phenomena are all the phenomena there are. The > task of Cosmology is therefore to show how all phenomena were produced from > a state of absolute absence of any; and logic requires that this problem > [is] to be solved. But it must suppose something to be in that antecedent > state, and this must be that which would Really be in any possible state of > things whatever, that is, an *Ens Necessarium*. This Ens necessarium > being, then, the Principle of all Phenomena, must be the author and creator > of all that could ever be observed of Ideas [1ns], Occurrences [2ns], or > *Logoi* [3ns]. (R 339:[295r], 1908 Aug 28) > > > This is Peirce's version of the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument, which > follows from the PSR. In the state of things logically antecedent to the > three universes (and corresponding categories), which was utterly devoid of > any phenomena whatsoever, there must have been *something else* real that > produced all observable phenomena (contingent being), namely, that which is > real in *every possible* state of things (necessary being). He presents > this as neither a hard fact nor a mere opinion, but a highly plausible > hypothesis, and elsewhere directly addresses the charge of anthropomorphism. > > > CSP: 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. ... [A]s 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 5.47n, EP > 2:152, 1903) > > > He even explicitly endorses anthropomorphism in conjunction with theism. > > 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. (CP 8.262, 1905 Jul 23) > > > By his own abundant and unambiguous testimony, Peirce believed that God as > *Ens > necessarium* is "Really creator of all three Universes of Experience" (CP > 6.452, EP 2:434, 1908). It would be disingenuous for any purported Peirce > scholar to claim otherwise. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 10:54 AM Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Edwina, Jon, Gary, List, >> >> an engineer, who makes a machine that replicates and develops >> automatically, is a worse engineer than one, who creates a situation, where >> parts self-organize to replicating, self-organizing, self-developing >> machines. So with the analogy to God, i would say, the less of His actions >> you can see, the better and more effective His creativity is. If people (as >> it is the case, I think) cannot see any direct divine action, but can >> explain more and more with science, His creativity is the best I can think >> of. But God is not falsifiable, so, according to Popper, not a valid >> hypothesis. But, differently from other hypotheses, it always will be >> possible to claim an intelligent (personal) principle behind any >> phenomenon, how scientifically analysed it ever might be, and it is >> justified, i think, to call that "God", or "Ens nessecarium". >> >> To the term "habit" I think, that this is not the end of inquiry. It just >> is an anthropomorphic term, extracted from our way of learning. Ok, we see >> the development of relations, that reminds us of our own habit-formation, >> in nature, but nature doesn´t work like our brain. >> >> To claim pure energy as a starting thing, I am not sure of that, and >> neither of the big bang. I have read, that astronomers have detected a big >> galaxy, only 300 million years after the presumed big bang. They call that >> unlikely. So maybe, an universe, when it becomes too big, calves, like a >> big soap-bubble that splits. And in every calf-bubble-universe, it looks as >> if there has been a big bang, but it hasn´t. At least this may be a >> possibility, so the theory of a primordial pure energy is not the only >> possible theory. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Helmut >> 19. August 2024 um 00:59 Uhr >> >> "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]> >> *wrote:* >> >> List, JAS >> >> No-one suggests that self-oganization is not ‘without reason’. The reason >> for the self-organization of a system is to preserve energy by forming it >> as instances operating within organized habits. [matter is effete mind]... >> Peirce’s focus onThirdness or ‘Mind’ is quite clear on its function in this >> manner - and since the categories operate within self-organization, then >> obviously, Reason is a vital part of a CAS [complex adaptive system]. >> >> I disagree that ‘ens necessarium’ - that state of Nothing [which I also >> call pure energy..not free energy but pure energy] - and which is the >> ‘absolute absence of phenomena’ [ ie, the absence of the three >> categories]…is also ‘“*the transcendent and eternal* ‘author and >> creator’ . Such an anthropomorphic transformation of the actions of the >> Categories on pure energy isn’t necessary, in my view. In fact, I consider >> it a dangerous step - for establishing an agential Author of the universe >> leads to the institutionalization of this mindset - and we’ve seen the >> problems in world history with such actions - where belief becomes held >> within Tenacity and Authority.. >> >> In my understanding of Peirce - All that this ens necessarium is, is the >> primal source of energy-to-become finite. What makes it such? The three >> categories, which are clearly outlined in 1.412. Again - not God - but >> the three categories, one of which includes Reason. How does >> energy-as-matter function within the world? Within the adaptive networking >> of agapastic integration as operative within the three categories ie, there >> is no agential plan. >> >> What is a fact? It is a unit-of-meaning within Secondness; ie, it is >> explicit, finite, with testable perimeters. “Facts are hard things which do >> not consist in my thinking so and so, but stand unmoved by whatever you or >> I or any man or generations of men may opine about them” 2.173. I don’t >> think that a belief , an opinion, can be declared as also a FACT. And >> therefore - I view the definition of ens necessarium as analogous to God - >> as an opinion, not a fact and is based on a false premiss [ an apriori >> belief in a god]. >> >> JAS - I don’t think you and I are going to get anywhere in this >> discussion - and don’t see the point of its continuation. You have your way >> of reading Peirce and I have my way - >> >> Edwina >> > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at > https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at > https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the > links! > ► 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 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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► 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 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.
