List: I continue to agree with Gary R.'s overall characterization of Peirce's religious views. He professed to be a philosophical theist and embraced natural theology but not Biblical authority--although he affirmed the *possibility *of special revelation, he denied its *certainty*. His own explicit definition of God is "*Ens necessarium*--in my belief Really creator of all three Universes of Experience" (CP 6.452, EP 2:434, 1908), not merely "Mind" except in the sense of being an "*analogue *of a mind" (CP 6.502, c. 1906, emphasis mine) such that "He is so much *like* a mind ... that we may *loosely *say that He is a Spirit, or Mind" (R 843, 1908, emphases mine) because "we must not predicate any Attribute of God otherwise than *vaguely *and *figuratively*, since God, though in a sense essentially intelligible, is nevertheless essentially incomprehensible" (SWS:283, 1909, emphases mine).
Nevertheless, pantheism and panentheism *were *"in the air" in Peirce's time, so had he been inclined to endorse either of them, he likely would have said so *somewhere*. After all, there is an entry for "pantheism" in *The Century Dictionary* (1889-91), although it is not one of the many that he prepared himself--"The metaphysical doctrine that God is the only substance, of which the material universe and man are only manifestations. It is accompanied with a denial of God's personality. Pantheism is essentially unchristian; and the word implies rather the reprobation of the speaker than any very definite opinion" ( http://triggs.djvu.org/century-dictionary.com/djvu2jpgframes.php?volno=05&page=707). The next entry for "pantheist" defines it as "One who holds the doctrine of pantheism; one who believes that God and the universe are identical." However, there is no entry for "panentheism," perhaps because it was not coined until 1828, in an effort to distinguish the conceptions of Hegel and Schelling from that of Spinoza (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism). On the other hand, there *is *a brief entry for "panentheism" in Baldwin's *Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology* (1901-2), but again not one prepared by Peirce--"A name given by Krause in his attempted reconciliation of theism and pantheism; the doctrine that God is neither the world, nor yet outside the world, but that the world is in him, and that he extends beyond its limits" (https://archive.org/details/philopsych02balduoft/page/255). A much longer entry for "pantheism" begins on the next page by stating, "The term has a wide and loose meaning, especially in controversial writings, where the *odium theologicum* attaches to it; in this way it is used to designate almost any system which transcends current or received theism in its theory of a positive and organic relation of God to the world." It adds later, "In its narrower and proper philosophic sense, pantheism is any system which expressly (not merely by implication) regards the finite world as simply a mode, limitation, part, or aspect of the one eternal, absolute Being; and of such a nature that from the standpoint of this Being no distinct existence can be attributed to it." Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Sep 2, 2024 at 4:47 PM Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary, Edwina, List, > > if "pantheism" hasn´t been in the air at Peirce´s time, then I guess, that > the term hasn´t, though the thing existed. Bruno and Spinoza come out of my > vague memory. I guess disapprovers, like the roman church and its > inquisition, just subsumed it under "heresy", and more open minded > theologists (about Spinoza mostly Rabbis I think) had words like "natural > religion" or so, but not "pantheism" yet? > > Differently from what I wrote before, I think, that the theistic concept > of "God" doesn´t merely require intelligence for the personal aspect of > God, but also, that it is possible to communicate with Him by prayer and > information reception (inspiration, vision, revelation...). That means, > given the spatial size of the universe, that this size scale doesn´t go > along with a veeeery slow time scale, in which God´s intelligence acts > itself out, as a sceptic person might assume, just like elephants move > slower than insects do. > > In this regard, quantum physics might intervene. I have read somewhere, > that in the brain, between the myelin sheaths, there are entangled photons > produced, which might provide the possibility of the brainwide (Damasio) > function consciousness. Maybe the same thing happens in the universe, so > that the whole universe can think and communicate with us in our time > scale, or faster, and the left side of the universe doesn´t take billions > of light years to tell the right side something. It just has to flip the > spin of some photons, and other photons on the other side do the same. > Humans cannot communicate this way, but maybe the universe as a whole can > communicate with itself this way. So that would mean, that a big space > scale doesn´t mean a slow time scale. So this might be a point for theism, > but for pan/en/theism too. > > Best regards, Helmut > Montag, 02. September 2024 um 16:32 Uhr > "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]> > *wrote:* > Gary R, List > > I think it is important to focus on Peirce’s pragmatism, since it moves > ’thought’ from the isolation of idealism into reality. > > With reference to Peirce’s use of the term ‘god’, I think one has to > explore HIS definition of the term. And, throughout Peirce’s work, one > finds the constant explanation of the term ‘god’ to mean ‘Mind’. And then, > what is Mind? It seems to be the operation of logic, of reason, the > development of networked habits of formation. He further explains the > integral relation of Mind-as-Matter [6.73, 6.158, 6.501, 6.73…]. And > further - what is the operational nature of this bond? It is the triadic > Sign and the three categories. And - the whole universe is composed of > Signs [plural]. 5.418ff]. > > So- from all his work, we get a sense, I think of Peirce’s use of the term > ‘god’, which is very different, in my view, from the theological use of the > term. > > Edwina > > On Sep 2, 2024, at 1:58 AM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > List, > > As I recently argued, although Peirce described himself as a theist, he > did not see himself as an orthodox Christian in the conventional sense, > and in my view he would have approached the Christian creeds and doctrines > with a critical, philosophically pragmatic mindset. In my view he was > primarily interested in the logical coherence and practical consequences of > religious beliefs such that the truth of a belief or doctrine was not > merely a matter of adherence to tradition or scripture, but rather how it > might be verified through experience and, especially, its practical > effects. In other words, Peirce was a thorough-going pragmatist in religion > as in all matters. > > Take for example the Christian creeds. Perhaps there is no more profound > and beautiful an expression of traditional Christian faith than the Nicene > Creed. That Peirce found it "precious" doesn't surprise me whatsoever, > for I too once placed a very high value on it (although I might not use the > word "precious" to describe that value, and my current religious views are, > shall we say, in flux). > > But that he believed that creed "in a different way" than most others (as > he wrote to James) also doesn't surprise me. It seems to me that Peirce > valued religious doctrines to the extent that they could be pragmatically > justified, meaning that they were valued to the extent that they had a > meaningful impact on how one lives and experiences the world and, > especially, in community. > > No doubt he had a high regard for the symbolic and communal aspects of > religious practice, including liturgy and ritual. He saw religious rituals > (such as reciting the creeds together in church) as important for the > community and for the growth of the individual’s spiritual life and for the > growth of the life of the community. These practices were likely seen by > him as *signs* that conveyed deeper meanings and helped to reinforce the > values of his religious community. > > Further, in my view it seems likely that Peirce’s understanding of > Christian beliefs was closely tied to his understanding of belief formation > within his concept of "fallibilism," as the idea that human knowledge is > never complete, never secure, and is always open to revision. Is it > possible that he saw religious belief as a form of belief that, like all > beliefs, need be subjected to inquiry *and* could evolve over time? Well, > the evolutionary character of his thinking is as compelling as his > synechism. > > As I see it, Peirce *was *a theist, but that his belief was *not* based > on a literal or dogmatic acceptance of Christian teachings, but rather a > more philosophical and reflective -- even scientific -- faith, one that > recognized the limits of human understanding and the necessity of humility > in all things, including religious belief. But he most certainly thought > that it would be a boon to humanity if religion were shown to be true -- > perhaps that tended to color his religious metaphysics. While the community > which he thought he could best address, most likely influence to bring > about that belief (and, perhaps, even on a quasi-scientific basis) was the > one he found himself in, one that was primarily theistic (unless they > happened to be atheistic. since neither pantheism nor panentheism were 'in > the air' then). And all this to counter the mechanistic, nothing-but-ism, > the universe is a meaningless accidentism, which he found, frankly, > illogical, and humanely debilitating. > It seems to me probable that Peirce approached even the Judeo-Christian > Bible as, yes, a significant cultural and religious document, but not a > literal or inerrant text, not as the final or sole authority on truth as > Orthodox Jews and orthodox Christians do. One can easily imagine that he > appreciated the Bible for its moral and spiritual teachings and its role in > shaping Western civilization. But for Peirce the Bible was a collection > of sometimes profound texts that could, yet, be interpreted in various > ways, and its meanings were not fixed but could be understood differently > in different contexts. My sense is that he was more interested in the moral > and philosophical lessons that could be drawn from the Bible rather than in > its doctrinal 'inerrancy'-- let alone its historical -- 'accuracy'. All > of this points to an understanding of Christianity steeped in his pragmatic > philosophy so that the principal value of Christian beliefs and practices > is determined by their ability to contribute to humane development, ethical > living, and the pursuit of truth. Peirce appears to me to have thought that > Christian doctrines and practices ought to be evaluated based on how they > help individuals and communities live better, more meaningful lives. His > pragmatic approach allowed him to engage with Christianity in a way that > was both critical and constructive, respecting the tradition while also > being open to reform and reinterpretation. Again, in my view Peirce > engaged with Christianity from a philosophical perspective, valuing its > doctrines, rituals, and texts for their symbolic and pragmatic significance > rather than for their literal truth. His approach was characterized by a > deep respect for the tradition combined with a commitment to ongoing > inquiry and revision of beliefs in light of new experiences and > understandings. > Yes, Peirce thought that if religion could be proved that it would be a > great gift to world culture, to the growth of humanity. But he worked > within the society and culture of his time, so that one can only speculate > as to how he might argue his 'truth of religion' case today (as one can > only speculate on what his thinking might be in light of quantum and > relativity theory, modern cosmology, etc.) > > Best, > > Gary R > >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
