List I think the key point in this discussion is to acknowledge that a belief in theism [ and its various types] or atheism, or pantheism or panentheism, remains, always - a belief. That is, it is, as a conclusion about the world, outside the realm of fallibility, of empirical evidence, …and remains, therefore, strictly an intellectual construct.
One can set up logical arguments and so on - all the cosmological, ontological, design, causal and so on - but, it remains, always: a belief. Which means - you either believe it or you don’t. Logical arguments may be valid in their format, but if their premises are unsound and fallacious, then..the argument no matter how logical- is empty! Therefore - I’m not sure that one can conclude that any belief is ‘better than’ another. The key problem occurs when the individual belief is moved into a communal requirement - ie - when it becomes politicized and remade as, not a belief, but a FACT!. And becomes a social requirement! We see this in all fundamentalisms - whether it be the medieval Christian Church with its vicious heresies or Islam, with its equally vicious attacks on infidels. I consider that Peirce defines ‘god’ as Mind’, and the universe as a vast self-organized process of Mind, within the operation of the three categories and the semiosic triad. I’m not going to fill this post with quotations - since this analysis is, I feel, found all throughout Peirce’s work. Others may disagree - but again - I stress that any belief in God - and above all - a definition and description of the attributes of god - has to be, not fact, but belief…and therefore, beyond conclusive argument. It remains, always, a discussion….perhaps..an ‘endless discussion’..since there cannot be a single conclusion. Edwina > On Sep 3, 2024, at 6:22 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > On Mon, Sep 2, 2024 at 4:47 PM Helmut Raulien <[email protected] > <mailto:[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] >> <mailto:[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] >> <mailto:[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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
