List: Where has anyone shown that the distinction between panentheism and (classical) theism is fallacious or unclear? On the contrary, I spelled out the very fundamental differences between them in the post to which Gary R. responded by starting this new thread ( https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2024-09/msg00062.html). He claims that panentheism is compatible with *Christianity* but not that it is compatible with (classical) *theism*. In fact, he has consistently agreed with me that Peirce explicitly professed to be a theist and *not *a panentheist.
Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sat, Sep 14, 2024 at 3:01 PM Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary, List, > > Great text, Gary! (in my opinion). Exactly my view. Analysis and synthesis > seem to be opponents, but in this case analysis leads to synthesis: The > distinction between panentheism and theism is analysed, and shown to be a > fallacy, or at least you show, that there is no clear distinction. A > distinction that is not clear is not a distinction at all. So this analysis > leads to the synthesis of panentheism and theism, or at least the kind of > theism that is the same or compatible with panentheism. And it shows, that > there rather is a distinction between that kind of theism and other kinds > of theism, dogmatic, or whatever we might call them. > > Best regards, Helmut > 14. September 2024 um 01:13 Uhr > "Gary Richmond" <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, Gary F, Jeff, List, > > [Still in Belgium, I was able to find an adapter so I could charge my > computer so that, hopefully, this message, unlike the last addressed to Ben > et al. will not contain as many unforced errors (I recently was watching > the US Tennis Open, so I'm still in* that *scoring mode).] > > JAS: quoting Peirce to the effect that while his contemporaries could > readily see Nature making deductions that "I have not succeeded in > persuading my contemporaries to believe that Nature also makes inductions > and retroductions" (NEM 4:344, 1898). > > If Nature is capable of acting not only deductively, but also inductively > and, especially, retroductively (and thus posit testable hypotheses -- > testable by nature itself -- then it would appear that that is all that is > necessary for evolution to occur including the evolution of human > intelligence. And, I would add, the intelligence to conceive of God in a > way that satisfies the scientific and aesthetic mindsets. > > JAS: if panentheism is true, then our existing universe is an organic part > of God such that God is affected by everything that happens in it. > > There are religious views -- even Christian ones -- that maintain *just* > that position: that God* is* affected by everything that happens in the > world. There is even Biblical support for this view. For example, consider > Matthew > 6:25-26 > > > 25 “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat > or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than > food, and the body more than clothes? 26 Look at the birds of the air; > they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly > Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? > > > I was myself raised in a non-orthodox Christian tradition that sees God as > caring for us, suffering with us, etc., and thus *not wholly independent > of us*. And this is, as well, an aspect of the Cosmic Christic view > involving the Trinity with Christ being that personal aspect of God which* > is* involved in the world. > > My sense has always been, and from my first reading of Peirce's article > "Evolutionary Love," that his theism was far from the classic one, *very > far *from the credal orthodox view. But was he a panentheist? Well, there > is, as Jon has pointed out, direct testimony to his being a theist and not > a panentheist. > > But then there is the argument, essentially scientific, I'd say, in > "Evolutionary Love," which, in my view, strongly suggests that such Love > *requires > the reality of something at least like a person* (in my thinking, at > least until recently, someone like the Cosmic Christ. Logic is one thing; > love is quite another. Of course this is mere conjecture. > > But putting 'love' aside for a moment, if Nature makes not only deductions > and inductions, but also abductions (hypotheses), then isn't it acting at > least *like* a person? Perhaps like a scientist? Christ Scientist? > (Although I personally don't think that in Mary Baker Eddy's sense.) > > But of late Christianity has come to me to seem too narrow and too > problematic a religion to express this kind of deep intelligence, growth, > care and love generally. On The other hand, Peirce was opposed to > strong atheistic claims which he found to be as dogmatic as dogmatic > religious views.Thus he saw some form of religious belief as reasonable, > given the richness of human experience, including in areas like ethics > and logic. In a word, he was cautious of atheistic views that rejected the > possibility of a spiritual dimension to existence. > > One might ask: would Peirce's religious views have evolved over time? We > can't, of course, know. What we can assume, as I noted a short while > back, is that he was critical of atheism, especially when it took a > rigid, materialistic form; also, that he saw belief in God as having > pragmatic value. In my view, the kind of atheism that sees the universe as > a kind of chance accident, an attitude of mind-less "nothing-but-ism" has > had and is now having detrimental ethical and ecological consequences. (It > doesn't seem that anyone in this discussion is arguing in the vein of the > meaninglessness of our existence.) > > But if atheism is untenable (which Peirce thought, and I agree), while the > forms of religion now in existence seem to many philosophically minded > individuals inadequate to the challenges of our time, what would a, shall > we say, "scientific" religion look like? (Btw, Dewey's attempt at > articulating that completely fails in my view.) > > 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.
