Clark, list, Clark wrote:
The more I think on it the more my own view is that Peirce’s process approach to epistemology offers the best solution. Our beliefs are not volitional. All we can do is inquire. If we really inquire carefully and still believe, well that seems a good basis from which to believe (or disbelieve) The N.A. is, as I see it, an invitation to inquire in just this sense, while Peirce strongly suggests that such an inquiry *will tend* to lead to belief and not its opposite. As Peirce remarks, the meaning of 'God', being a vernacular word, is necessarily vague. If that word is left vague. then it is possible to inquire into it such that an *argument* for the reality (not the existence, as Jon has repeated emphasized) can be developed. In the N.A. Peirce makes clear that by "argument" he means "any process of thought reasonably tending to produce a definite belief" (this opposed to its use in normative logic where it means the inference from premises to a conclusion: an argumentation). So, musement, he suggests, can give rise to an hypothesis (and, perhaps later, a belief) that there is indeed a creator of the three Universes of Experience, and that one will then be *struck by the beauty* of this hypothesis, and by even the practical usefulness of it, especially in guiding ones conduct in conformity to it, that is, supplying an i*deal to ones conduct* in life. One will come to love this purely "hypothetical God" and act lovingly in accordance with what follows from one's belief (including love of ones brothers and sisters). And, further, it is belief in this God-hypothesis which offers "plausibility" and coherence to the notion of three Universes of Experience, offering "a thoroughly satisfactory explanation" of it. Reflections on the God hypothesis following from Peirce's early evolutionary cosmological thought leads him to, albeit tentative. conclusions regarding God's purpose: that God has always been and is ever creating the Universe (perhaps multi-universes as I've suggested in earlier posts). Of course we have no way of knowing God's knowledge or power (or any specific characteristic), but we have hints--and more than hints--that God's thought is creative. But since God's thought is *utterly unlike our own*, we can only get a very fragmentary sense of it. Therefore, it is, again, wise to leave the God-idea vague and to not attribute specific characters to it (like omniscience, infallibility, all-powerfulness, etc., which characters are, after all, themselves vague). So, in brief, because of a synechistic (and agapastic) tendency in cosmological evolution as Peirce envisions it, in the N.A. he claims that the God-hypothesis is most worthy of further inquiry. In this essay Peirce seems, at least to me, to prepare the grounds for an integration, even a unification of science and religion. What Peirce envisions is a scientific religion which, on the one hand, deemphasizes religious doctrines, dogmas, and creeds, while on the other hand, develops the notion that science can be seen as in support of religion, not necessarily opposed to it in principle. It is my understanding that all this follows from his principle of fallibilism. In good part I follow Thomas Knight's thinking in this matter (see his slim volume, *Charles Peirce* in The Great American Thinkers Series). Best, Gary R xx xx [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> wrote: > > On Oct 28, 2016, at 2:17 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: > > Thank you, Clark, for this nutshell summary of God-concepts since the > Greek abstraction. > > > After I wrote it I worried I’d come off as being patronizing as I know > many here knew all this. I just put it in that form because I think the > unifying of God as ground of being and God as intervening high power > needn’t be unified. So I hope the tone didn’t come off wrong. > > So it (your summary) is a basis for getting a feeling, or different > feelings towards the different varieties of "God": Pity? (So alone), Envy? > (No.), Worship? (missing information about better or worse worlds.), > Empathy? (yes, in case of process theology.) Maybe people can choose their > belief in order to have a feeling they like to have, and maybe this is ok, > if they reflect, why they want to feel this or that way, and not have an > unreflected feeling like revenge, superiority, and then construct a > God-concept out of that. I am too confused now to tell which feeling about > God I want to have, but confusion (Tohu Va bohu) is always a good start. > > > Well I’m not sure I want to get into religion proper from a personalist > perspective here. After all most of us likely have our own views on God (or > whether there is anything like an interventionist God). While I personally > have trouble with many elements of of the Whitehead/Hartshorne process > theological God, it does seem a position that can’t be neglected. > > I’ve read some of the works on Peirce’s religion and I confess I’m really > still not sure what he really believed. (Not God as real but not actual > that’s discussed in the NA but the other aspects he brings up at times) > Where I’m most sympathetic to Peirce’s view of religion is that whatever > our views, it seems like inquiry has to proceed empirically in some fashion. > > My sense, perhaps completely wrong, is that most people either proceed to > think about God on the basis of religious experience or via a more > traditional kind of rational transcendental argument for metaphysics. The > latter tend to focus on God as being in some sense. The former tend towards > atheism or agnosticism depending upon their experiences (or lack thereof) > and skepticism towards others experiences. A few people believe in a theist > type of God on the basis of experience, but I assume most reason poorly. > (That’s not a knock on religious believers just that most people don’t > reason carefully so it’d follow that most don’t about religion either) > > The more I think on it the more my own view is that Peirce’s process > approach to epistemology offers the best solution. Our beliefs are not > volitional. All we can do is inquire. If we really inquire carefully and > still believe, well that seems a good basis from which to believe (or > disbelieve) > > So to answer your question while maintaining a connection to Peirce, I > suspect the answer ends up being a question about what experiences we are > analyzing. > > > ----------------------------- > 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
