Gene's Lawrence quote is apposite and not at all inconsistent with a decent theology that recognizes what Lawrence says. What theology might add is that part of creation is the existence of word, words. These single us out and call us to account and must be included in any effort to frame a philosophy that is true. The names Spinoza, Einstein and Jesus appears to me as a sort of triad that addresses this.
amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 7:11 AM, <g...@gnusystems.ca> wrote: > Edwina, I think that what you call atheism, some people call “religious > naturalism” — a more positive expression of the “wonder of creation.” > > https://religiousnaturalism.org/ > > > > gary f. > > > > *From:* Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] > *Sent:* 8-Apr-17 19:37 > *To:* Peirce List <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>; Eugene Halton < > eugene.w.halto...@nd.edu> > *Subject:* Re: Fwd: Re: RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature as Signs > > > > > Gene - I would agree with your D.H. Lawrence quote. And as I often quote > from Peirce, > > "Thought is not necessarily connected with a brain. It appears in the work > of bees, of crystals, and throughout the purely physical world" 4.551. > > That's a beautiful quote from Lawrence - and says in a broad sense what I > feel and think as well. But - I call that atheism! > > Edwina > -- > This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's > largest alternative telecommunications provider. > > http://www.primus.ca > > *On Sat 08/04/17 7:03 PM , Eugene Halton eugene.w.halto...@nd.edu > <eugene.w.halto...@nd.edu> sent:* > > Dear Edwina, > > Thanks, but it was not so perfectly. The last Peirce phrase should be > “reasonableness energizing in the world.” > > Not “universe.” > > I’m glad you thought my words expressed what you were trying to say, given > that I am not an atheist, perhaps something closer to a “religious > atheist,” though that doesn't quite get it either. I find D.H. Lawrence > gets closer to it, the idea of "immersed in creation,"from his 1924 > description of attending an Apache ritual: > > “There is, in our sense of the word, no God. But all is godly. > There is no Great Mind directing the universe. Yet the mystery of creation, > the wonder and fascination of creation shimmers in every leaf and stone, in > every thorn and bud, in the fangs of the rattle-snake, and in the soft eyes > of the fawn. Things utterly opposite are still pure wonder of creation, the > yell of the mountain lion, and the breeze in the aspen leaves....There is > no God looking on. The only god there is, is involved all the time in the > dramatic wonder and inconsistency of creation. God is immersed, as it were, > in creation, not to be separated or distinguished. There can be no Ideal > God....” > > Gene > > > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
