BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R
1] Just a comment on your view of the role of science and religion
in a society.
I don't agree that the cause of the 'ills' of society is a 'limited
view of god' or a chasm between science and religion. Such a
viewpoint suggests that atheism, my view, 'contributes to the ills of
society' - and of course I wouldn't agree with that.
Religion, of any type, is a belief system. You either believe in it
- or not. There is no evidence. Its axioms are infallible and outside
of debate. Science is subject to empirical objective and repeatable
evidence - and its axioms are fallible.
I don't see how anything can 'bridge this gap'.
I think that the ills of society are caused by the human
psychological nature - nothing to do with either religion or science
and following either will not change the effects of a bad
psychological nature. That is - the 'deadly sins' of greed, lust,
pride , envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth are psychological and can
only be dealt with by deliberate personal reasoning and action.
Neither science nor religion plays any role.
And therefore - nothing to do with gunpowder, fossil fuels or
Facebook. If mankind didn't have gunpowder - he's use spears, arrows
and poisons...to deal with his greed, envy, wrath etc. Fossil fuels
have enabled the growth of technologies that have benefited mankind -
from medical care, to heating and cooling our homes, to better
sanitation and health and water supplies, to enabling more people to
be provided with food and care, and travel and so on. As for Facebook
- no comment...other than gossip is gossip.
2] I will not get into any discussion about JAS's view of god and
Peirce - since I disagree with his interpretation and consider that
his own personal theism plays a large role in that outline.
My caution is that semiosis is a rational action, an action, as
Peirce said, of Mind - and we should be careful how we define Mind.
Edwina
On Sat 02/02/19 11:54 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com
sent:
Jon, list,
Jon wrote:I am curious to learn exactly how you . . . would define
panentheism in this context, as contrasted with theism, and then
attempt to revise the major premise accordingly in order to obtain a
compatible conclusion. Peirce explicitly described the Object as
"something external to and independent of the sign" . . ., rather
than something greater than but still somehow inclusive of the Sign;
and he also stated plainly, "In its relation to the Object, the Sign
is passive ... the Object remaining unaffected". . .
One has at least to admit, I think, in positing the Universe as Sign
(Symbol) and God as the Object of that Sign, that both are wholly
unique, that they are atypical, even peculiar among all other Signs
and Objects: that they are, indeed, sui generis both in themselves,
so to speak, and in their relationship.
As for panentheism, it is generally held that it is an attempt to
avoid separating God from a (created) universe (as theism does) while
at the same time not identifying God with the universe (pantheism).
Panentheism, as you know, holds that God not only pervades the cosmos
and all that this universe includes and involves, but also transcends
it in the sense of simultaneously being beyond space and time.
[In my view it is possible that the God of all possible Universes
this Cosmos is not necessarily to be identified with the God of our
Universe. I'll admit, however, that that sounds a bit odd even to me;
yet I've been entertaining the idea for many years now (this is not,
btw, an argument for the multi-universe theories prevalent in our
time)].
JAS: Frankly, I am seeking not only to argue for Peirce's views
about God, but also to demonstrate that his views about Signs and the
Universe warranted those views about God--perhaps even required them.
I agree with you that at first blush that Peirce's views about Signs
and the Universe "warrant, perhaps even require" something like the
theistic view you've been arguing for. Yet, while I think the
pantheistic view has been generally debunked, perhaps the
panentheistic notion that God creates but also transcends space and
time can help in your "attempt to revise the major premise
accordingly in order to obtain a compatible conclusion."
Finally, in my view, historically and to this day, our idea of God
has been far too small, far too limited, and often dogmatic and
doctrinaire, striking some (but not all) scientists as at least naive
and typically incompatible with science. I think these limited views
of God have in ways contributed to many of the "wicked problems" of
our world, not the least of which is the chasm that has been
developing for centuries between science and religion. It should be
noted, however, that science, at least as it has led to the
development of socially and environmentally problematic technologies
(for example, gun powder, fossil fuels, Facebook), has itself
contributed to the emergence of a number of horrifying"wicked
problems.
I believe that Peirce's science, phenomenology, logic as semeiotic,
cosmology, scientific metaphysics, and theological insights might in
time help us to bridge the gap between religion and science, perhaps
to finally contribute evenkmj to solving some of those "wicked
problems."
Best,
Gary
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City University of New York 718 482-5690
On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 7:30 PM Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
Gary R., List:
Thank you for your very kind words. I look forward to further
feedback and discussion.
I actually debated formatting the summary just as you proposed, but
ultimately decided to add the fourth bullet as tacit acknowledgement
that identifying God as the Object that determines the Universe as a
Sign is not strictly entailed by the syllogism itself. Instead, it
follows from the other considerations that I highlighted toward the
end of my original post.
I am curious to learn exactly how you (or others) would define
panentheism in this context, as contrasted with theism, and then
attempt to revise the major premise accordingly in order to obtain a
compatible conclusion. Peirce explicitly described the Object as
"something external to and independent of the sign" (R 145; 1905),
rather than something greater than but still somehow inclusive of the
Sign; and he also stated plainly, " In its relation to the Object, the
Sign is passive ... the Object remaining unaffected" (EP 2:544n22;
1906).
Frankly, I am seeking not only to argue for Peirce's views about
God, but also to demonstrate that his views about Signs and the
Universe warranted those views about God--perhaps even required them.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [2] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [3]
On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 4:56 PM Gary Richmond wrote:
Jon, list,
This is, in my opinion, a most impressive semeiotic argument
(really, an extended argumentation in Peirce's sense) for the Reality
of God. This is to say that it would seem to me to be an explication
of Peirce's (and, I assume, your) religious views as they relate to
his sign theory, representing a kind of outline of a Peircean
semeiotic theology (of course Peirce himself sometimes argued contra
the theologians). It brings together, at least as far as I can tell,
the most salient passages in Peirce relating to that argument in a
forceful logical tour de force. I have read many papers and several
books on Peirce's religious views, but I have found them all
significantly wanting in some respects. So, I'm eagerly anticipating
studying your argumentation to see how it holds up upon examination.
For now, my only very, very slight 'adjustment' to your post would
be to make your four summary points, three, since they obviously
constitute a syllogism. So:
*Every Sign is determined by an Object other than itself.
*The entire Universe is a Sign.
*Therefore, the entire Universe is determined by an Object other
than itself; and this we call God.
I can imagine that you'll get all sorts of push back from this
deductive argument, for example, from those who consider themselves
panentheists. But the response to that sort of difference of opinion
is simply that what you're arguing for is Peirce's view of the matter,
one which sees God as the Creator of the Three Universes; and how this
is clearly intimately tied up with his theory of signs.
As for purely logical issues that may arise upon examination of your
deductive argument, you'll have to take these as they come, I suppose.
And some will surely argue that such a deductive argument can only be
of so much value since, as they might see it, faith in God is not
essentially a logical matter. But for those philosophers and
semioticians who already hold a Creator view of God, the argument
surely offers considerable support.
I have only read your argument twice so far, and have not yet seen
any logical flaws; of course others may. However, the very clarity of
your argumentation makes me wonder anew about my own view of this
matter. I have, perhaps, once again begun to reflect on my own
tendencies toward panentheism. I had previously thought that my
religious views were quite close to Peirce's. But since I find your
argument as following logically and naturally from Peirce's
semeiotic, the intra-personal tension it's creating--between theism
and panentheism--can only be of value to me in the long run.
Best,
Gary
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication Studies LaGuardia
College of the City University of New York718 482-5690
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'jonalanschm...@gmail.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[3] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[4]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'gary.richm...@gmail.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
-----------------------------
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 .
