Edwina, list,
You wrote: "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."
I think, that these sins are of psychological and systemical and semiotic nature. Therefore, sciences like psychology, systems theory and semiotics can play a role. However, they cannot change human instinctive nature in the way that they (the sciences) could take away the reasons for these sins, but can help people (also people in leading positions) to reflect their proneness to them, how they can better overcome them and watch their own behaviour (civilize them).
Religions play the role, that they reduce the sins inside the belief community, but amplify them between the belief communities.
Separate theologies cannot help, I think, but some kind of meta-theology can. Atheists and theists will not change their beliefs, but to get them round the conference table, I think it is good to reduce (temporarily for this purpose) the God-concept to the common denominator "pantheism", or "panentheism". I think, "panentheism" is better, because it does not deny every kind of separatedness or otherness of God, so cannot be denounced by theists as completely atheistic.
Best,
Helmut
03. Februar 2019 um 15:24 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky" <tabor...@primus.ca>
"Edwina Taborsky" <tabor...@primus.ca>
wrote:
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,GaryGary RichmondPhilosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia College of the City University of New York718 482-5690
On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 7:30 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> 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 LaymanOn Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 4:56 PM Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> 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,GaryGary RichmondPhilosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia College of the City University of New York718 482-5690
----------------------------- 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 .
