Edwina, List: ET: 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.
This comparison is a caricature, at best; and in any case, what is claimed here about religion applies equally to atheism. The issue is not an *absence *of evidence, but different *evaluations *of the evidence. Each of us has a belief system--a worldview--that governs how we understand the Universe and go about living our lives accordingly (belief = habit). Changing from one worldview to another is *possible*, but always requires some kind of *conversion*--the abandonment of one set of axioms for another. CSP: We must begin with all the prejudices which we actually have when we enter upon the study of philosophy. These prejudices are not to be dispelled by a maxim, for they are things which it does not occur to us *can *be questioned ... A person may, it is true, in the course of his studies, find reason to doubt what he began by believing; but in that case he doubts because he has a positive reason for it ... (CP 5.265, EP 1:29; 1868) What Peirce elsewhere called "the Outward Clash" is sometimes sufficient to bring this about--the realization that some of our core beliefs are *false*, based on their incompatibility with our observations and experiences. One of his great insights was that the scientific method is how we *all *go about testing and revising our beliefs, even the most mundane among them; but we generally do so in ways that are not nearly as *logically rigorous* as science itself typically demands. ET: 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 argument is deductively valid, so in order to disagree with its conclusion, one must also disagree with at least one of its premises. With which of those premises do you specifically disagree, and why? In addition, please elaborate on the "large role" that you consider my personal theism to be playing here. Is it causing me to misrepresent something? If so, what? Finally, are you suggesting that your own personal atheism somehow plays no role whatsoever in your interpretation of Peirce? Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 8:24 AM 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 >
----------------------------- 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 .
