Jon Alan,

      JAS: Understood, although I consider the subject matter of my previous 
post to be metaphysics rather than              religion.

As I pointed out elsewhere our representative interpretants differ 
considerably. For me theology is the study dealing with God. It is one of the 
special sciences. Religious belief being a matter pertaining to man as an 
individual. And the remainer of interest to sociologists and psychologists. 

At what place does Peirce relegate religion to methphisics in his writings on 
the architectonic of the sciences? 

Auke


Op 20 april 2020 om 3:05 schreef Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>: 
Auke, List:


AvB:  I will not respond to the content of your words since my aim was not to 
start a discussion about religion.


Understood, although I consider the subject matter of my previous post to be 
metaphysics rather than religion.

AvB:  By the way, I like this one most:

I will simply point out that Peirce is not identifying those "immensely 
superior" beings with God, since they would still be finite; he is stating that 
the being of God would not rule out the possibility of such beings.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran 
Laymanhttp://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
-http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 4:39 AM < a.bree...@chello.nl 
mailto:a.bree...@chello.nl > wrote:

Jon Alan,

Thanks for your response. I will not respond to the content of your words since 
my aim was not to start a discussion about religion. In general I skip mails on 
the list on that subject. But by our communication on semiotics being in a 
cul-de-sac kind of state I started wondering if the cause could reside here. 
With our respective views on the final interpretant I think it does. 

By the way, I like this one most:

This statement excludes a finite god; although the Being of God would not, as 
far as I see, necessarily exclude that of a whole race of beings immensely 
superior to ourselves, such, for example, that the whole visible universe might 
be no more than a nucleolus in a single cell of the body of one of them.

Best,

Auke


-----------------------------
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 .




Reply via email to