Edwina, Helmut, List: ET: I personally consider that Peirce's outline of god as 'constantly creating the universe', as Mind, and his cosmology as self-organizing itself within Mind....is an example of pantheism. [JAS, on the other hand, considers Peirce a theist].
Again, Peirce *himself *explicitly affirms theism and explicitly rejects pantheism, as well as atheism, deism, and panentheism. CSP: Deism is opposed to atheism, or the denial of any God; to pantheism, which denies or ignores the personality of God; to theism, which believes not only in a God, but in his living relations with his creatures; and to Christianity, which adds a belief in a historical manifestation of God, as recorded in the Bible. (*Century Dictionary* entry for "deism," 1889-91) CSP: In modern philosophy the word ["immanent"] is applied to the operations of a creator conceived as in organic connection with the creation, and to such a creator himself, as opposed to a *transient* or *transcendent* creating and creator from whom the creation is conceived as separated. The doctrine of an immanent deity does not necessarily imply that the world, or the soul of the world, is God, but only that it either is or is in God. (*Century Dictionary* entry for "immanent," 1889-91) CSP: A difficulty which confronts the synechistic philosophy is this. In considering personality, that philosophy is forced to accept the doctrine of a personal God ... (CP 6.162, EP 1:332, 1892) CSP: I look upon creation as going on and I believe that such vague idea as we can have of the power of creation is best identified with the idea of theism. (CP 8.138n4, 1905) CSP: To Schiller's anthropomorphism I subscribe in the main. And in particular if it implies *theism*, I am an anthropomorphist. But the God of my theism is not finite. That won't do at all. (CP 8.262, 1905) CSP: "Do you believe this Supreme Being to have been the creator of the universe?" Not so much *to have been* as to be now creating the universe, concerning which see my articles in the first three volumes of *The Monist* ... I think we must regard Creative Activity as an inseparable attribute of God. (CP 6.505-506, c. 1906) CSP: I do *not* mean, then, a "soul of the World" or an intelligence is "immanent" in Nature, but is the Creator of the three Universes of minds, of matter, and of ideal possibilities, and of everything in them. (R 843:11, 1908) CSP: Indeed, meaning by "God," throughout this paper will be meant, the Being whose attributes are, in the main, those usually ascribed to Him, omniscience, omnipotence, infinite benignity, and a Being *not *immanent in the Universes of Matter, Mind, and Ideas, but the Sole Creator of every content of them without exception. (R 843:15, 1908) CSP: Indeed, meaning by "God," as throughout this paper will be meant, the Being whose Attributes are, in the main, those usually ascribed to Him, Omniscience, Omnipotence, Infinite Benignity, a Being *not *"immanent in" the Universes of Matter, Mind, and Ideas, but the Sole Creator of every content of them without exception (R 843:19&21, 1908) CSP: But I had better add that I do *not *mean by God a being merely "immanent in Nature," but I mean that Being who has created every content of the world of ideal possibilities, of the world of physical facts, and the world of all minds, without any exception whatever. (R 843:26, 1908) Why would anyone *not *take his own word for it? Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 11:44 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Helmut, list > > I'm not a theologian and so, my responses are 'common' rather than expert. > > My understanding of theism is that it's a belief system that is usually > monotheistic, i.e., a belief in ONE god. This god is usually understood as > supreme, 'exists as itself' so to speak ,self-sustained, is the original > cause of all things, transcendent, etc. Monotheism, as I've said before, > emerged only a few thousand years ago, and was found among large, settled > populations. My own view is that it emerged as a societal means of enabling > these large populations to have a common sense of themselves as a people. > > As with all belief systems, a belief system moves from one mode...and > splits into several diverse variations, and theologians argue about > revelation, miracles, whether or not god is involved with the actions of > the world and can be a personal contact [if not, that's deism]. But the > basic axioms, as I understand them, see god as a separate entity [whereas > pantheism doesn't separate god from matter];, as the original creator of > the universe, as transcendent or outside of human experience, > > Pantheism, to my understanding, rejects the notion of a separate entity > [god] and instead, sees the whole universe as god. I personally consider > that Peirce's outline of god as 'constantly creating the universe', as > Mind, and his cosmology as self-organizing itself within Mind....is an > example of pantheism. [JAS, on the other hand, considers Peirce a theist]. > > I would say that a pantheist would not see this force/god/mind as a > 'person', while it is easy for a theist to do so...which is also why one > sees all the religious images of god-as-a-person. > > Monotheism is very different from polytheism, where the gods were indeed > 'people' - and the Roman and Greek tales are wonderful examples of this. > But eventually, as I analyze it, the population in the Mediterranean became > too large for the local identities of polytheism - and the population moved > to monotheism, which serves to bind together a large population. > > But as Jon Awbrey has pointed out, the theological analysis of 'god' can > only be an abductive hypothesis. There's obviously no scientific evidence > either way - ie, whether the conclusion is theism, polytheism, pantheism, > atheism. > > The religious analysis, however, is quite different - and my analysis of > why-does-a-religion-develop...is based on population size, economic mode, > etc and can, I think, withstand scientific evidentiary scrutiny. > > Edwina > > On Wed 15/09/21 10:15 AM , Helmut Raulien [email protected] sent: > > Edwina, List, > > Is the difference between pantheism / universal quasi-mind, and theism, > that theism says, that God is a person you can talk to, and also is the > creator of the universe, so exists independently of it? > > To the first property, the person, I would say, why should the universal > quasi-mind not have the properties of a person? The quantums-entanglement > over extremely long distance e.g. cannot be used by humans for > instantaneous telegraphing. But for the universe itself, it may be > possible, why not. So, though the universe is the biggest possible spatial > scale, it at the same time may be the smallest possible temporal scale, and > able to think and act without delay. That would be quite a person, I would > say, and trying to talk with this person is rational and not supersticious. > > The second theistic property is God being the creator of the universe, and > existing independently of it. About this point any discussion about it is > futile, because we are not able to look beyond the border of the universe > to see whether there as well is a mind, and claiming that there is not > brings about the question, what then created it. To say, that it > self-emerged can only provocate the theistic answer, that an engineer, who > does not merely make a machine, but make a generator that provides > self-emergence of machines, is an even better engineer. > > So this second theist claim is a matter of plausibility alone. Only the > question remains: How plausible is plausibility? But this is a circular > question, an anti-tautology. To me the first point goes to the theists, and > the second point too, not by deduction, but by aproximation procedure. > > Best, Helmut > >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
