Gary F, List
Thank you for this post.
I certainly find the hypothesis of the three categories functional
in both an inductive and logical sense. And I can readily see how one
can see their operation within the experience of the phaneron.
But as others have said, his NA outline is an abductive hypothesis
and its axioms have to be compared with his vast writings on Mind,
Nature, cosmology. There are problems with such a comparison! This
suggests that the idea of god becomes part of religion; that is, it
becomes a personal god and provides an infrastructure or morality and
behaviour that enables the individual to live within a community...as
he says 'to the conduct of life'.
I don't know if this benevolent conduct of life is instinctive or
socially derived. Probably both, for we are, biologically,
necessarily a social species and must have some means of 'getting
along with others'.
In these senses, I can certainly accept the NA as a religious, i.e.,
societal outline - but can't see it as an outline of the functioning
of our universe.
Edwina
On Thu 16/09/21 8:52 AM , [email protected] sent:
John, I have to agree with you on this:
JFS: There are many other religions around the world that don't seem
to attribute a personality to their creator. So Peirce's claim that
the NA proves that human nature requires a personal God does not seem
to be convincing.
GF: It is certainly not convincing as the conclusion of an inductive
argumentation. But the NA itself is not an argumentation, let alone an
inductive one. Peirce simply asks the reader to practice Musement
himself and see whether it leads him to belief in a personal God.
Well, having done my best to practice Musement, I do not find that it
leads me in that direction. I have no problem coming up with the idea
of a Creator, but I can’t conceive of that Creator as a person in
any sense that I recognize as valid.
On the other hand, when Peirce asks me to practice phaneroscopy and
see whether it leads me to the conceptions of Firstness, Secondness
and Thirdness as the formal elements of the phaneron, I seem to end
up with the same “categories” that he does. This is not an
argumentation either, certainly not an inductive one — rather a
hypothetical one, like Peirce’s “strictly hypothetical God” —
yet this categorial analysis does prove highly useful in more
inductive investigations.
Likewise, I think Peirce’s assumption in the NA is that belief in
a personal and benevolent God is a worthy guide to conduct for
everyone who holds that belief instinctively rather being convinced
of it by logical argumentation.
CSP: If God Really be, and be benign, then, in view of the generally
conceded truth that religion, were it but proved, would be a good
outweighing all others, we should naturally expect that there would
be some Argument for His Reality that should be obvious to all minds,
high and low alike, that should earnestly strive to find the truth of
the matter; and further, that this Argument should present its
conclusion, not as a proposition of metaphysical theology, but in a
form directly applicable to the conduct of life, and full of
nutrition for man's highest growth. (EP2:435)
GF: The recent book by Richard Kenneth Atkins on Peirce and the
Conduct of Life includes quotes from the exchange of letters between
Peirce and William James as Peirce was preparing his Cambridge
Lectures of 1898. In these letters Peirce asserts his allegiance to
what he calls “conservative sentimentalism” or “sentimental
conservatism.” The basic idea is that in the conduct of everyday
social life, when it comes to making crucial decisions, we ought to
trust our instinctive or “gut feelings” (as we would say today)
rather than our capacity for reasoning or our philosophical theories.
This does not, of course, apply to the conduct of scientific or
philosophical inquiry. But both Musement and Phaneroscopy are
essentially pre-scientific, and I think the 1908 NA is quite
compatible with what Peirce called “sentimental conservatism” in
1898. In R 645 [1] (1909) he was still self-identifying as a
“conservative” and “an old-fashioned Christian.” It all goes
back to his gut feelings.
My own gut feelings are different. For one thing, I don’t really
feel that the Creator is benign. But I recognize that Peirce’s
statement about religious belief and the conduct of life in the NA is
expressed as a conditional: “If God Really be, and be benign, then
…” — the value of this belief for the conduct of life is
conditional on its being a gut feeling of the believer. And in that
sense I agree with it.
Gary f.
} There's nothing more ruthless than life itself, and there's no
other source of compassion. [gnox] {
https://gnusystems.ca/wp/ [2] }{ living the time
From: [email protected]
On Behalf Of sowa @bestweb.net
Sent: 16-Sep-21 00:31
To: Peirce-L
; Jon Alan Schmidt
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theism (was Inquiry Into Inquiry)
Jon AS,List,
JAS: Why would anyone not take [Peirce's] own word for it?
I admit that Peirce's NA writings are consistent with a
traditional Christian interpretation. His family was Unitarian, but
his triadic philosophy led him to prefer a trinitarian God. And
that
led him to join the Episcopal Church.
Although he took Communion in the Episcopal Church, he also wrote
that
his beliefs were "unconventional". But he didn't elaborate, perhaps
because he didn't want to scandalize other parishioners.
I also admit that Peirce's NA makes a good case for a belief that
is
consistent with many religions and with the beliefs of many
scientists
who claim that they are atheists or agnostics. But the claims for a
proof
of the existence of a personal God are less convincing.
From the gospel of John, which he preferred, the first few verses
from
"In the beginning was the Logos" to "And the Logos was made flesh
and
dwelt among us." are consistent with everything he wrote.
The Logos, by itself, is consistent with what most scientists
believe,
whether deists, theists, atheists, or agnostics. It implies that
the laws of
nature are real, they determined the creation of the universe, and
they
govern the universe in all times and places. It is also consistent
with
the word 'transcendent', since the laws of the universe are not
made
of physical stuff.
Many philosophers and theologians have observed that the Logos has
a great deal in common with the Dao (AKA Tao) in China and Dharma in
India, In fact, translations of the New Testament to Chinese
translate
'Logos' to 'Dao'.
Given these observations, the terms 'transcendent' and 'creator'
could
be applied to a wide range of beliefs by people from different
cultures
around the world -- including most people today who say that they
are atheists or agnostics.
Some religions, such as Buddhism, don't have a personal God,, but
people
like to have a relationship with something personal. So they
venerate
statues of the founder, Gautama Buddha. Devotees who have attained
Enlightenment don't need personal relationships, but they realize
that
those statues are important for many of their followers.
The Trinity attributes three personalities to the Christian God.
But Islam,
considers the Jewish prophets, and Jesus as another prophet to have
made valid revelations. In effect, the Koran is their Third
Testament. But
they don't allow any images that could attribute a personality to
Allah.
There are many other religions around the world that don't seem to
attribute a personality to their creator. So Peirce's claim that
the NA
proves that human nature requires a personal God does not seem
to be convincing.
In summary, a belief in something that might be called Logos or Dao
is consistent with modern science and with many if not most
religions
around the world. But the NA argument for a personal God is
not convincing.
John
----------------------------
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)
Links:
------
[1] https://gnusystems.ca/howtodefine.htm
[2] https://gnusystems.ca/wp/
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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.
