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 (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/ }{ living the time
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of sowa @bestweb.net
Sent: 16-Sep-21 00:31
To: Peirce-L <[email protected]>; Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]>
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)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
