List: I agree that Peirce was an unorthodox Christian in his *religious *beliefs, but the abundant quotations that I have provided in other recent threads amply demonstrate that his *philosophical *conception of God was quite compatible with classical theism. Again, he explicitly affirmed that God is real, personal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, infinite, transcendent (not immanent), knowable (not utterly inscrutable), necessary (not contingent), immaterial (not embodied), and eternal (outside time).
GR: Jon concludes that "It would be disingenuous for any purported Peirce scholar to claim otherwise [than that Peirce was a theist and an anthropocentrist in his conception of God]. For the record, here is what I actually said. JAS: By his own abundant and unambiguous testimony, Peirce believed that God as *Ens necessarium* is "Really creator of all three Universes of Experience" (CP 6.452, EP 2:434, 1908). It would be disingenuous for any purported Peirce scholar to claim otherwise. While I have acknowledged that much can be gleaned from his writings that is compatible with pantheism, panentheism, or atheism, my recurring point is that no one can accurately *ascribe to Peirce himself* the view that the three universes (and corresponding categories) are identical to God, are contained within God, are themselves eternal, or came into being from absolutely nothing. Again, he explicitly stated otherwise in his Logic Notebook entry that I will quote one more time. CSP: Cosmology or the explanatory science of the Three Universes shows then plausibly at least how the Three Universes were produced, from an antecedent state. But their Phenomena are all the phenomena there are. The task of Cosmology is therefore to show how all phenomena were produced from a state of absolute absence of any; and logic requires that this problem [is] to be solved. But it must suppose something to be in that antecedent state, and this must be that which would Really be in any possible state of things whatever, that is, an *Ens Necessarium*. This Ens necessarium being, then, the Principle of all Phenomena, must be the author and creator of all that could ever be observed of Ideas [1ns], Occurrences [2ns], or *Logoi* [3ns]. (R 339:[295r], 1908 Aug 28) According to Peirce, God as *Ens necessarium* is distinct from and logically antecedent to "all the phenomena there are" (1ns/2ns/3ns) as "the author and creator of all" observable phenomena. This is not "my reading of Peirce," it is what his own words plainly assert. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 2:50 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Helmut, List > > Comments on your questions,, > > 1] Yes, my reading of Peirce is that the term of ‘God’ means Reason, > Reasoning, Logic, Mind. See 6.218 ’there is no principle of action in the > universe but reason’….but, this reasoning is not deductive but also > inductive and abdutive, ie, open. This is the result of, as you note, that > ALL THREE Categories were existent from the beginning. > > Therefore reasoning or logic is necessary - since it enables continuity > and the formation of habits of generality..Without habits - what would > result? That is - a universe operative only in Firstness and/or Secondness > - would result in: Entropy. > > What is meant by the term of ‘god’? In In 8.211-212, he compares it with > ’Nature’ - andNature is an evolving, rational expression of Mind as > Matter.The concept that ‘Matter is effete Mind’ [6.25] is basic to Peirce’s > objective idealism [6.24]; Note that 6.268 ‘where all mind partakes of the > nature of matter’..and so on. See an extensive analysis; 6.277. > > In 6.502, Peirce uses the analogy of “a mind’ for the meaning of ‘god’. I > have no problem with such an analogy - and reject the anthropomorphic > images [again, I’m an atheist so….]…and reject the concept of god as > causal. Again, I consider Peirce’s insistence that all three categories > emerged together - to be a key infrastructure in his concept of the role of > reason in the operation of the universe. . > > And Peirce’s outline of nothing [see 1.412 and 6.217 is not the ’nothing > of negation [6.217…”There is no individual thing, no compulsion outward nor > inward, no law”…andn “nothing necessarily resulted [6.218\. > > 3. I’m not sure what you mean by ‘capitalism’. My understanding of the > term is that it means that the actions of the Investment and Production of > goods and services are in the control of the individual, the private > individual. Rather than the collective or State. > > The benefits of capitalism is that this enables diversity and novelty of > innovation [ which can only be done by free-thinking, curious individuals]; > it enables an economy whose goods and services are linked to local > realities [ local environment of land and plants/animals, local needs, > …rather than top-down one-style fits all ]. It enables multiple sites of > production - and - importantly, if one individual’s enterprise fails - only > he fails - not the whole collective. The emergence of capitalism in the > 15th 16th century and the concomitant development of the middle class > enabled an explosion of population growth in Europe - and a concomitant > increase in health and well-being - and - eventually, a need to expand to > the ’new world’ because of this population growth [ see Braudel F, > histories]. > > Edwina > > On Aug 27, 2024, at 2:40 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > > List, > > as I said, I find the term "habit" at least as due to investigating its > anthropomorphicity. The term "nothing" though I don´t see for > anthropomorphic at all. (Sorry for my bad English, maybe I confuese "to" > with "as" and "for"). Anyways, when we speak of "nothing" in a theological > context, it becomes complex, I think: > > 1-- Is God logic/word, like John wrote (Bible) at the beginning of his > gospel? > > 2 -- Or does God have to, like all creatures and all inanimate nature, > obey to logic, because logic is absolutely inevitable, and the one primary > ens nessecitarium? I think that is e.g. the position of Omri Boehm, in > whose view ethics too derive from logic, as I think to have understood). > > I´m am against Hegel, but must admit, that he wrote a fine description, > how everything evolved from nothing. BUT: I agree with Edwina (if i > understood right), that this is not an evolution, as all three categories > must have been there from the start. > > Well, I am sort of an agnostic, somewhere between panentheism and theism. > I guess, even between theists, there are different ways to define the > concept "God". And certainly the concept "nothing": Might well be, that it > merely exist for concept in capitalism? (Sorry for that, Edwina, but I just > felt like this). I just wanted to say, that maybe point 2 is true, and in > that case, maybe there never has been "nothing". I think, the buddhist say > so, I am not a buddhist, but this their point is worth of taking it into > the discourse as possibility (type due to not knowing). > > But with Anselm of Canterbury, we might say, that if we can imagine > "nothing", there must be, or have been, nothing. But I would doubt that we > can imagine nothing (besides of being broke). It is a nonsentic term. Maybe. > > Best regards, Helmut > *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 27. August 2024 um 03:50 Uhr > *Von:* "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]> > *An:* "Gary Richmond" <[email protected]> > *Cc:* "Peirce-L" <[email protected]>, "Edwina Taborsky" < > [email protected]> > *Betreff:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] CSP: "A man could not have any idea that was > not anthropomorphic," was, Ens necessarium > Gary, R, List > > I certainly agree that Peirce was not an ‘orthodox Christian’ - and think > that this term - and the term of ’theism’ needs to be clarified within > Peirce’s [not someone who is not Peirce] - understanding. > > I think Peirce's outline of the categories is a basis for understanding > some of what these terms means - since the operation of the categories must > include such concepts as the origin of the universe, of evolution and > adaptation - as well as the societal roles that we understand that religion > plays. > > Therefore I also disagree with JAS’s assertion that ’something cannot come > out of nothing’ - and thus, his claim that an "there must have been *something > else* real that produced all observable phenomena (contingent being)”.Such > a comment could only be made when one is thinking within and only within > the mindset of Secondndess - which requires kinetic linear causality. > > But Peirce’s explanation of the universe as it developed from Nothing > [1.412] isn’t an analysis based within Secondness but explains how ALL’ > THREE categories emerged within this realm of Nothing. As such, these > three modes together produce, within their capacity of self-organization > and self-creation - our universe. That is how I understand Peirce’s > writings - which is quite a different understanding from that of JAS - and > , as I’ve noted, there’s no point in our discussing these issues - as we > are both ’settled’ in our interpretations [and thus, alas, both do indeed, > can superficially be said to block the way of inquiry]. > > As for anthropomorphic images - our species ’thinks’ only in symbols, and > so - it is an easy analytic mode - but there are other images and symbolic > means to explain these issues - even including mathematics! - but the > anthropomorphic ones tend to align our identities with ‘more powerful > forces than our individual selves - and are helpful to clarify our moral > and ethical rules. But - I think they can be misleading and dangerous > …especially when set up within beliefs held by ’tenacity’ and ‘authority’ . > > Edwina > > On Aug 26, 2024, at 8:14 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> > wrote: > > List, > > While Jon has shown that Peirce considered himself to be a theist "[b]y his > own abundant and unambiguous testimony" in the near exhaustive group of > quotations which he supplied. I would only add that, in my view, Peirce was > a *peculiar* sort of theist, and certainly *not* an orthodox one. > Indeed, as he wrote, he was "very far from being an orthodox Christian." > > "I am very far from being an orthodox Christian; but as I see deeper into > the creeds than the men who merely mouth them, and see them in a different > way, I see more clearly their preciousness" (In a letter to William James > dated November 25, 1902) > > I would suggest that this passage reflects Peirce's nuanced and personal > interpretation of the creeds (and not only the creeds), differing from more > conventional understandings and beliefs held by many -- if not most -- > others in his congregational circle(s). [I had earlier noted that from my > youth I too have 'translated' the myths, rituals, and Christian creeds > into ideas that were also anything but orthodox and conventional, such as > my conception of the Cosmic Christ. I think it likely that others, > perhaps many others, have done something like that (or how would one ever > arrive > at such a concept as the Cosmic Christ?)] > > As for Peirce's views, as remarked, Jon has convincingly and, as he sees > it, *decisively* argued that Peirce was a theist, although he adds that > Peirce presents his theistic position as "but a highly plausible > hypothesis." > > JAS: In the state of things logically antecedent to the three universes > (and corresponding categories), which was utterly devoid of any phenomena > whatsoever, there must have been *something else* real that produced all > observable phenomena (contingent being), namely, that which is real in *every > possible* state of things (necessary being). He presents this as neither > a hard fact nor a mere opinion, but a highly plausible hypothesis, and > elsewhere directly addresses the charge of anthropomorphism. > > CSP: I have after long years of the severest examination become fully > satisfied that, other things being equal, an anthropomorphic conception, > whether it makes the best nucleus for a scientific working hypothesis or > not, is far more likely to be approximately true than one that is not > anthropomorphic. ... [A]s between an old-fashioned God and a modern patent > Absolute, recommend me to the anthropomorphic conception if it is a > question of which is the more likely to be about the truth. (CP 5.47n, EP > 2:152, 1903) > > > > Jon is saying that Peirce's views are both theistic *and* anthropomorphic, > and these two are conjoined: "[Peirce] even explicitly endorses > anthropomorphism in conjunction with theism." > > > CSP: To Schiller's anthropomorphism I subscribe in the main. And in > particular if it implies *theism*, I am an anthropomorphist. > > > GR: But regarding anthropomorphism, Peirce tellingly writes elsewhere: > > > If I were to attach a definite meaning to “anthropomorphism,” *I should > think it stood to reason that a man could not have any idea that was not > anthropomorphic*, and that it was simply to repeat the error of Kant to > attempt to escape anthropomorphism (emphasis added). MS [R] 293:1-2; NEM > 4:313 1906-7 > > Here Peirce says that he considered it "reasonable" to believe that all > our ideas are necessarily anthropomorphic. However, as both Peirce and > Schiller were pragmatists, their anthropomorphism involves -- to some > smaller or greater extent -- their understanding that we humans naturally > understand the world and concepts, including God, through our own > experiences and characteristics. Thus, when thinking about God, people > quasi-necessarily ascribe human qualities, emotions, and intentions to the > divine. Further, Peirce's and Schiller's anthropomorphism seems tied to > their both being pragmatists in the sense that understanding God in human > terms makes the concept of God more relatable and meaningful than the > abstractions of the Enlightenment and, in particular, German Idealism. > Finally, an anthropomorphic God is one with whom humans can seemingly have > a personal relationship. > > Jon concludes that "It would be disingenuous for any purported Peirce > scholar to claim otherwise [than that Peirce was a theist and an > anthropocentrist in his conception of God]. > > That may be so as far as it goes, although stated in a rather hubristic > way. But as I see it there is *much* more to be said about the > *character* of Peirce's theism, his *un-orthodox Christianity*, and his > anthropocentrism which holds that *we can have no ideas which are not > anthropomorphic. * > > But for me, perhaps an even more important consideration is that there is > most certainly *very much* more to inquire into as to how his metaphysics > might be used -- and, indeed, is being used -- to explore metaphysical and > religious positions *other than theistic and anthropocentric ones*. > > As I previously remarked, I do not want to get into religious metaphysical > discussions with Jon, now for several reasons. > Best, > > Gary R > >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► 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.
