Jon, List,
"In the first place, nobody can know, or form any satisfactory judgment as to whether such a case is really inspiration": I guess, this is so, because divine inspiration is transmitted via quantum effects, such as entanglement and superposition. That is, like a quantum computer. This underlies the "no cloning theorem", which means, you can neither reproduce it, nor prove it. Some brain researchers say, that entangled photons are produced between the myelin sheaths of nerve axioms. So maybe, consciousness too is based on quantum effects. Then divine inspiration, and ESP phenomena in general, may be real, but cannot be proved scientifically, at least not satisfactorily now. May too be never, due to "no-cloning". The question remains: If some phenomenon underlies "no-cloning", can it be said to be real? Or is it an individual thing, and thus not a general thing, which it should be, to be called "real"? I think, you can argue both ways, because, on one hand it is individual experience, but on the other hand, many of these individual experiences are similar, like the near-death-experiences with the tunnel and the light at its end. Divine inspirations in different religious contexts also have similarities, I think.
Best regards, Helmut
List:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.I came across another unpublished manuscript with some interesting remarks yesterday, this time contrary to my own views but consistent with my previous understanding of Peirce's. He did not provide a title, but Robin called it "On the Recognition of Divine Inspiration."
CSP: As for inspiration, which is an altogether exceptional phenomenon, though it seems to me very unphilosophical to absolutely deny it,--and on the contrary far better and morally more prudent, to believe it so far as we can,--and by calling this more prudent, I don't mean that intellectual integrity ought to be abandoned for fear of hell,--for that is an idea that an honorable man ought to treat with scorn,--but I mean that we can't separate ourselves from the Christian Church without unspeakable loss in the [illegible] influences,--yet nevertheless, though I would wish to believe what the church recommends, I must say that in the eye of good sense, nothing can be more unsatisfactory than a belief based on an inspired deliverance,--and that for three reasons. In the first place, nobody can know, or form any satisfactory judgment as to whether such a case is really inspiration. I am speaking, you understand, not of those things which our own hearts assure us are true,--such as the doctrine of love,--but of doctrines which are proposed for our acceptance because a small number of men are supposed to have received an inspiration which gives assurance of their truth. In such a case, it is very difficult for a cautious and intelligent mind to satisfy himself that the inspiration was real. In the second place, even if it were real inspiration, it would be most rash to conclude with any high degree of confidence that the dogma is his. The divine mind is inscrutable; the purposes of God cannot be fathomed. How can we tell that he would not choose to inspire a man with a false belief,--especially when we see that he has allowed the most hideous [illegible] every church and every religion. In the third place, the inspired doctrines themselves are in their nature incomprehensible,--no definite ideas can be attached to them. I am willing, then, for my part, out of veneration for the church to give in my adherence to certain inspired doctrines, in an implicit way, just as I might be willing to accept the assurance of a scholar that a book in a language I could not read and whose contents I did not know, contained a true relation of the events it narrated. But this I should call a most imperfect and unsatisfactory kind of knowledge. (R 862:1-3, no date)
As I have acknowledged previously, in CP 1.143 (c. 1897)--a text that is very similar to this one, not just the content but also the paper and handwriting, suggesting that they might have been written around the same time--Peirce did not deny the possibility of special revelation, only its certainty. Nevertheless, he was willing to accept "certain inspired doctrines" for the sake of religious unity (see also SS 78, 1908), basically taking the church's word for it.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
