Gary R., List: Actually, I do not know where you are getting *any *of the indented quotations in the post below--none of them are from the cited paragraphs (or anywhere else) in CP. Are they perhaps excerpts from another author's commentary on Peirce's views, not his own words?
I have acknowledged all along that Peirce refers to God as "a disembodied spirit, or pure mind" in CP 6.490. However, I have also pointed out various other passages where he makes it clear that we can only ascribe this and any other attributes to God vaguely, figuratively, loosely, and analogously. He also explicitly states in CP 6.489, "God probably has no consciousness." The fact that Peirce, widely recognized as America's greatest logician, explicitly describes God as both "Personal" and "not immanent" in the same sentence should allay any suspicion that these characteristics are somehow contradictory. Moreover, classical theists have been using both to describe God for centuries, and I am not aware of any arguments allegedly demonstrating that they are incompatible. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at 3:24 PM Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, List, > > [Note and correction to my last post: In a quick search I have not been > able to find that passage I quoted on the "immanence" of God (I don't > recall exactly how I originally came upon it). > > But a question did come to my mind for Jon regarding this passage. > > CSP: For those metaphysical questions that have such interest, the > question of a future life and especially that of One Incomprehensible but > Personal God, not immanent in but creating the universe, I, for one, > heartily admit that a Humanism, that does not pretend to be a science but > only an instinct, like a bird's power of flight, but purified by > meditation, is the most precious contribution that has been made to > philosophy for ages. Peirce: CP 5.496 > > > Jon, how can God be seen to be both "Personal" and "not immanent." That > seems contradictory to me. GR > > On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at 4:02 PM Gary Richmond <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Edwina, Jon, List, >> >> ET: ". . . my only point was that I consider that JAS’s outline of this >> religious framework is NOT similar to that of Peirce." >> >> I actually think that Jon is fairly on target regarding Peirce's own >> *religious* views which, I would suggest, can be seen at certain places >> to conflict with some other of his metaphysical statements. So I also tend >> to agree with you that there is in Peirce's semeiotic and metaphysical >> writings material that suggests other cosmological views including that God >> can be equated with a universal Mind directing the evolution of the cosmos. >> >> For example, while I would agree with Jon that Peirce did not explicitly >> equate God with Mind, some passages suggest that God can be understood as a >> form of universal/cosmic Mind. With the following snippets (some of which I >> believe are quite familiar to many Peirceans) I hope to begin to show this. >> I'll start with the* most unlikely* connection of God to universal Mind >> and conclude with perhaps the *most likely* one. >> >> While this may be stretching it a bit, even in Peirce's describing God >> as *Ens necessarium*, a rational order or Mind guiding the cosmos might >> be seen to apply. >> >> "God is a being of incomprehensible power and knowledge, and, what is >> more to the purpose, he is the living, self-conscious Necessary Being, >> whose essence lies in a triune nature" (CP 6.490). >> >> >> God is described as "self-conscious," which *might* be seen >> as associating God with Mind in the sense of an omniscient rational Being. >> In addition, note that "his essence lies in a *triune nature*." I think >> that perhaps that's the stronger suggestion here for it associates God's >> essence with the two other Persons of the Trinity, the first Person being >> wholly 'Three Persons is One'. This trichotomic point, and its connection >> to God's cosmological action within our universe would require at least an >> essay of its own. In any event, other brief quotes may together make a >> stronger case. >> >> Here Peirce equates the divine with the rational principle of 3ns that >> governs the universe: >> >> "The third mode of consciousness is Thought, or Mediation, which is >> characteristic of the Divine Spirit" (CP 6.452). >> >> >> This implies that the divine -- as Holy Spirit -- is essentially a form >> of cosmic thought or mediation, which could be interpreted as aligning God >> with universal Mind, with rationality itself through, perhaps, the third >> Person of the Trinity. >> >> But perhaps one gets closer to God as Mind in Peirce's discussion of >> *evolutionary >> love* (*Agape*). He describes the universe as directed by a rational, >> loving purpose, which he identifies with God. >> >> "The universe is an argument, to the effect that there is a God, and that >> *the >> universe is ruled by a conscious purpose, a mind*, and not by chance" (CP >> 6.490, emphasis added). >> >> >> This suggests to me that God *is *that guiding, purposeful Mind, that >> the universe is not some chance, mind-less mechanism, but is rather >> purposefully directed towards growth, evolution, and evolutionary love (I >> hope some other planet in the cosmos is doing a better job of the last >> mentioned than we are). >> >> >> "The law of mind is that ideas tend to spread continuously and to affect >> certain others which stand to them in a peculiar relation of affecting and >> being affected by them" (CP 1.615). >> >> >> Here, Peirce’s "law of mind" seems to be a metaphor for the rational >> order of the universe, implying that God operates *as the Mind behind >> these laws*, sustaining and guiding the cosmos. >> >> And here he identifies God directly with thought and reason. >> >> "The conception of God is that of a Being of whom all that happens is but >> the development of an idea in His mind" (CP 6.102). >> >> >> That "single idea" I take to be this universe seen as a vast Sign. In >> this passage, Peirce suggests that the entire unfolding of the universe is >> essentially an expression of divine thought. One might ask a theist: What >> serves to realize that unfolding but the Power of God through the Trinity? >> >> Finally, in this snippet Peirce describes God as the living principle >> (Mind) that evolves through the universe. >> >> "The universe . . . is not a mere mechanism, but is, so to speak, a >> living process, and is evolving toward an ultimate state of ideal >> perfection. *The divine mind is immanent in the universe*, guiding it >> toward that end" (CP 6.490, emphasis added). >> >> >> This passage states that God's *a universal Mind that is immanent >> within the cosmos*, actively guiding its evolution. >> >> In at least some of these snippets one can see what I might call Peirce's >> more *nuanced* view of God as a form of cosmic Mind, that living rational >> ity which permeates, sustains, and directs the universe, and aligning >> with his broader metaphysical and semiotic framework. >> >> Peirce thought that the proof of God's Reality would be a great boon to >> mankind (I agree), and while, as Jon correctly noted, the panentheistic >> idea had been introduced long before he was working, yet is quite likely >> that the majority of people he came in contact with, say in the churches he >> attended, knew nothing of it (even today few do). So he took what might be >> seen as the reasonable path then and argued from a more traditional >> theistic position as likely to carry more weight in his milieu towards the >> goal of proving the Truth of Religion. In saying that I am not suggesting >> that he necessarily would have come to embrace panentheism, but it is a >> possibility since, as some have seen suggestions of that viewpoint in his >> religious metaphysics. >> >> Be that as it may, even should humanity survive climate disaster, wars, >> and global epidemics, it will take a v*ery long time *to arrive at a >> scientific religion (all the attempts that I mentioned in my earlier post >> which took a stab at it failed). >> >> Meanwhile, panentheism seems to me to be an excellent candidate 'on the >> way' to that desideratum, but *only* if one can equate God with >> universal Mind. >> >> 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.
