Gary R., List: It violates the principle of charity to ascribe self-contradiction to any author, even unconsciously, unless it is utterly unavoidable. Frankly, I am not aware of *any *passages in Peirce's writings where he seems receptive to God being immanent in the universe, but there are *several *where he straightforwardly denies it. Again, many of the indented quotations that you posted yesterday are *not *actually from his texts at all, including the bolded remark, "The divine mind is immanent in the universe" (incorrectly cited as CP 6.490). Surprisingly, a Google search does not turn up anything at all for that sentence, so I am still wondering what your actual source was.
Remember, in *The Century Dictionary*, Peirce defines the "doctrine of an immanent deity" as implying "that the world, or the soul of the world, ... either is or is in God," thus associating it with both pantheism (the world or its soul *is *God) and panentheism (the world or its soul *is in *God). This is what he explicitly and repeatedly rejects, not the *current *dictionary definition of "immanent" as "permanently pervading and sustaining the universe," which theists affirm as *following from* God's transcendence and omnipresence. Perhaps that has caused some confusion in these discussions, thus highlighting the importance of careful terminology. My objection is not to calling oneself a theist, it is to calling oneself *both *a theist *and *a panentheist. A theist maintains that God *transcends *the universe, while a panentheist maintains that God *contains *the universe (in some sense). A theist defines God as *Ens necessarium*, the immutable creator of all contingent beings, while a panentheist defines God as a *contingent *being by virtue of being organically connected to the universe and thus constantly changing with it. These are not "my" definitions that I am trying to impose, they are generally recognized distinctions in philosophy between two different and mutually exclusive metaphysical conceptions. In short, if you truly believe that "God doesn't depend on the universe," then you are a theist and *not *a panentheist; maybe not a *classical *theist, but a theist nonetheless. On the other hand, if you truly believe that God is affected in some way by events within the universe, then you are a panentheist and *not *a theist; but that means giving up the idea that God is *Ens necessarium*. As I have said before, you seem to be trying to have it both ways, which is logically incoherent. 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 7:11 PM Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, List, > > You asked: "You have previously *recognized *his rejection of God's > immanence, not only here but in several other texts that I have quoted, so > my understanding is that you simply *disagree *with him about this. Is > that right?" > > GR: I see Peirce as perhaps unconsciously contradicting himself in the > sense that there are passages which seem to me and others to point to God's > immanence (I've provided some, so I won't repeat them here; I apologize for > not being able to locate the source of them as they are misattributed). > > So, if you maintain that virtually *all* of Peirce's work and > writings unequivocally show that God is not immanent in the universe -- > that there are no passages that suggest otherwise, or at least put that > into question -- then, yes, I disagree with him and with you. It is > possible that semeiotic as applied to the God and the universe as you and > Peirce have.will turn out to be problematic as semiotic advances. There are > mysteries that no creeds or dogmas -- even scientific ones -- can yet > handle. > > From a trichotomic standpoint you always speak of God as a monolithic One. > But what of the triune God? How, may I ask, do Christ and the Holy Spirit > participate in the cosmos if they do at all? Or are they only historical > and local phenomena? (which would make no sense to me whatsoever). > > JAS: Peirce's speculative grammar stipulates that *every *dynamical > object is external to *any *sign that it determines, independent of > *that *sign, and unaffected by *that *sign. This is why panentheism is > *not *properly characterized as a variety of theism--it involves an *utterly > different *conception of God's nature and relationship to the > universe--and also why panentheism is *incompatible *with God being the > dynamical object of the universe as one immense sign. > > > It is my sense that it is at least possible that you and, indeed, Peirce > seeing his semeiotic as applying to the universe as an immense Sign of > which God is the dynamical object may not be correct, a kind or reifying of > *singular > *and* unique* exception to semeiotic theory, viz., *the triune God's > relation to the universe*. It's extraordinarily clever, strictly logical, > but I am finding it less and less convincing. > > But what's most disturbing about it is that it seems to know rather > definitively, if not absolutely, the *truth* about vast cosmic realities > in relation to the vastest one of all, God. I think we have a long way to > go before God is revealed fully in history. > > Furthermore, it denies persons, like me, who see things differently, who > claim for prime example that they *are *theists, that they are not > because your logic leads you to that conclusion. Actually, I can't imagine > Peirce claiming anything so metaphysically *exclusive*. What, your > strictly logical argumentation denies me -- and members of, for example, > the Episcopal Church -- the right to see myself, to believe myself to be a > theist because it doesn't conform to your understanding? (I almost added, > "After all, Peirce is *not *the Pope," but then remembered that you are a > member of a Lutheran Church, not a Catholic). I'd put that denial right to > someone denying a person to be a Christian brother because they don't see > Christianity in the classic, dogmatic, credal way in which you do. Well, to > put it another way, none of that exclusionary 'logic' seems to me likely to > advance *any* form of the belief of a benevolent God advancing in the > world. > > JAS: ". . .theism maintains that God *transcends* the universe, such that > God does not in any way *depend on* the universe" > > I continue not to understand God (the Father's) transcendence of the > universe having anything to do with 'dependence'. Of course God doesn't > depend on the universe! Indeed, in the version of panentheism that I've > been arguing for,* none* of the Persons of a Triune God depends on the > universe. Rather, the Second and Third persons of the Trinity *also* do > not depend on the universe. Instead, one with God in the Trinity, they > guide it towards growth and evolution; and they love it; and it is through > Christ and the Holy Spirit that, in my view, one might even consider having > a personal relation with God. This is no innovation of mine, but what I was > taught in the Episcopal Church in which I was raised as well as the church > I now ( admittedly rather sporadically) attend which is affiliated with the > United Church of Christ. > > Again, I have been arguing that Christ has a cosmic role to play in the > universe (and Christ is a symbol of a Power which really has no name, but > which I consider to be a facet of a kind of Perfect Universal Trichotomy. > You seem to be denying that absolutely. > > JAS: Moreover, God is constantly *determining *the universe as one > immense sign at every moment, such that it "is perpetually being acted upon > by its object, from which it is perpetually receiving the accretions of new > signs, which bring it fresh energy, and also kindle energy that it already > had, but which had lain dormant" (EP 2:545n25, 1906). > > Again, this is an application of semeiotic which is deeply informed by > religious notions clearly strongly held by Peirce and so appealing to you. > > JAS: Accordingly, God cannot be its "*ultimate *interpretant," especially > since that ideal outcome will never *actually *be achieved. > > GR: I stand corrected. But as I recall I did add "(ideal}" to my remark > regarding the ultimate interpretant. > > In any case, I have decided to cease my response to your posts on this > topic as they will always be colored by our very different views of the > implications of a Triune God, that some of that which you attribute to God > I see as the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit in the world. > > As always, your analyses are deeply (although I would suggest, > selectively) informed by Peirce. I have found most of, and especially your > published scholarship, to be of the highest order. But your work on this > topic seems geared towards proving what you already believe and one can > certainly find in Peirce's writings that which even strongly supports your > view. So I part company with you and Peirce on this topic. I most sincerely > hope that we will engage in the discussion of other topics on the List. > > Best, > > Gary. R > > JAS: ". . . theism does not conceive of God as "distant." On the > contrary, God is *omnipresent *and therefore *immediately *present, > "nearer" to each of us than anything *within *the created universe > itself." > > "Omnipresent" so "immediately present" and "nearer to each of us than > anything within the created universe itself." This, in relation to the > denial of the idea of immanence, seems to me like so much verbal > rigamarole. And, despite your denial, there is much in Peirce's "Religious > metaphysics" (one of the three branches of metaphysics which he outlines) > which is theological. Semeiotic theory can be used for theological purposes > -- you've admitted that this is how you yourself use it. >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
