List: I do not understand why we now have three different threads prompted by the same paper.
The "'watchmaker God' of the Western European Enlightenment" (note 5) is associated with deism, not theism--God created the universe, started it running, and has left it ticking away without any further involvement ever since. With respect to "Concord transcendentalism," Peirce characterizes it as a "virus" that he was "not conscious of having contracted," although "it is probable that some cultured bacilli, some benignant form of the disease was implanted in my soul, unawares" (note 22, quoting CP 6.102, 1892). That is hardly a ringing endorsement. As for "creation *ex nihilo*," this is the traditional position of theism, and it is inconsistent with panentheism--if the universe is somehow *within *God, then it seems more accurate to say that God created it *from himself* and not from nothing. There is no clash between theism and "a loving divinity alive and active in the world." Again, the key difference with panentheism is whether God is *affected by* the world--whether God *reacts *with the universe, which Peirce explicitly denies. Finally, there is also no clash between Peirce's theism and his other philosophical views. His professed belief in the reality of God as *Ens necessarium* is perfectly consistent with his entire cosmology and overall system of thought. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 4:50 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary, List: > > I agree with both your paragraphs. > > First - I find Peirce’s writings on god as ‘assertions’ not an argument. I > find nothing convincing in them since they seem to be statements of - not > even of personal beliefs - but of rhetorical dogma. I know I’m not alone in > this opinion - and perhaps their weakness as an argument is what has > resulted in the number of scholarly papers written debating their theism vs > their panentheism. > > And - they clash with his actual arguments about the world - ie- his > triadic semiosis, his three categories; his agapastic evolution, his > concept of Mind and of matter as effete mind, of matter as Mind hidebound > with habits; , his concept of the continuous almost exploratory and novel > development of Habits; his focus on the reality of freedom and chance and > thus of deviations; his focus on cosmological origin from the nothing of > chaos; his almost quantum-like outline of such an early cosmology ..and so > on. These, to me, which form the bulk of Peirce’s work - are closely > argued and coherent analyses - and therefore - I find Peirce’s few > writings on god - which don’t fit into this vast analytic frame - > unconvincing. > > And I admit, that personally, as an atheist - I’m not interested. I prefer > Peirce’s Mind, his Thirdness, his Firstness, his agapasim…to explain the > universe. > > Edwina > > On Oct 4, 2024, at 5:05 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > > Edwina, List, > > I have come to the tentative conclusion that Peirce did indeed consider > himself to be a theist -- but of a peculiar stripe, I'd add -- yet that > there is material in his work that suggests to some -- of course, me > included -- that he might have become one and that, in any case, that one > finds analyses, such as those in "Evolutionary Love" but also elsewhere, > which can be profitably used to support panentheistic arguments. > > Finally, I find his theistic analyses problematic as clashing with other > ideas he expressed including those which suggest a loving divinity alive > and active in the world. In any event, as I noted earlier, the only facet > of his work I find problematic is his religious metaphysics which, in my > opinion, is much too closely tied to his religious beliefs at that time -- > so not a full expression of wholly independent research -- while yet having > the admirable goal in my opinion of bringing people closer to a scientific > supported acceptance of God. > > Best, > > Gary R > > On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 4:15 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> List >> >> Further to the article by Soren Brier on Peirce as a panentheist, it’s a >> long and, I think, well argued paper, but I particularly recommend the >> notes! As Brier says, the argument is vs the ‘watchmaker God’ [ ie, the >> external deterministic agent] but sees the universe as an evolutionary >> force within the three categories and semiosic triads. >> >> And see note 22 - vs ‘Concord transcendentalism’, or solely >> transcendentalism. >> >> I note also, Brier’s comment that Peirce’s views are close to ‘quantum >> field theory’ [ p 35] >> And that Peirce believed in ‘creation ex nihilo [out of nothing] p 36. >> >> Edwina >> >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
