List: Once again, I substantially agree with Gary's summary and explication of Peirce's relevant views. I will just add that Peirce clearly conceives God as *both *the transcendent creator of all three universes *and *their unifying principle.
It is in the context of discussing objective idealism and evolutionary love that Peirce states, "the synechistic philosophy ... is forced to accept the doctrine of a personal God; but in considering communication, it cannot but admit that if there is a personal God, we must have a direct perception of that person and indeed be in personal communication with him" (CP 6.162, EP 1:332-333, 1892). It is in the context of discussing pragmaticism that he refers to "One Incomprehensible but Personal God, not immanent in but creating the universe" (CP 5.496, EP 2:421, 1907). In other words, Peirce explicitly and repeatedly maintains that God is personal and agential, not merely "an organizing principle"; and he considers this to be a strictly philosophical, metaphysical, and cosmological doctrine, not a religious belief. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sat, Oct 26, 2024 at 9:03 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary R, list > > My focus remains on the pragmaticist and objective idealism zone. I do > consider that references to god are religious - and after all, religion > does deal specifically with the metaphysical and cosmological - and I don’t > want to go into a religious discussion since I consider its axioms are and > must be, beliefs -- and outside of pragmaticism. > > Although - if we were to analyze god as ‘Mind’ - as Peirce suggests, then, > I could see the value of such a discussion - because Mind does not have any > agential attributes, as far as I understand, but is instead, an organizing > principle made up of the three categories - which are firmly rooted in the > objective world. > > Edwina. > > On Oct 25, 2024, at 11:05 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Jon, Edwina, Helmut, List, > > Jon wrote: > > [W]hat Peirce associates directly with pragmatism is > abduction/retroduction--*ampliative *reasoning, "the only logical > operation which introduces any new idea" . . . According to him, the > transcendent reality of God as *Ens necessarium* is a highly plausible > metaphysical hypothesis (not a religious belief) to explain the co-reality > of the three universes (and corresponding categories) that together > encompass any and all observable phenomena. > > > Allow me to amplify this a bit, Jon. I would suggest that Peirce sees God > not as the creator of distinct elements in the cosmos, but as the unifying > principle that is necessary for the three universes to come into being and, > further, guaranteeing that the phenomena which follow from them are > interrelated. This surely aligns with his synechism for it implies that > reality is not a collection of isolated parts but, rather, an > interconnected whole in space and time. > > And by offering God as a 'highly plausible hypothesis' he makes clear > that, at least in his view (with which, of course, I agree), such a > metaphysical question is indeed subject to inquiry just as other scientific > hypotheses are (recalling that for Peirce metaphysics *is* a theoretical > science). Positing God as *Ens necessarium* is a metaphysical context > first concerned with forming a reasonable, plausible hypothesis which might > explain aspects of the observable universe such as the role of the Three > Universes (and, so, the three categories) in its structure and the extent > to which signs appear to perfuse that structure. > > Of course, from the scientific standpoint, offering a plausible hypothesis > is only the beginning of a complete scientific inquiry. There are then > close observations to be made, deducing what follows from the hypothesis in > relation to these observations for the express purpose of devising tests, > and finally the metaphysical equivalent devising inductive experiments to > see to which extent the hypothesis is confirmed (or not). Here too, as in > semeiotics, it is my opinion that Peirce should be seen as a > 'backswoodsman', as a pioneer, exploring a vast, unknown intellectual > landscape. > > Peirce's closely associating abduction with pragmatism shows him committed > to exploring metaphysical ideas with logical and scientific rigor, even > inquiring into that which might be considered the ultimate metaphysical > idea in one of the three branches he outlines in his 'Classification of the > Sciences'. And his tentative conclusion there would seem to be that God, as* > Ens necessarium*, is not a mere "abstract concept" but a necessary > principle for explaining the reality of the universe, its semiotic nature, > the roles and relations of the Three Universes, and the continuity of if it > all, even in -- perhaps especially in -- its evolution. To the extent that > Peirce's God is 'benevolent;, as he states be believes God to be at the > head of the N.A., it also serves as the underlying principle of > evolutionary love. > > 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.
