Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)
Dear Gary, list:
Alternatively, I would recommend examining what Peirce thought of Spinoza
before we go down the road you suggest:
Spinoza’s chief work, the “Ethics”, is an exposition of the idea of the
absolute, with a monistic theory of the correspondence between mind and
matter, and applications to the philosophy of living. It is an *excessively
abstruse doctrine, much misunderstood*, and too complicated for brief
exposition…
Spinoza is described as a pantheist; he identifies God and Nature, but does
not mean by Nature what is ordinarily meant. Some sayings of Spinoza are
frequently quoted in literature. One of these is *omnis determinatio est
negation*, “all specification involves exclusion”; another is that matters
must be considered *sub specie aeternitatis*, “under their essential
aspects.”
Hth,
Jerry Rhee
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Gary Richmond
wrote:
> Jon, Edwina, List,
>
> I think that there are in fact several, perhaps many ways of being
> Christian, from more exoteric, traditional positions (doctrinaire,
> dogmatic, Bible centered, etc.) to those considerably less so, that is,
> more esoteric positions (mystical in, for example, the tradition of
> Eckhard, such as the Cosmic Christ idea as Matthew Fox has elucidated it)
>
> Be that as it may, if we are to have a list discussion on this religious
> topic I would hope that it would center on (1) whether or not Peirce was in
> fact a Christian (my own view is that he was) and, if so, (2) what sort of
> a Christian he was (as I've already commented in another thread, I think
> that he was a non-traditional Christian--he once referred to his views as
> buddheo-Christian, but that, I believe, should be taken in context).
>
> I should add that I do not necessarily think that it would be productive
> to begin such a discussion until at least after we've more or less
> completed the discussion of Peirce's cosmological ideas, which, as Jon
> suggested correctly, I believe, ought precede the discussion of (his)
> religious views. But, in any event, it seems to me important that we more
> or less restrict such a discussion to* Peirce's religious views,* and
> that it would definitely be advantageous to change the Subject line if and
> when we begin such a discussion.
>
> Best,
>
> Gary R
>
> [image: Gary Richmond]
>
> *Gary Richmond*
> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
> *Communication Studies*
> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
> *C 745*
> *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>*
>
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <
> jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Edwina, List:
>>
>> If we presuppose that all religions are purely human constructs, then
>> your approach makes perfect sense. On the other hand, if we take seriously
>> the hypothesis that Jesus is God Himself in human flesh--not a mere "mortal
>> born of gods"--then we will obviously proceed very differently. My point
>> was that one deductive consequence of that premiss is that Jesus, after
>> predicting that he would rise from the dead, would in fact do so. If that
>> is what actually happened, then the hypothesis is strongly corroborated; if
>> not, then the hypothesis is definitively falsified.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
>> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
>> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Edwina Taborsky
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Jon, list:
>>>
>>> Jon wrote: "With that in mind, a unique aspect of Christianity is its
>>> startling affirmation that God Himself entered into Actuality--"
>>>
>>> I don't think that the concept of 'god entering into actuality' is
>>> unique to Christianity. It's basic to many ancient beliefs [loosely term as
>>> 'pagan'] about the gods. Zeus, for instance, had quite a few mortal
>>> children. Mortals born of gods [and that includes virgin births] are found
>>> in these Greek-Roman tales and other religions {Hinduism, Buddhism]
>>>
>>> I'd therefore suggest that this shows the influence of the Greek and
>>> Roman religions on Christianity - whereas, to my knowledge, one doesn't
>>> find such influence in Judaism. And, in my view, Islam is a 7th
>>> century economic reaction to the settling of pastoral nomadic grazing lands
>>> by the Roman-Byzantine empire...but that's another story.
>>>
>>> I think that the transition from animism, polytheism etc to monotheism
>>> is something worthy of study - and of course - there is a lot of work in
>>> this area.
>>>
>>> Edwina
>>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
>> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
>> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L
>> but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the
>> BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce
>> -l/peirce-l.htm .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)
Jon, Edwina, List,
I think that there are in fact several, perhaps many ways of being
Christian, from more exoteric, traditional positions (doctrinaire,
dogmatic, Bible centered, etc.) to those considerably less so, that is,
more esoteric positions (mystical in, for example, the tradition of
Eckhard, such as the Cosmic Christ idea as Matthew Fox has elucidated it)
Be that as it may, if we are to have a list discussion on this religious
topic I would hope that it would center on (1) whether or not Peirce was in
fact a Christian (my own view is that he was) and, if so, (2) what sort of
a Christian he was (as I've already commented in another thread, I think
that he was a non-traditional Christian--he once referred to his views as
buddheo-Christian, but that, I believe, should be taken in context).
I should add that I do not necessarily think that it would be productive to
begin such a discussion until at least after we've more or less completed
the discussion of Peirce's cosmological ideas, which, as Jon suggested
correctly, I believe, ought precede the discussion of (his) religious
views. But, in any event, it seems to me important that we more or less
restrict such a discussion to* Peirce's religious views,* and that it would
definitely be advantageous to change the Subject line if and when we begin
such a discussion.
Best,
Gary R
[image: Gary Richmond]
*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
*C 745*
*718 482-5690*
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt
wrote:
> Edwina, List:
>
> If we presuppose that all religions are purely human constructs, then your
> approach makes perfect sense. On the other hand, if we take seriously the
> hypothesis that Jesus is God Himself in human flesh--not a mere "mortal
> born of gods"--then we will obviously proceed very differently. My point
> was that one deductive consequence of that premiss is that Jesus, after
> predicting that he would rise from the dead, would in fact do so. If that
> is what actually happened, then the hypothesis is strongly corroborated; if
> not, then the hypothesis is definitively falsified.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Edwina Taborsky
> wrote:
>
>> Jon, list:
>>
>> Jon wrote: "With that in mind, a unique aspect of Christianity is its
>> startling affirmation that God Himself entered into Actuality--"
>>
>> I don't think that the concept of 'god entering into actuality' is unique
>> to Christianity. It's basic to many ancient beliefs [loosely term as
>> 'pagan'] about the gods. Zeus, for instance, had quite a few mortal
>> children. Mortals born of gods [and that includes virgin births] are found
>> in these Greek-Roman tales and other religions {Hinduism, Buddhism]
>>
>> I'd therefore suggest that this shows the influence of the Greek and
>> Roman religions on Christianity - whereas, to my knowledge, one doesn't
>> find such influence in Judaism. And, in my view, Islam is a 7th
>> century economic reaction to the settling of pastoral nomadic grazing lands
>> by the Roman-Byzantine empire...but that's another story.
>>
>> I think that the transition from animism, polytheism etc to monotheism is
>> something worthy of study - and of course - there is a lot of work in this
>> area.
>>
>> Edwina
>>
>
>
> -
> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L
> but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the
> BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)
Edwina, List:
If we presuppose that all religions are purely human constructs, then your
approach makes perfect sense. On the other hand, if we take seriously the
hypothesis that Jesus is God Himself in human flesh--not a mere "mortal
born of gods"--then we will obviously proceed very differently. My point
was that one deductive consequence of that premiss is that Jesus, after
predicting that he would rise from the dead, would in fact do so. If that
is what actually happened, then the hypothesis is strongly corroborated; if
not, then the hypothesis is definitively falsified.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> Jon, list:
>
> Jon wrote: "With that in mind, a unique aspect of Christianity is its
> startling affirmation that God Himself entered into Actuality--"
>
> I don't think that the concept of 'god entering into actuality' is unique
> to Christianity. It's basic to many ancient beliefs [loosely term as
> 'pagan'] about the gods. Zeus, for instance, had quite a few mortal
> children. Mortals born of gods [and that includes virgin births] are found
> in these Greek-Roman tales and other religions {Hinduism, Buddhism]
>
> I'd therefore suggest that this shows the influence of the Greek and Roman
> religions on Christianity - whereas, to my knowledge, one doesn't find such
> influence in Judaism. And, in my view, Islam is a 7th century economic
> reaction to the settling of pastoral nomadic grazing lands by the
> Roman-Byzantine empire...but that's another story.
>
> I think that the transition from animism, polytheism etc to monotheism is
> something worthy of study - and of course - there is a lot of work in this
> area.
>
> Edwina
>
-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)
Jon, list:
Jon wrote: "With that in mind, a unique aspect of Christianity is its startling
affirmation that God Himself entered into Actuality--"
I don't think that the concept of 'god entering into actuality' is unique to
Christianity. It's basic to many ancient beliefs [loosely term as 'pagan']
about the gods. Zeus, for instance, had quite a few mortal children. Mortals
born of gods [and that includes virgin births] are found in these Greek-Roman
tales and other religions {Hinduism, Buddhism]
I'd therefore suggest that this shows the influence of the Greek and Roman
religions on Christianity - whereas, to my knowledge, one doesn't find such
influence in Judaism. And, in my view, Islam is a 7th century economic reaction
to the settling of pastoral nomadic grazing lands by the Roman-Byzantine
empire...but that's another story.
I think that the transition from animism, polytheism etc to monotheism is
something worthy of study - and of course - there is a lot of work in this area.
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Gary Richmond ; h.raul...@gmx.de
Cc: Peirce-L
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 4:22 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)
Gary, Helmut, List:
I think that questions of religion come after the kinds of cosmological
questions that we have been addressing lately. Once we establish the necessity
of God's Reality for the existence of our universe, we can then start inquiring
about the details. As Peirce wrote in "A Neglected Argument" ...
CSP: The hypothesis of God is a peculiar one, in that it supposes an
infinitely incomprehensible object, although every hypothesis, as such,
supposes its object to be truly conceived in the hypothesis. This leaves the
hypothesis but one way of understanding itself; namely, as vague yet as true so
far as it is definite, and as continually tending to define itself more and
more, and without limit (CP 6.466, EP 2:439)
Peirce saw humanity's primary role in God's ongoing creative activity as
learning more and more about both God and God's creations--i.e., the contents
of the three Universes of Experience--thus contributing to the summum bonum,
which is the development of Reason (CP 1.615, EP 2:255; 1903). However, since
God is infinite, it will take us all of eternity to get to know Him.
With that in mind, a unique aspect of Christianity is its startling
affirmation that God Himself entered into Actuality--into our existing
universe--in the person of Jesus. His claim to divinity thus offers us a
significantly more definite concept of God for our consideration; and if he
truly rose from the dead, as his followers have been asserting for nearly 2,000
years, then that claim has been decisively validated.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Gary Richmond
wrote:
Helmut, List,
Thanks for this, Helmut. When I was studying comparative and inter-religion
for about a decade a couple of decades ago, I found the distinction 'esoteric'
vs 'exoteric' of help, for example, in such a discussion as we're having. Your
pointing to what some scholars refer to as the esoteric dimension of religion
(Sufism in Islam, Kabbala in Judaism, Meister Eckhard and certain other mystics
in Christianity, Zen in Buddhism, etc.) would seem to reflect that distinction.
And I believe that you are also quite right to point to the religious
practices of probably many people who want something other than a 'vague'
concept of God to, as for example, you mentioned, to pray to, namely, a more
personal God. There are places where Peirce suggests as much, while in the N.A.
and the early cosmological discussions, e.g., that in RLT (1898), it seems to
me that he has a somewhat different, at least quasi-scientific--but certainly,
logical--goal in mind.
In any event, religious tolerance (which in my thinking includes tolerance
of agnosticism and atheism) is for me a desideratum, one often lacking in
especially our public discourse.
But these are just a few idle thoughts thrown off quickly as I am currently
dealing with some personal matters which need my full attention. I'll want to
think further on these matters over the next few days, but will probably have
little time to respond online.
Best,
Gary R
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Communication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
C 745
718 482-5690
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
Gary, list,
I see the necessity for leaving the God-concept vague. On the other hand,
people use "God" for somebody to pray to, for religion in the sense of
reconnection with something spiritua
Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)
I think John who wrote of God as the Word can be helpful in relation to this subject. Peirce was no stranger to the idea that we talk to one within us. If one surmises that this is not an uncommon phenomenon and is itself worth investigation one might also surmise that whoever God is remains a mystery in part because this entity is identical with reality (aka creation in toto) unfolding as we speak. The differentiation between Word and Creator makes it possible to surmise a connection that is verbal but which does not need to assume that God is infinite or omniscient or all powerful -- the common assumptions. Rather God would be the force behind the word that is the object of our efforts to communicate. Much talk about God is talk about what we don't and can't know for the simple reason that reality is unfolding, is continuous, and heads somewhere. i Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > Gary, Helmut, List: > > I think that questions of religion come *after *the kinds of cosmological > questions that we have been addressing lately. Once we establish the > necessity of God's Reality for the existence of our universe, we can *then > *start inquiring about the details. As Peirce wrote in "A Neglected > Argument" ... > > CSP: The hypothesis of God is a peculiar one, in that it supposes an > infinitely incomprehensible object, although every hypothesis, as such, > supposes its object to be truly conceived in the hypothesis. This leaves > the hypothesis but one way of understanding itself; namely, as vague yet as > true so far as it is definite, and as continually tending to define itself > more and more, and without limit (CP 6.466, EP 2:439) > > > Peirce saw humanity's primary role in God's ongoing creative activity as > learning more and more about both God and God's creations--i.e., the > contents of the three Universes of Experience--thus contributing to the > *summum > bonum*, which is the development of Reason (CP 1.615, EP 2:255; 1903). > However, since God is infinite, it will take us all of eternity to get to > know Him. > > With that in mind, a unique aspect of Christianity is its startling > affirmation that God Himself entered into Actuality--into our existing > universe--in the person of Jesus. His claim to divinity thus offers us a > significantly more definite concept of God for our consideration; and if he > truly rose from the dead, as his followers have been asserting for nearly > 2,000 years, then that claim has been decisively validated. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Gary Richmond > wrote: > >> Helmut, List, >> >> Thanks for this, Helmut. When I was studying comparative and >> inter-religion for about a decade a couple of decades ago, I found the >> distinction 'esoteric' vs 'exoteric' of help, for example, in such a >> discussion as we're having. Your pointing to what some scholars refer to as >> the esoteric dimension of religion (Sufism in Islam, Kabbala in Judaism, >> Meister Eckhard and certain other mystics in Christianity, Zen in Buddhism, >> etc.) would seem to reflect that distinction. >> >> And I believe that you are also quite right to point to the religious >> practices of probably many people who want something other than a 'vague' >> concept of God to, as for example, you mentioned, to pray to, namely, a >> more personal God. There are places where Peirce suggests as much, while in >> the N.A. and the early cosmological discussions, e.g., that in RLT (1898), >> it seems to me that he has a somewhat different, at least >> *quasi*-scientific--but >> certainly, logical--goal in mind. >> >> In any event, religious tolerance (which in my thinking includes >> tolerance of agnosticism and atheism) is for me a desideratum, one often >> lacking in especially our public discourse. >> >> But these are just a few idle thoughts thrown off quickly as I am >> currently dealing with some personal matters which need my full attention. >> I'll want to think further on these matters over the next few days, but >> will probably have little time to respond online. >> >> Best, >> >> Gary R >> >> [image: Gary Richmond] >> >> *Gary Richmond* >> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* >> *Communication Studies* >> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* >> *C 745* >> *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* >> >> On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote: >> >>> Gary, list, >>> I see the necessity for leaving the God-concept vague. On the other >>> hand, people use "God" for somebody to pray to, for religion in the sense >>> of reconnection with something spiritual and all-encompassing. So they have >>> to visualize God as non-vague to get a feeling of connection, I think. So >>> one who wishes to pray has to decide, which of the many var
Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)
Gary, Helmut, List: I think that questions of religion come *after *the kinds of cosmological questions that we have been addressing lately. Once we establish the necessity of God's Reality for the existence of our universe, we can *then *start inquiring about the details. As Peirce wrote in "A Neglected Argument" ... CSP: The hypothesis of God is a peculiar one, in that it supposes an infinitely incomprehensible object, although every hypothesis, as such, supposes its object to be truly conceived in the hypothesis. This leaves the hypothesis but one way of understanding itself; namely, as vague yet as true so far as it is definite, and as continually tending to define itself more and more, and without limit (CP 6.466, EP 2:439) Peirce saw humanity's primary role in God's ongoing creative activity as learning more and more about both God and God's creations--i.e., the contents of the three Universes of Experience--thus contributing to the *summum bonum*, which is the development of Reason (CP 1.615, EP 2:255; 1903). However, since God is infinite, it will take us all of eternity to get to know Him. With that in mind, a unique aspect of Christianity is its startling affirmation that God Himself entered into Actuality--into our existing universe--in the person of Jesus. His claim to divinity thus offers us a significantly more definite concept of God for our consideration; and if he truly rose from the dead, as his followers have been asserting for nearly 2,000 years, then that claim has been decisively validated. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: > Helmut, List, > > Thanks for this, Helmut. When I was studying comparative and > inter-religion for about a decade a couple of decades ago, I found the > distinction 'esoteric' vs 'exoteric' of help, for example, in such a > discussion as we're having. Your pointing to what some scholars refer to as > the esoteric dimension of religion (Sufism in Islam, Kabbala in Judaism, > Meister Eckhard and certain other mystics in Christianity, Zen in Buddhism, > etc.) would seem to reflect that distinction. > > And I believe that you are also quite right to point to the religious > practices of probably many people who want something other than a 'vague' > concept of God to, as for example, you mentioned, to pray to, namely, a > more personal God. There are places where Peirce suggests as much, while in > the N.A. and the early cosmological discussions, e.g., that in RLT (1898), > it seems to me that he has a somewhat different, at least > *quasi*-scientific--but > certainly, logical--goal in mind. > > In any event, religious tolerance (which in my thinking includes tolerance > of agnosticism and atheism) is for me a desideratum, one often lacking in > especially our public discourse. > > But these are just a few idle thoughts thrown off quickly as I am > currently dealing with some personal matters which need my full attention. > I'll want to think further on these matters over the next few days, but > will probably have little time to respond online. > > Best, > > Gary R > > [image: Gary Richmond] > > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > *C 745* > *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote: > >> Gary, list, >> I see the necessity for leaving the God-concept vague. On the other hand, >> people use "God" for somebody to pray to, for religion in the sense of >> reconnection with something spiritual and all-encompassing. So they have to >> visualize God as non-vague to get a feeling of connection, I think. So one >> who wishes to pray has to decide, which of the many varieties of God Clark >> wrote about to imagine, eg. impassive or passionate. I guess the solution >> of this dilemma may be to have the confidence, that seeming contradictions >> between the varieties will be "aufgehoben" in a Hegelian dialectic sense >> (raised, abolished) along with further inquiries to come. This means two >> things: It is ok to temporally have a non-vague God-concept, and second the >> dogma, that a religion must be non-exclusive, but open and tolerant to >> other religions. On the other hand there may be religions which are not >> based on synechism and agapism. But I guess, that the mystic parts of quite >> all religions are based on universal concepts that resemble agapism and >> synechism, eg. Sufism, Kabbala, Meister Eckhard, other than the prophetic >> parts of eg. Islam, Judaism, Christianity. So maybe the dogma has to be >> modified: Openness and tolerance towards other religions, except you should >> never trust a prophet, not of the other religions, and neither of yours. >> Best, >> Helmut >> >> 29. Oktober 2016 um 01:31 Uhr >>
Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)
Helmut, List, Thanks for this, Helmut. When I was studying comparative and inter-religion for about a decade a couple of decades ago, I found the distinction 'esoteric' vs 'exoteric' of help, for example, in such a discussion as we're having. Your pointing to what some scholars refer to as the esoteric dimension of religion (Sufism in Islam, Kabbala in Judaism, Meister Eckhard and certain other mystics in Christianity, Zen in Buddhism, etc.) would seem to reflect that distinction. And I believe that you are also quite right to point to the religious practices of probably many people who want something other than a 'vague' concept of God to, as for example, you mentioned, to pray to, namely, a more personal God. There are places where Peirce suggests as much, while in the N.A. and the early cosmological discussions, e.g., that in RLT (1898), it seems to me that he has a somewhat different, at least *quasi*-scientific--but certainly, logical--goal in mind. In any event, religious tolerance (which in my thinking includes tolerance of agnosticism and atheism) is for me a desideratum, one often lacking in especially our public discourse. But these are just a few idle thoughts thrown off quickly as I am currently dealing with some personal matters which need my full attention. I'll want to think further on these matters over the next few days, but will probably have little time to respond online. Best, Gary R [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote: > Gary, list, > I see the necessity for leaving the God-concept vague. On the other hand, > people use "God" for somebody to pray to, for religion in the sense of > reconnection with something spiritual and all-encompassing. So they have to > visualize God as non-vague to get a feeling of connection, I think. So one > who wishes to pray has to decide, which of the many varieties of God Clark > wrote about to imagine, eg. impassive or passionate. I guess the solution > of this dilemma may be to have the confidence, that seeming contradictions > between the varieties will be "aufgehoben" in a Hegelian dialectic sense > (raised, abolished) along with further inquiries to come. This means two > things: It is ok to temporally have a non-vague God-concept, and second the > dogma, that a religion must be non-exclusive, but open and tolerant to > other religions. On the other hand there may be religions which are not > based on synechism and agapism. But I guess, that the mystic parts of quite > all religions are based on universal concepts that resemble agapism and > synechism, eg. Sufism, Kabbala, Meister Eckhard, other than the prophetic > parts of eg. Islam, Judaism, Christianity. So maybe the dogma has to be > modified: Openness and tolerance towards other religions, except you should > never trust a prophet, not of the other religions, and neither of yours. > Best, > Helmut > > > 29. Oktober 2016 um 01:31 Uhr > "Gary Richmond" > > Clark, list, > > Clark wrote: > > > The more I think on it the more my own view is that Peirce’s process > approach to epistemology offers the best solution. Our beliefs are not > volitional. All we can do is inquire. If we really inquire carefully and > still believe, well that seems a good basis from which to believe (or > disbelieve) > > > The N.A. is, as I see it, an invitation to inquire in just this sense, > while Peirce strongly suggests that such an inquiry *will tend* to lead > to belief and not its opposite. > > As Peirce remarks, the meaning of 'God', being a vernacular word, is > necessarily vague. If that word is left vague. then it is possible to > inquire into it such that an *argument* for the reality (not the > existence, as Jon has repeated emphasized) can be developed. In the N.A. > Peirce makes clear that by "argument" he means "any process of thought > reasonably tending to produce a definite belief" (this opposed to its use > in normative logic where it means the inference from premises to a > conclusion: an argumentation). > > So, musement, he suggests, can give rise to an hypothesis (and, perhaps > later, a belief) that there is indeed a creator of the three Universes of > Experience, and that one will then be *struck by the beauty* of this > hypothesis, and by even the practical usefulness of it, especially in > guiding ones conduct in conformity to it, that is, supplying an i*deal to > ones conduct* in life. One will come to love this purely "hypothetical > God" and act lovingly in accordance with what follows from one's belief > (including love of ones brothers and sisters). > > And, further, it is belief in this God-hypothesis which offers > "plausibility" and coherence to the notion of three Universes of > Experience, offering "a thoroughly satisfactory explanation" of it. > > Reflections on the God hypothesis fol
Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)
Gary, list, I see the necessity for leaving the God-concept vague. On the other hand, people use "God" for somebody to pray to, for religion in the sense of reconnection with something spiritual and all-encompassing. So they have to visualize God as non-vague to get a feeling of connection, I think. So one who wishes to pray has to decide, which of the many varieties of God Clark wrote about to imagine, eg. impassive or passionate. I guess the solution of this dilemma may be to have the confidence, that seeming contradictions between the varieties will be "aufgehoben" in a Hegelian dialectic sense (raised, abolished) along with further inquiries to come. This means two things: It is ok to temporally have a non-vague God-concept, and second the dogma, that a religion must be non-exclusive, but open and tolerant to other religions. On the other hand there may be religions which are not based on synechism and agapism. But I guess, that the mystic parts of quite all religions are based on universal concepts that resemble agapism and synechism, eg. Sufism, Kabbala, Meister Eckhard, other than the prophetic parts of eg. Islam, Judaism, Christianity. So maybe the dogma has to be modified: Openness and tolerance towards other religions, except you should never trust a prophet, not of the other religions, and neither of yours. Best, Helmut 29. Oktober 2016 um 01:31 Uhr "Gary Richmond" Clark, list, Clark wrote: The more I think on it the more my own view is that Peirce’s process approach to epistemology offers the best solution. Our beliefs are not volitional. All we can do is inquire. If we really inquire carefully and still believe, well that seems a good basis from which to believe (or disbelieve) The N.A. is, as I see it, an invitation to inquire in just this sense, while Peirce strongly suggests that such an inquiry will tend to lead to belief and not its opposite. As Peirce remarks, the meaning of 'God', being a vernacular word, is necessarily vague. If that word is left vague. then it is possible to inquire into it such that an argument for the reality (not the existence, as Jon has repeated emphasized) can be developed. In the N.A. Peirce makes clear that by "argument" he means "any process of thought reasonably tending to produce a definite belief" (this opposed to its use in normative logic where it means the inference from premises to a conclusion: an argumentation). So, musement, he suggests, can give rise to an hypothesis (and, perhaps later, a belief) that there is indeed a creator of the three Universes of Experience, and that one will then be struck by the beauty of this hypothesis, and by even the practical usefulness of it, especially in guiding ones conduct in conformity to it, that is, supplying an ideal to ones conduct in life. One will come to love this purely "hypothetical God" and act lovingly in accordance with what follows from one's belief (including love of ones brothers and sisters). And, further, it is belief in this God-hypothesis which offers "plausibility" and coherence to the notion of three Universes of Experience, offering "a thoroughly satisfactory explanation" of it. Reflections on the God hypothesis following from Peirce's early evolutionary cosmological thought leads him to, albeit tentative. conclusions regarding God's purpose: that God has always been and is ever creating the Universe (perhaps multi-universes as I've suggested in earlier posts). Of course we have no way of knowing God's knowledge or power (or any specific characteristic), but we have hints--and more than hints--that God's thought is creative. But since God's thought is utterly unlike our own, we can only get a very fragmentary sense of it. Therefore, it is, again, wise to leave the God-idea vague and to not attribute specific characters to it (like omniscience, infallibility, all-powerfulness, etc., which characters are, after all, themselves vague). So, in brief, because of a synechistic (and agapastic) tendency in cosmological evolution as Peirce envisions it, in the N.A. he claims that the God-hypothesis is most worthy of further inquiry. In this essay Peirce seems, at least to me, to prepare the grounds for an integration, even a unification of science and religion. What Peirce envisions is a scientific religion which, on the one hand, deemphasizes religious doctrines, dogmas, and creeds, while on the other hand, develops the notion that science can be seen as in support of religion, not necessarily opposed to it in principle. It is my understanding that all this follows from his principle of fallibilism. In good part I follow Thomas Knight's thinking in this matter (see his slim volume, Charles Peirce in The Great American Thinkers Series). Best, Gary R xx xx Gary Richmond Philosophy and Critical Thinking Communication Studies LaGuardia College of the City University of New York C 745 718 482
