Re: Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] A Semiotic Argument for the Reality of God
Stephen: The nature of transcendence is an intriguing challenge in most disciplines because of the meaning of its L. root. Can you clarify how transcendence relates to the scope and scale of predicates? Cheers Jerry Sent from my iPad > On Feb 4, 2019, at 5:30 AM, Stephen Curtiss Rose wrote: > > Transcendence is half a binary. Binaries are all suspect. Generally they can > be assumed to be one rather than two. Explicitly there is no way to assume a > creator without assuming that a triadic reality exists in which Love, for > example, is both what binary language calls transcendent and immanent. Other > suspect binaries are heart/mind and physical/metaphysical. To accept any half > as the truth is to miss what is the case. A triadic view would see such > "opposites" not as either-or's, but as part of the same universal sea which > we can perceive only in part and which we experience as evolving, > > amazon.com/author/stephenrose > > >> On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 2:13 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote: >> Helmut, list >> >> I don't agree with any kind of transcendental force/agency - so, I wouldn't >> agree with either panentheism or theism, both of which assume an agential >> force that transcends time and space. My problem with pantheism, which does >> NOT have this transcendental agency but instead, refers o an 'immanent >> agent' , is - what is their definition of 'god'? >> >> I don't think that psychology or semiotics can stop people from acting out >> their emotional natures! >> >> Edwina >> >> >> >> On Sun 03/02/19 1:57 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent: >> >> Edwina, list, >> You wrote: "I think that the ills of society are caused by the human >> psychological nature - nothing to do with either religion or science and >> following either will not change the effects of a bad psychological nature. >> That is - the 'deadly sins' of greed, lust, pride , envy, gluttony, wrath >> and sloth are psychological and can only be dealt with by deliberate >> personal reasoning and action. Neither science nor religion plays any role." >> >> I think, that these sins are of psychological and systemical and semiotic >> nature. Therefore, sciences like psychology, systems theory and semiotics >> can play a role. However, they cannot change human instinctive nature in the >> way that they (the sciences) could take away the reasons for these sins, but >> can help people (also people in leading positions) to reflect their >> proneness to them, how they can better overcome them and watch their own >> behaviour (civilize them). >> >> Religions play the role, that they reduce the sins inside the belief >> community, but amplify them between the belief communities. >> >> Separate theologies cannot help, I think, but some kind of meta-theology >> can. Atheists and theists will not change their beliefs, but to get them >> round the conference table, I think it is good to reduce (temporarily for >> this purpose) the God-concept to the common denominator "pantheism", or >> "panentheism". I think, "panentheism" is better, because it does not deny >> every kind of separatedness or otherness of God, so cannot be denounced by >> theists as completely atheistic. >> >> Best, >> Helmut >> >> 03. Februar 2019 um 15:24 Uhr >> "Edwina Taborsky" >> wrote: >> >> Gary R >> >> 1] Just a comment on your view of the role of science and religion in a >> society. >> >> I don't agree that the cause of the 'ills' of society is a 'limited view of >> god' or a chasm between science and religion. Such a viewpoint suggests that >> atheism, my view, 'contributes to the ills of society' - and of course I >> wouldn't agree with that. >> >> Religion, of any type, is a belief system. You either believe in it - or >> not. There is no evidence. Its axioms are infallible and outside of debate. >> Science is subject to empirical objective and repeatable evidence - and its >> axioms are fallible. >> >> I don't see how anything can 'bridge this gap'. >> >> I think that the ills of society are caused by the human psychological >> nature - nothing to do with either religion or science and following either >> will not change the effects of a bad psychological nature. That is - the >> 'deadly sins' of greed, lust, pride , envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth are >> psychological and can only be dealt with by deliberate personal reasoning >> and action. Neither science nor religion plays any role. >> >> And therefore - nothing to do with gunpowder, fossil fuels or Facebook. If >> mankind didn't have gunpowder - he's use spears, arrows and poisons...to >> deal with his greed, envy, wrath etc. Fossil fuels have enabled the growth >> of technologies that have benefited mankind - from medical care, to heating >> and cooling our homes, to better sanitation and health and water supplies, >> to enabling more people to be provided with food and care, and travel and so >> on. As for Facebook - no co
Re: Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] A Semiotic Argument for the Reality of God
Transcendence is half a binary. Binaries are all suspect. Generally they can be assumed to be one rather than two. Explicitly there is no way to assume a creator without assuming that a triadic reality exists in which Love, for example, is both what binary language calls transcendent and immanent. Other suspect binaries are heart/mind and physical/metaphysical. To accept any half as the truth is to miss what is the case. A triadic view would see such "opposites" not as either-or's, but as part of the same universal sea which we can perceive only in part and which we experience as evolving, amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 2:13 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote: > Helmut, list > > I don't agree with any kind of transcendental force/agency - so, I > wouldn't agree with either panentheism or theism, both of which assume an > agential force that transcends time and space. My problem with pantheism, > which does NOT have this transcendental agency but instead, refers o an > 'immanent agent' , is - what is their definition of 'god'? > > I don't think that psychology or semiotics can stop people from acting > out their emotional natures! > > Edwina > > > > On Sun 03/02/19 1:57 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent: > > Edwina, list, > You wrote: "I think that the ills of society are caused by the human > psychological nature - nothing to do with either religion or science and > following either will not change the effects of a bad psychological nature. > That is - the 'deadly sins' of greed, lust, pride , envy, gluttony, wrath > and sloth are psychological and can only be dealt with by deliberate > personal reasoning and action. Neither science nor religion plays any role." > > I think, that these sins are of psychological and systemical and semiotic > nature. Therefore, sciences like psychology, systems theory and semiotics > can play a role. However, they cannot change human instinctive nature in > the way that they (the sciences) could take away the reasons for these > sins, but can help people (also people in leading positions) to reflect > their proneness to them, how they can better overcome them and watch their > own behaviour (civilize them). > > Religions play the role, that they reduce the sins inside the belief > community, but amplify them between the belief communities. > > Separate theologies cannot help, I think, but some kind of meta-theology > can. Atheists and theists will not change their beliefs, but to get them > round the conference table, I think it is good to reduce (temporarily for > this purpose) the God-concept to the common denominator "pantheism", or > "panentheism". I think, "panentheism" is better, because it does not deny > every kind of separatedness or otherness of God, so cannot be denounced by > theists as completely atheistic. > > Best, > Helmut > > 03. Februar 2019 um 15:24 Uhr > "Edwina Taborsky" > wrote: > > > Gary R > > 1] Just a comment on your view of the role of science and religion in a > society. > > I don't agree that the cause of the 'ills' of society is a 'limited view > of god' or a chasm between science and religion. Such a viewpoint suggests > that atheism, my view, 'contributes to the ills of society' - and of course > I wouldn't agree with that. > > Religion, of any type, is a belief system. You either believe in it - or > not. There is no evidence. Its axioms are infallible and outside of debate. > Science is subject to empirical objective and repeatable evidence - and its > axioms are fallible. > > I don't see how anything can 'bridge this gap'. > > I think that the ills of society are caused by the human psychological > nature - nothing to do with either religion or science and following either > will not change the effects of a bad psychological nature. That is - > the 'deadly sins' of greed, lust, pride , envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth > are psychological and can only be dealt with by deliberate personal > reasoning and action. Neither science nor religion plays any role. > > And therefore - nothing to do with gunpowder, fossil fuels or Facebook. If > mankind didn't have gunpowder - he's use spears, arrows and poisons...to > deal with his greed, envy, wrath etc. Fossil fuels have enabled the growth > of technologies that have benefited mankind - from medical care, to > heating and cooling our homes, to better sanitation and health and water > supplies, to enabling more people to be provided with food and care, and > travel and so on. As for Facebook - no comment...other than gossip is > gossip. > > 2] I will not get into any discussion about JAS's view of god and Peirce - > since I disagree with his interpretation and consider that his own personal > theism plays a large role in that outline. > > My caution is that semiosis is a rational action, an action, as Peirce > said, of Mind - and we should be careful how we define Mind. > > Edwina > > > > On Sat 02/02/19 11:54 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com sent: > > Jon, list,
Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] A Semiotic Argument for the Reality of God
Edwina, list, why not? If people, due to psychology, sociology and semiotics, are more able to watch and understand their own and other´s consciousnesses and the mechanisms of groupthink and group-dynamics, i.e. gather commonly called "wisdom", why should that not make them more peaceful? The "transcendent" I assume rather in a Kantian way. I guess it cannot be completely deduced, but only in- and abduced, because it is the properties of a system that is unique, because it is the biggest possible system (the universe, or the universe plus some thing/body/mind). As such it has no equal-rank or superior systems. But in- and abduction are also scientifically justified means, though bearing a rest of speculation. That is it for me, speculation, not belief, about the unique properties of the biggest possible system. And I do not forbid anybody to call the biggest possible system "God". Better one word than three. Best, Helmut 03. Februar 2019 um 20:13 Uhr "Edwina Taborsky" wrote: Helmut, list I don't agree with any kind of transcendental force/agency - so, I wouldn't agree with either panentheism or theism, both of which assume an agential force that transcends time and space. My problem with pantheism, which does NOT have this transcendental agency but instead, refers o an 'immanent agent' , is - what is their definition of 'god'? I don't think that psychology or semiotics can stop people from acting out their emotional natures! Edwina On Sun 03/02/19 1:57 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent: Edwina, list, You wrote: "I think that the ills of society are caused by the human psychological nature - nothing to do with either religion or science and following either will not change the effects of a bad psychological nature. That is - the 'deadly sins' of greed, lust, pride , envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth are psychological and can only be dealt with by deliberate personal reasoning and action. Neither science nor religion plays any role." I think, that these sins are of psychological and systemical and semiotic nature. Therefore, sciences like psychology, systems theory and semiotics can play a role. However, they cannot change human instinctive nature in the way that they (the sciences) could take away the reasons for these sins, but can help people (also people in leading positions) to reflect their proneness to them, how they can better overcome them and watch their own behaviour (civilize them). Religions play the role, that they reduce the sins inside the belief community, but amplify them between the belief communities. Separate theologies cannot help, I think, but some kind of meta-theology can. Atheists and theists will not change their beliefs, but to get them round the conference table, I think it is good to reduce (temporarily for this purpose) the God-concept to the common denominator "pantheism", or "panentheism". I think, "panentheism" is better, because it does not deny every kind of separatedness or otherness of God, so cannot be denounced by theists as completely atheistic. Best, Helmut 03. Februar 2019 um 15:24 Uhr "Edwina Taborsky" wrote: Gary R 1] Just a comment on your view of the role of science and religion in a society. I don't agree that the cause of the 'ills' of society is a 'limited view of god' or a chasm between science and religion. Such a viewpoint suggests that atheism, my view, 'contributes to the ills of society' - and of course I wouldn't agree with that. Religion, of any type, is a belief system. You either believe in it - or not. There is no evidence. Its axioms are infallible and outside of debate. Science is subject to empirical objective and repeatable evidence - and its axioms are fallible. I don't see how anything can 'bridge this gap'. I think that the ills of society are caused by the human psychological nature - nothing to do with either religion or science and following either will not change the effects of a bad psychological nature. That is - the 'deadly sins' of greed, lust, pride , envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth are psychological and can only be dealt with by deliberate personal reasoning and action. Neither science nor religion plays any role. And therefore - nothing to do with gunpowder, fossil fuels or Facebook. If mankind didn't have gunpowder - he's use spears, arrows and poisons...to deal with his greed, envy, wrath etc. Fossil fuels have enabled the growth of technologies that have benefited mankind - from medical care, to heating and cooling our homes, to better sanitation and health and water supplies, to enabling more people to be provided with food and care, and travel and so on. As for Facebook - no comment...other than gossip is gossip. 2] I will not get into any discussion about JAS's view of god and Peirce - since I disagree with his interpretation and consider that his own personal theism plays a large role in that outline. My caution is that semiosis is a rational ac
Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] A Semiotic Argument for the Reality of God
Edwina, List: ET: Religion, of any type, is a belief system. You either believe in it - or not. There is no evidence. Its axioms are infallible and outside of debate. Science is subject to empirical objective and repeatable evidence - and its axioms are fallible. This comparison is a caricature, at best; and in any case, what is claimed here about religion applies equally to atheism. The issue is not an *absence *of evidence, but different *evaluations *of the evidence. Each of us has a belief system--a worldview--that governs how we understand the Universe and go about living our lives accordingly (belief = habit). Changing from one worldview to another is *possible*, but always requires some kind of *conversion*--the abandonment of one set of axioms for another. CSP: We must begin with all the prejudices which we actually have when we enter upon the study of philosophy. These prejudices are not to be dispelled by a maxim, for they are things which it does not occur to us *can *be questioned ... A person may, it is true, in the course of his studies, find reason to doubt what he began by believing; but in that case he doubts because he has a positive reason for it ... (CP 5.265, EP 1:29; 1868) What Peirce elsewhere called "the Outward Clash" is sometimes sufficient to bring this about--the realization that some of our core beliefs are *false*, based on their incompatibility with our observations and experiences. One of his great insights was that the scientific method is how we *all *go about testing and revising our beliefs, even the most mundane among them; but we generally do so in ways that are not nearly as *logically rigorous* as science itself typically demands. ET: I will not get into any discussion about JAS's view of god and Peirce - since I disagree with his interpretation and consider that his own personal theism plays a large role in that outline. My argument is deductively valid, so in order to disagree with its conclusion, one must also disagree with at least one of its premises. With which of those premises do you specifically disagree, and why? In addition, please elaborate on the "large role" that you consider my personal theism to be playing here. Is it causing me to misrepresent something? If so, what? Finally, are you suggesting that your own personal atheism somehow plays no role whatsoever in your interpretation of Peirce? Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 8:24 AM Edwina Taborsky wrote: > Gary R > > 1] Just a comment on your view of the role of science and religion in a > society. > > I don't agree that the cause of the 'ills' of society is a 'limited view > of god' or a chasm between science and religion. Such a viewpoint suggests > that atheism, my view, 'contributes to the ills of society' - and of course > I wouldn't agree with that. > > Religion, of any type, is a belief system. You either believe in it - or > not. There is no evidence. Its axioms are infallible and outside of debate. > Science is subject to empirical objective and repeatable evidence - and its > axioms are fallible. > > I don't see how anything can 'bridge this gap'. > > I think that the ills of society are caused by the human psychological > nature - nothing to do with either religion or science and following either > will not change the effects of a bad psychological nature. That is - > the 'deadly sins' of greed, lust, pride , envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth > are psychological and can only be dealt with by deliberate personal > reasoning and action. Neither science nor religion plays any role. > > And therefore - nothing to do with gunpowder, fossil fuels or Facebook. If > mankind didn't have gunpowder - he's use spears, arrows and poisons...to > deal with his greed, envy, wrath etc. Fossil fuels have enabled the growth > of technologies that have benefited mankind - from medical care, to > heating and cooling our homes, to better sanitation and health and water > supplies, to enabling more people to be provided with food and care, and > travel and so on. As for Facebook - no comment...other than gossip is > gossip. > > 2] I will not get into any discussion about JAS's view of god and Peirce - > since I disagree with his interpretation and consider that his own personal > theism plays a large role in that outline. > > My caution is that semiosis is a rational action, an action, as Peirce > said, of Mind - and we should be careful how we define Mind. > > 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/p
Re: Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] A Semiotic Argument for the Reality of God
Helmut, list I don't agree with any kind of transcendental force/agency - so, I wouldn't agree with either panentheism or theism, both of which assume an agential force that transcends time and space. My problem with pantheism, which does NOT have this transcendental agency but instead, refers o an 'immanent agent' , is - what is their definition of 'god'? I don't think that psychology or semiotics can stop people from acting out their emotional natures! Edwina On Sun 03/02/19 1:57 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent: Edwina, list, You wrote: "I think that the ills of society are caused by the human psychological nature - nothing to do with either religion or science and following either will not change the effects of a bad psychological nature. That is - the 'deadly sins' of greed, lust, pride , envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth are psychological and can only be dealt with by deliberate personal reasoning and action. Neither science nor religion plays any role." I think, that these sins are of psychological and systemical and semiotic nature. Therefore, sciences like psychology, systems theory and semiotics can play a role. However, they cannot change human instinctive nature in the way that they (the sciences) could take away the reasons for these sins, but can help people (also people in leading positions) to reflect their proneness to them, how they can better overcome them and watch their own behaviour (civilize them). Religions play the role, that they reduce the sins inside the belief community, but amplify them between the belief communities. Separate theologies cannot help, I think, but some kind of meta-theology can. Atheists and theists will not change their beliefs, but to get them round the conference table, I think it is good to reduce (temporarily for this purpose) the God-concept to the common denominator "pantheism", or "panentheism". I think, "panentheism" is better, because it does not deny every kind of separatedness or otherness of God, so cannot be denounced by theists as completely atheistic. Best, Helmut 03. Februar 2019 um 15:24 Uhr "Edwina Taborsky" wrote: Gary R 1] Just a comment on your view of the role of science and religion in a society. I don't agree that the cause of the 'ills' of society is a 'limited view of god' or a chasm between science and religion. Such a viewpoint suggests that atheism, my view, 'contributes to the ills of society' - and of course I wouldn't agree with that. Religion, of any type, is a belief system. You either believe in it - or not. There is no evidence. Its axioms are infallible and outside of debate. Science is subject to empirical objective and repeatable evidence - and its axioms are fallible. I don't see how anything can 'bridge this gap'. I think that the ills of society are caused by the human psychological nature - nothing to do with either religion or science and following either will not change the effects of a bad psychological nature. That is - the 'deadly sins' of greed, lust, pride , envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth are psychological and can only be dealt with by deliberate personal reasoning and action. Neither science nor religion plays any role. And therefore - nothing to do with gunpowder, fossil fuels or Facebook. If mankind didn't have gunpowder - he's use spears, arrows and poisons...to deal with his greed, envy, wrath etc. Fossil fuels have enabled the growth of technologies that have benefited mankind - from medical care, to heating and cooling our homes, to better sanitation and health and water supplies, to enabling more people to be provided with food and care, and travel and so on. As for Facebook - no comment...other than gossip is gossip. 2] I will not get into any discussion about JAS's view of god and Peirce - since I disagree with his interpretation and consider that his own personal theism plays a large role in that outline. My caution is that semiosis is a rational action, an action, as Peirce said, of Mind - and we should be careful how we define Mind. Edwina On Sat 02/02/19 11:54 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com sent:Jon, list, Jon wrote: I am curious to learn exactly how you . . . would define panentheism in this context, as contrasted with theism, and then attempt to revise the major premise accordingly in order to obtain a compatible conclusion. Peirce explicitly described the Object as "something external to and independent of the sign" . . ., rather than something greater than but still somehow inclusive of the Sign; and he also stated plainly, "In its relation to the Object, the Sign is passive ... the Object remaining unaffected". . . One has at least to admit, I think, in positing the Universe as Sign (Symbol) and God as the Object of that Sign, that both are wholly unique, that they are atypical, even p
Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] A Semiotic Argument for the Reality of God
I see all earthly ills as the product of fear leading to the refusal to use freedom to overcome it and treat others as you would be treated. When freedom chooses courses or values that descend from selfishness, exclusion and ganging up all the way to inflicting injury and death you have the history of human ills. These are magnified when active values -- tolerance, helpfulness and democracy -- are defied and power coalesces in the hands of those who abuse it. Wide rulers are rare for a reason. amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 9:24 AM Edwina Taborsky wrote: > Gary R > > 1] Just a comment on your view of the role of science and religion in a > society. > > I don't agree that the cause of the 'ills' of society is a 'limited view > of god' or a chasm between science and religion. Such a viewpoint suggests > that atheism, my view, 'contributes to the ills of society' - and of course > I wouldn't agree with that. > > Religion, of any type, is a belief system. You either believe in it - or > not. There is no evidence. Its axioms are infallible and outside of debate. > Science is subject to empirical objective and repeatable evidence - and its > axioms are fallible. > > I don't see how anything can 'bridge this gap'. > > I think that the ills of society are caused by the human psychological > nature - nothing to do with either religion or science and following either > will not change the effects of a bad psychological nature. That is - > the 'deadly sins' of greed, lust, pride , envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth > are psychological and can only be dealt with by deliberate personal > reasoning and action. Neither science nor religion plays any role. > > And therefore - nothing to do with gunpowder, fossil fuels or Facebook. If > mankind didn't have gunpowder - he's use spears, arrows and poisons...to > deal with his greed, envy, wrath etc. Fossil fuels have enabled the growth > of technologies that have benefited mankind - from medical care, to > heating and cooling our homes, to better sanitation and health and water > supplies, to enabling more people to be provided with food and care, and > travel and so on. As for Facebook - no comment...other than gossip is > gossip. > > 2] I will not get into any discussion about JAS's view of god and Peirce - > since I disagree with his interpretation and consider that his own personal > theism plays a large role in that outline. > > My caution is that semiosis is a rational action, an action, as Peirce > said, of Mind - and we should be careful how we define Mind. > > Edwina > > > > On Sat 02/02/19 11:54 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com sent: > > Jon, list, > > Jon wrote: > > I am curious to learn exactly how you . . . would define panentheism in > this context, as contrasted with theism, and then attempt to revise the > major premise accordingly in order to obtain a compatible conclusion. > Peirce explicitly described the Object as "something external to and > independent of the sign" . . ., rather than something greater than but > still somehow inclusive of the Sign; and he also stated plainly, "In its > relation to the Object, the Sign is passive ... the Object remaining > unaffected". . . > > > One has at least to admit, I think, in positing the Universe as Sign > (Symbol) and God as the Object of that Sign, that both are wholly unique, > that they are atypical, even peculiar among all other Signs and Objects: > that they are, indeed, sui generis both in themselves, so to speak, and in > their relationship. > > As for panentheism, it is generally held that it is an attempt to avoid > separating > God from a (created) universe (as theism does) while at the same time not > identifying God with the universe (pantheism). Panentheism, as you know, > holds that God not only pervades the cosmos and all that this universe > includes and involves, but also transcends it in the sense of > simultaneously being beyond space and time. > > [In my view it is possible that the God of all possible Universes this > Cosmos is not necessarily to be identified with the God of our Universe. > I'll admit, however, that that sounds a bit odd even to me; yet I've been > entertaining the idea for many years now (this is not, btw, an argument for > the multi-universe theories prevalent in our time)]. > > JAS: Frankly, I am seeking not only to argue for Peirce's views about God, > but also to demonstrate that his views about Signs and the Universe > warranted those views about God--perhaps even required them. > > > I agree with you that at first blush that Peirce's views about Signs and > the Universe "warrant, perhaps even require" something like the theistic > view you've been arguing for. Yet, while I think the pantheistic view has > been generally debunked, perhaps the panentheistic notion that God creates > but also transcends space and time can help in your "attempt to revise > the major premise accordingly in order to obtain a compatible conclusion." >
Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] A Semiotic Argument for the Reality of God
Edwina, list, You wrote: "I think that the ills of society are caused by the human psychological nature - nothing to do with either religion or science and following either will not change the effects of a bad psychological nature. That is - the 'deadly sins' of greed, lust, pride , envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth are psychological and can only be dealt with by deliberate personal reasoning and action. Neither science nor religion plays any role." I think, that these sins are of psychological and systemical and semiotic nature. Therefore, sciences like psychology, systems theory and semiotics can play a role. However, they cannot change human instinctive nature in the way that they (the sciences) could take away the reasons for these sins, but can help people (also people in leading positions) to reflect their proneness to them, how they can better overcome them and watch their own behaviour (civilize them). Religions play the role, that they reduce the sins inside the belief community, but amplify them between the belief communities. Separate theologies cannot help, I think, but some kind of meta-theology can. Atheists and theists will not change their beliefs, but to get them round the conference table, I think it is good to reduce (temporarily for this purpose) the God-concept to the common denominator "pantheism", or "panentheism". I think, "panentheism" is better, because it does not deny every kind of separatedness or otherness of God, so cannot be denounced by theists as completely atheistic. Best, Helmut 03. Februar 2019 um 15:24 Uhr "Edwina Taborsky" wrote: Gary R 1] Just a comment on your view of the role of science and religion in a society. I don't agree that the cause of the 'ills' of society is a 'limited view of god' or a chasm between science and religion. Such a viewpoint suggests that atheism, my view, 'contributes to the ills of society' - and of course I wouldn't agree with that. Religion, of any type, is a belief system. You either believe in it - or not. There is no evidence. Its axioms are infallible and outside of debate. Science is subject to empirical objective and repeatable evidence - and its axioms are fallible. I don't see how anything can 'bridge this gap'. I think that the ills of society are caused by the human psychological nature - nothing to do with either religion or science and following either will not change the effects of a bad psychological nature. That is - the 'deadly sins' of greed, lust, pride , envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth are psychological and can only be dealt with by deliberate personal reasoning and action. Neither science nor religion plays any role. And therefore - nothing to do with gunpowder, fossil fuels or Facebook. If mankind didn't have gunpowder - he's use spears, arrows and poisons...to deal with his greed, envy, wrath etc. Fossil fuels have enabled the growth of technologies that have benefited mankind - from medical care, to heating and cooling our homes, to better sanitation and health and water supplies, to enabling more people to be provided with food and care, and travel and so on. As for Facebook - no comment...other than gossip is gossip. 2] I will not get into any discussion about JAS's view of god and Peirce - since I disagree with his interpretation and consider that his own personal theism plays a large role in that outline. My caution is that semiosis is a rational action, an action, as Peirce said, of Mind - and we should be careful how we define Mind. Edwina On Sat 02/02/19 11:54 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com sent: Jon, list, Jon wrote: I am curious to learn exactly how you . . . would define panentheism in this context, as contrasted with theism, and then attempt to revise the major premise accordingly in order to obtain a compatible conclusion. Peirce explicitly described the Object as "something external to and independent of the sign" . . ., rather than something greater than but still somehow inclusive of the Sign; and he also stated plainly, "In its relation to the Object, the Sign is passive ... the Object remaining unaffected". . . One has at least to admit, I think, in positing the Universe as Sign (Symbol) and God as the Object of that Sign, that both are wholly unique, that they are atypical, even peculiar among all other Signs and Objects: that they are, indeed, sui generis both in themselves, so to speak, and in their relationship. As for panentheism, it is generally held that it is an attempt to avoid separating God from a (created) universe (as theism does) while at the same time not identifying God with the universe (pantheism). Panentheism, as you know, holds that God not only pervades the cosmos and all that this universe includes and involves, but also transcends it in the sense of simultaneously being beyond space and time. [In my view it is possible that the God of all possible Universes this Cosmos is not
Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] A Semiotic Argument for the Reality of God
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R
1] Just a comment on your view of the role of science and religion
in a society.
I don't agree that the cause of the 'ills' of society is a 'limited
view of god' or a chasm between science and religion. Such a
viewpoint suggests that atheism, my view, 'contributes to the ills of
society' - and of course I wouldn't agree with that.
Religion, of any type, is a belief system. You either believe in it
- or not. There is no evidence. Its axioms are infallible and outside
of debate. Science is subject to empirical objective and repeatable
evidence - and its axioms are fallible.
I don't see how anything can 'bridge this gap'.
I think that the ills of society are caused by the human
psychological nature - nothing to do with either religion or science
and following either will not change the effects of a bad
psychological nature. That is - the 'deadly sins' of greed, lust,
pride , envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth are psychological and can
only be dealt with by deliberate personal reasoning and action.
Neither science nor religion plays any role.
And therefore - nothing to do with gunpowder, fossil fuels or
Facebook. If mankind didn't have gunpowder - he's use spears, arrows
and poisons...to deal with his greed, envy, wrath etc. Fossil fuels
have enabled the growth of technologies that have benefited mankind -
from medical care, to heating and cooling our homes, to better
sanitation and health and water supplies, to enabling more people to
be provided with food and care, and travel and so on. As for Facebook
- no comment...other than gossip is gossip.
2] I will not get into any discussion about JAS's view of god and
Peirce - since I disagree with his interpretation and consider that
his own personal theism plays a large role in that outline.
My caution is that semiosis is a rational action, an action, as
Peirce said, of Mind - and we should be careful how we define Mind.
Edwina
On Sat 02/02/19 11:54 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com
sent:
Jon, list,
Jon wrote:I am curious to learn exactly how you . . . would define
panentheism in this context, as contrasted with theism, and then
attempt to revise the major premise accordingly in order to obtain a
compatible conclusion. Peirce explicitly described the Object as
"something external to and independent of the sign" . . ., rather
than something greater than but still somehow inclusive of the Sign;
and he also stated plainly, "In its relation to the Object, the Sign
is passive ... the Object remaining unaffected". . .
One has at least to admit, I think, in positing the Universe as Sign
(Symbol) and God as the Object of that Sign, that both are wholly
unique, that they are atypical, even peculiar among all other Signs
and Objects: that they are, indeed, sui generis both in themselves,
so to speak, and in their relationship.
As for panentheism, it is generally held that it is an attempt to
avoid separating God from a (created) universe (as theism does) while
at the same time not identifying God with the universe (pantheism).
Panentheism, as you know, holds that God not only pervades the cosmos
and all that this universe includes and involves, but also transcends
it in the sense of simultaneously being beyond space and time.
[In my view it is possible that the God of all possible Universes
this Cosmos is not necessarily to be identified with the God of our
Universe. I'll admit, however, that that sounds a bit odd even to me;
yet I've been entertaining the idea for many years now (this is not,
btw, an argument for the multi-universe theories prevalent in our
time)].
JAS: Frankly, I am seeking not only to argue for Peirce's views
about God, but also to demonstrate that his views about Signs and the
Universe warranted those views about God--perhaps even required them.
I agree with you that at first blush that Peirce's views about Signs
and the Universe "warrant, perhaps even require" something like the
theistic view you've been arguing for. Yet, while I think the
pantheistic view has been generally debunked, perhaps the
panentheistic notion that God creates but also transcends space and
time can help in your "attempt to revise the major premise
accordingly in order to obtain a compatible conclusion."
Finally, in my view, historically and to this day, our idea of God
has been far too small, far too limited, and often dogmatic and
doctrinaire, striking some (but not all) scientists as at least naive
and typically incompatible with science. I think these limited views
of God have in ways contributed to many of the "wicked problems" of
our world, not the least of which is the chasm that has been
developing for centuries between science and religion. It should be
noted, however, that science, at least as it has led to the
development of socially and environmentally problematic technologies
(for
