I was wondering if we are forgetting a possibility that theism and atheism may converge into the same conclusion after figuring everything out about the universe. — FLUX23
However Apeiron doesn't seem to answer anything either, since it doesn't exactly explain why anything started at all. — darthbarracuda
We can interpret this as God, but we can also interpret this as not God but of some another materialistic thing. — FLUX23
What do you make of Peirce's theism? It was unconventional, to be sure, but he still explicitly affirmed the reality (not existence) of God as Ens necessarium and Creator, most famously in his article about "A Neglected Argument." — aletheist
Haven't I explained this to you before? If everything tries to happen at once, most of it will be contradictory and so will self-suppress its own existence, cancel itself away to nothing. — apokrisis
And why was this foamy apeiron stuff there? Where did it come from? — darthbarracuda
Why this outcome? Was it inevitable? — darthbarracuda
You're still implicitly avoiding the question of Being: why does anything exist? Why something, rather than nothing? We can always ask "why"? — darthbarracuda
And then his neglected argument was a very poor paper - quite un-Peircean in its lack of rigour. — apokrisis
I don't want to blame the drugs and the mania, but his moment of ecstatic transport on entering a church at a particular low point may be both an important personal phemenological sign for him, yet clearly the weakest kind of evidence for the kind of scientific pragmatism he espoused. — apokrisis
Calling existence divine or mindful - the much vaguer hypothesis of immanent pantheism - you could get away with. And that was more what Peirce, in his religious unorthodoxy, was really going for. — apokrisis
But in my view, if he had been less culturally influenced, and more faithful to his own metaphysical insights, he would have stuck with a strictly atheistic and anti-Cartesean pansemiosis. — apokrisis
Of course, anyone would say I read my own biases into Peirce. — apokrisis
That experience happened in 1892; he wrote "A Neglected Argument" in 1908. — aletheist
This is a popular claim in some circles, but it is refuted by Peirce's explicit and emphatic statement in three different drafts that he did not mean by God something "immanent in" nature or the three Universes of Experience, but the Creator of them and all their contents without exception. — aletheist
With all due respect, this is nonsense. Peirce was no doctrinaire Christian, but he was quite clearly a theist, and there is no evidence to suggest that he was intellectually dissatisfied with that position. — aletheist
Sure, and so do I. — aletheist
We can interpret this as God, but we can also interpret this as not God but of some another materialistic thing. So then we can reinterpret this as some new "something" that is both God but not God. — FLUX23
..theism. . . . ; ..is a position within a broader metaphysical system. — Chany
. . .One can follow science and be a theist. — Chany
But you can't be a theist and follow science, because by concluding that "god did it", prior to, or regardless of, a scientific discovery in support of such a conclusion, is not to follow science at all but theism. — jkop
Because then you're following theism, not science. You're not following science by assuming that science would be discovering the work of a theist god. — jkop
Do you have an easy-to-understand conception of this ''something'' you refer to. My imagination fails me.
Also ''both God but not God'' is a contradiction provided that ''God'' refers to the same thing. — TheMadFool
So you see there's nothing wrong in combining religion and science. — TheMadFool
What broader metaphysical system?
Not really. It is possible to follow science and become a theist in case the existence of god is scientifically discovered. But you can't be a theist and follow science, because by concluding that "god did it", prior to, or regardless of, a scientific discovery in support of such a conclusion, is not to follow science at all but theism.
You can certainly be a theist with an interest for science as an intellectual puzzle, eg to follow the latest advances in science while keeping them separate from your personal belief in a god. But then your personal belief is not following science but theism.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.