I am perhaps being a bit too cute with those lines, but my point was to indicate that, in line with Peirce's pragmaticism, his divine hypothesis may start out rather vague and only become more defined as its implications are worked out and its consequences flower into life. I don't mean to affirm some ultimate mystical obscurity or to close the door on, eg, spiritual science or esoteric knowledge. Peirce certainly allows that we can approach ever-deeper understanding of God, even if the final reality remains, yes, inexplicable.
Thanks, Matt, for the elegant comparision of Peirce, Whitehead, and Schmidt. You state,
"I cannot claim I fully understand Peirce’s theological vision. But nor, it seems, could he!" and "Perhaps
incomprehensibility is the surest sign we are becoming more intimate with this divine mystery.
Is the difference between incomprehensibility and inexplicability worth factoring here?
I am perhaps being a bit too cute with those lines, but my point was to indicate that, in line with Peirce's pragmaticism, his divine hypothesis may start out rather vague and only become more defined as its implications are worked out and its consequences flower into life. I don't mean to affirm some ultimate mystical obscurity or to close the door on, eg, spiritual science or esoteric knowledge. Peirce certainly allows that we can approach ever-deeper understanding of God, even if the final reality remains, yes, inexplicable.