Helmust, list: I don't think you know what it is you disagree with.
Best, Jerry R On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > Jerry, list, > On first glance I completely disagree. "First glance", because my > contradiction may contain false suppositions about what your opinion might > be like. Religion, I think, should always be connected with reason, > otherwise it becomes dangerous. Dangerous as well is to look for > reason-free niches (esoterics) to dwell in them. Nothing good ferments in > them, and they have the tendency to increase. Also dangerous is the pursuit > of perfection of man in the sense of consequent thinking and behaviour (ok, > perhaps you have not meant it like this), because that may lead even to > terrorism in an unperfect world- and a perfect world would be no world at > all, nothing would happen in an equilibrium such as perfection. What one > should try to be, about this I would replace "perfect" with "good" in the > sense of "not bad" or "not evil". The categorical imperative by Kant helps > with that. My opinion is influenced (and of course much better elaborated > than I would be able to do) by the book "Thinking evil" by Bettina > Stangneth. > Best, > Helmut > > 09. September 2016 um 04:10 Uhr > "Jerry Rhee" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Jon, list: > > > > They are all consistent. > > > > What is analogical reasoning but saying one thing in terms of another? > > > > essence and esse > > Subject and predicate > > Father and Son > > Non-being and being > > Agent and patient > > First and Second > > ens originarium and ens necessarium > > theologico-physico > > name and definition > > C and A > > > > If you should look into it, you will find they all suffer in some way from > double-meanings of terminology, which is why providing a diagram is > preferred. This also shows why the existence of God problem is inherently > unsuited for analytical dissection such as what you seek, even though it is > best for examining the issue of man’s perfection. > > > > Best, > > Jerry R > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 8:39 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected] > > wrote: >> >> List: >> >> >> >> Returning to the four questions in my post that started this thread … >> >> >> >> 1. To what specifically was Peirce referring here as "a theory of the >> nature of thinking"--the three stages of a "complete inquiry" and their >> "logical validity," as laid out in sections III and IV of the paper, or >> something else? >> 2. How exactly is "this theory of thinking" logically connected with >> "the hypothesis of God's reality"? >> 3. What would be some "experiential consequences of this theory of >> thinking" that we could, with comparatively little difficulty, deductively >> trace and inductively test? >> 4. What exactly would it mean to "prove" Peirce's "theory of the >> nature of thinking," such that "the hypothesis of God's reality" would >> thereby also be "proved"? >> >> >> … here are a few places in the secondary literature where I found >> potential hints of answers. >> >> >> >> >> >> First, Dennis Rohatyn's 1982 *Transactions* article, "Resurrecting >> Peirce's 'Neglected Argument' for God" (http://www.jstor.org/stable/ >> 40319950), takes the interesting approach of reformulating CP >> 6.490--which, again, is quite fascinating in its own right, and probably >> worth discussing in a separate thread on Peirce's cosmology--as an >> Argumentation with nine distinct steps. He then raises five specific >> objections, and replies to each one of them on behalf of Peirce. He >> responds to the first objection, that Peirce begs the question by assuming >> the Reality of an atemporal being from the outset, as follows. >> >> >> >> DR: The assumption of an atemporal being is just part of the hypothesis >> being examined. No retroduction is devoid of assumptions; the test of an >> assumption's adequacy is how well it squares with, or enables us to >> predict, the facts. The assumption, consequently, does not beg the >> question; it is instead confirmed (or refuted) by experience … the argument >> in general seeks to establish at least the compatibility of the hypothesis >> with known (and sometimes, previously unaccounted-for) facts. That it >> ought to do more, is one thing; but it does not do less, and it is no more >> circular than the scientific explanation of any phenomena whatsoever. >> >> >> >> >> >> Similarly, Rohatyn responds to the second objection, that Peirce >> illegitimately relies on an analogy between the known and the unknown, by >> stating that "if [this objection] is sound it invalidates every type of >> scientific reasoning and inference. Analogies are of course not the only >> form of reasoning, but if they may be used elsewhere in science, why not >> here?" Finally, after addressing the other three objections, he concludes >> that Peirce's argument is not "an elucidation of the concept of God so much >> as an attempt to extract from that concept consequences that are at least >> congruent with the known facts of temporal existence and change." >> >> >> >> Second, Jaime Nubiola's 2004 *Semiotiche* article, "*Il Lume Naturale*: >> Abduction and God" (http://www.unav.es/users/LumeNaturale.html), aims >> "to highlight that for Peirce the reality of God makes sense of the whole >> scientific enterprise." He states, "The central question … is precisely >> why we abduce correctly and easily in a relative few number of attempts? >> Why this instinct of guessing right is so efficient?" He characterizes >> this as a "surprising fact," and presents his answer to these questions in >> the format of CP 5.189 accordingly. >> >> >> >> JN: The efficiency of the scientist (guessing right between innumerable >> hypotheses) is a really surprising fact. >> >> If God were the creator of human cognitive abilities and of nature this >> efficiency would be a matter of course. >> >> Hence, there is reason to suspect that God is the creator of human minds >> and nature. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Nubiola concludes that "the surprising efficiency of our scientific >> enterprise … would be totally improbable by mere chance: it requires God's >> creation as the common source of knower and known." >> >> >> >> Finally, Kathleen Hull's 2005 *Transactions* article, "The Inner >> Chambers of His Mind: Peirce's 'Neglected Argument' for God as Related to >> Mathematical Experience" (http://www.jstor.org/stable/40321042), is even >> more speculative, by her own admission. She poses essentially the same >> question that I did, "What theory about the nature of thinking is Peirce >> attempting to prove here?" Her proposed answer is that "the method for >> arriving at the God-hypothesis is fundamentally tied to a general theory >> about the use of diagrams in our reasoning." >> >> >> >> KH: Beginning with a diagram of the three universes, if we playfully >> allow our ideas to connect themselves into a continuing series of classes >> or sets, and alter our diagrams in response to those connections, what >> naturally will come to mind is the idea of God. What we perceive are the >> diagrams. The diagram of the relationship among the categories (such as >> the nesting of one class within another) is an iconic sign of the >> relationship … What we directly perceive, then, is not God as a person, but >> instead, God as a hypothesized form of relation as diagram. On this model, >> God is not a being qua being that we directly perceive; but God is the >> result of an abductive inference emerging from the mind's exploration of >> the interrelations of the three categories or universes. >> >> >> >> >> >> Hull concludes, "Peirce's reconceptualized model of mathematical >> reasoning, in which the thinker is an active agent, an active participant >> in the unfolding of necessary reasoning by way of diagrams in the inner >> world, may be one means of leading the mind to reach an understanding of >> God." >> >> >> >> Although Hull's interpretation is certainly attractive to me, given the >> central role of diagrammatic reasoning in my "logic of ingenuity" thesis, >> Rohatyn and especially Nubiola strike me as being more on the right track. >> What do you think? >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman >> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> 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 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 [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to > PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] 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 [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
