Edwina, List:

ET:  A key factor in her analysis, with its focus on thought processes, is
that it permits atheism - while retaining all thought processes. I suspect
that Jon's interpretation doesn't permit such a result.


I am not sure what to make of this comment.  I suppose that it depends on
what "permit" means in this context.  I readily acknowledge that someone
can agree with Peirce on a great many things, and yet disagree with him
about the Reality of God, as well as his assertion that "proving" his
"theory of thinking" also "proves" the Reality of God.  What would *not *be
warranted is to claim that Peirce *himself *was an atheist--i.e., that
he *denied
*the Reality of God, as he defined that term in "A Neglected Argument" and
elsewhere, which is obviously not the case.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 7:23 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:

> Ben,  thanks for your outline - a very clear and succinct summary. Phyllis
> Chiasson is an esteemed Peircean scholar - I appreiate her analysis of the
> NA. A key factor in her analysis, with its focus on thought processes, is
> that it permits atheism - while retaining all thought processes. I suspect
> that Jon's interpretation doesn't permit such a result.
>
> 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 .




Reply via email to