> On Sep 19, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:
> Clark- thanks for your very nice outline of the NA - I certainly agree with 
> your view, that as Chiasson says, it's not just about a 'belief in God', 
> because it's not deductive but is, as noted, abductive. Abduction inserts 
> freedom and spontaneity - attributes outside of the range of a God. And 
> agreed - the NA doesn't offer 'compelling reasons for why we should call this 
> ens necessarium as god. I, as an atheist, prefer his outline of Mind as the 
> ens necessarium. 
> As Mind is an action of Reasoning [within all three modes], then, I think 
> that ethics is grounded within it. You don't, in my reading, require a God, 
> for ethics.

It’s worth noting the connection here between Peirce and Spinoza. Of course 
that could be indirect since many of the early German idealists like Hegel were 
highly influenced by Spinoza. But I’ve long thought the direct influence was 

For a good paper on the influence see


Spinoza of course explicitly calls his unity God and ties it to ethics. However 
the Jewish rabbis disagreed and thought him an atheists leading to his 

That gets again to my point that the *name* God seems to be the dispute rather 
than the content. That said though many post Peircean figures strongly want to 
call God as God while giving his nature freedom and spontaneity. The process 
theology movement that started with Whitehead being the most obvious 
philosophical example although there were others. Later process theologians 
were explicitly influenced by Peirce despite many of Peirce’s writings being 
difficult to find at the time.

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