Clark, list, You wrote: "Joe Ransdell [h]as a great paper on that.
http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/bycsp/evolove/evolove.htm But this link brings us to Joe's edition (really just a formatting) of Peirce's "Evolutionary Love," not to a paper of his own. Which paper of Joe's did you have in mind? Best, Gary R [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 12:21 AM, CLARK GOBLE <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Oct 31, 2016, at 3:52 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I also share Clark's interest in learning more, if possible, about what > Peirce thought regarding the divinity Jesus. The only published comment on > it that I could find is CP 6.538 (c.1901). > > CSP: I do not assent to the contention of many theologians that the > miracles of Jesus can properly convince a modern man of the divinity of > Jesus. On the contrary, all the evidence which can now be presented for > them is quite insufficient, unless the general divinity of the Christian > religion be assumed. The evidence which may have been overwhelming for eye > witnesses and persons near them is of a very different and inferior > character to that which may weigh with a modern Christian. > > > There are several other references in the CP such as 1.88. Usually they > have a fairly skeptical aspect to them characteristic of the educated class > of that era. > > Now a finite number divided by infinity is exactly zero. That Pythagoras > had a golden thigh is the testimony of history. It is asserted by > Aristotle, of all possible authorities the highest, by both Porphyry and > Jamblichus after Nicomachus, by Herodotus, by Plutarch, Diogenes Laertius, > Aelian, Apollonius, etc. This is far stronger testimony than we have for > the resurrection of Jesus. Are we then to admit as a part of the science of > history that Pythagoras had a golden thigh? > > However that 6.537 “The Meaning of Miracles” really is good at getting at > Peirce’s fair skepticism of a more traditional reading of scripture. > Although he justly takes Hume to task with injecting metaphysics into the > notion of miracle. (That was a pet peeve of mine long before I found > Peirce noting the same problem) > > There is a pretty interesting reference in CP 8.50 though. This is his > response to Royce’s Hegelianism. (I think this is in the EP but I don’t > have my volume 1 handy) > > [Royce] having stated the above argument with admirable clearness, fills a > hundred pages with a perhaps not altogether necessary, though a charmingly > written and highly interesting elaboration and illustration of it. He here > passes in review a goodly number of the ethical theories which have been > proposed at different times. After the Sophists, Plato, Aristotle, and the > Stoics, he criticizes what he conceives to be the ethics of Jesus. Every > christian will tell him that he makes the mistake of viewing that as a > theory or speculation which is really a spiritual experience; -- another > example of his neglect of the volitional element. For instance, he asks, > "If I feel not the love of God, how prove to me that I ought to feel it?” > (CP 8.50) > > I think this gets directly at the more evidential approach to religion > that some push. It’s interesting seeing Peirce note the distinction between > having an experiment and demanding knowledge without the experience. He > makes a similar point earlier in the paper. > > The moral stand-point from which every man with a christian training sets > out, even if he be a dogmatic atheist, is pretty nearly the same. He has a > horror of certain crimes and a disapproval of certain lesser sins. He is > also more or less touched with the spirit of christian love, which he > believes should be his beacon, and which in point of fact, by its power in > his heart, shall and will govern him in all questions of disputed morals. > More or less, in all of us, this sentiment replaces and abolishes > conscience; like Huckleberry Finn, we act from christian charity without > caring very much whether conscience approves of the act or not. (CP 8.47) > > > This experience of Christian love seems to be the key empirical evidence > for much of his religious views even if he casts a more skeptical eye > towards scripture. Of course Peirce’s view of evolutionary love both in > religious and more general cosmological views is well known. Joe Ransdell > as a great paper on that. > > http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/bycsp/evolove/evolove.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 .
