Edwina, list, Thank you for getting the discussion of Intelligent Design, etc. into the Peirce list proper (that is, *only*). Ben Udell and I, as well as the technical staff at IUPUI, have not yet found a way to stop the automatic forwarding to our forum of messages sent by Sadhu Sanga members who are also members of Peirce-. Meanwhile, the Sadhu Sanga administration has been less than helpful in this matter.
I appreciate your approach of removing the Cc to Sadhu Sanga as well as all the addresses except the Peirce-list address. Best, Gary (writing as list moderator) *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *718 482-5690* On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 2:47 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Jon Alan, list: > > If one is, unlike you, not a theist, then, your answers don't provide any > rationale for 'the nature of existence'. Your assertion that one simply has > to accept the 'reality of god' is a Fixation of Belief by..what, authority, > tenacity? But it isn't based on reason or empiricism - and as far as I am > concerned, the famous Five Ways [Anselm, Aquinas] are semantic expressions > - that's all. > > That is, for example, to declare that we as finite, cannot 'know' the > infinite...and that we can yet declare that the infinite IS REAL - is, in > my mind, not a valid argument--- for its validity rests solely on semantics > and the necessity-to-believe. > > To declare that there must be either a First Cause or a Supreme Cause - is > yet again, an exercise in semantics. > > Peirce's outline "there are three elements ...active in the world: first, > chance; second, law; and third, habit-taking" 1.409. And his outline of the > emergence of finite matter from "a state of mere indeterminacy, in which > nothing existed or really happened"....Out of the womb of indeterminacy we > must say that there would have come something, by the principle of > Firstness, which we may call a flash. Then by the principle of habit there > would have been a second flash" 1.411-12. Thus, both Secondness or finite > matter and Thirdness or habits, emerge. > > I note that in this outline of the emergence of matter, there is no > mention of any hierarchical or first or final cause [god]; supreme agenda > or 'unmoved Mover [of god]; contingency [god] etc. > > And Peirce's equally famous 4.551 comment of 'Thought is not necessarily > connected with a brain" has no reference to god. > > Now, if one wants to argue, against the Five Reasons, for the reality of > Mind within Matter - that is another argument and one that I would consider > to have validity. Peirce's outline [6.490] of this 'disembodied spirit or > pure mind'' which has a "character related to the habit-taking capacity". > > But - in contrast to the axioms of Anselm/Aquinas, to Peirce "the > Unknowable is a nominalistic heresy" 6.492..and Peirce's view of god, as I > read him, is that it is a force akin to Mind - the introduction/generation > of [old and new] habits of formation within matter. Period. > > Edwina > > > > > > > > On Fri 11/05/18 1:39 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent: > > Stephen J., List: > > I have no desire (and no time these days) to engage in a debate here, but > ... > > SJ: I don’t understand what insights a creator/designer provides as to > the nature of existence. > > > Why is there existence at all? Why is there something, rather than > nothing? Peirce's answer was the Reality of God as Ens necessarium. > > SJ: What phenomenology explains His motivation to be? Why should He care > to create life? Where is His workshop? What tools does He use? Does He have > hands with which to wield a hammer or use a soldering iron? Does he have > eyes with which to read a blueprint? ... I’m not big fan of Richard > Dawkins, but he does have a point when he asks, sarcastically, who created > god? A god-god? Then who created god-god? A god-god-god? God as a creator > makes no sense and explains nothing. > > > These kinds of questions reveal a profound misunderstanding, or perhaps > willful ignorance, of what classical theists actually believe about the > nature of God. > > SJ: Here’s my prediction… whatever the right theory is, it MUST make > sense… and we will know it when we see it. A godly designer does not make > sense. > > > Your faith in human reason is impressive, but sadly misplaced. Why would > anyone expect an infinite God, if Real, to be entirely comprehensible to > finite beings like us? > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 7:15 AM, Stephen Jarosek <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> > wrote: > >> Hi Colin, >> >> I don’t understand what insights a creator/designer provides as to the >> nature of existence. What phenomenology explains His motivation to be? Why >> should He care to create life? Where is His workshop? What tools does He >> use? Does He have hands with which to wield a hammer or use a soldering >> iron? Does he have eyes with which to read a blueprint? >> >> Many of us might be receptive to a God as a unity, as Kashyap suggests, >> in the laws of nature around us. It would make more sense for God’s >> emergence to be bootstrapped with the emergence of the universe as a unity, >> not as a meddler in a workshop working to a blueprint. God and the universe >> as one. Or maybe a systems-theory view of nested hierarchies, where >> autopoiesis (self-organisation) can be considered a form of >> creation/design. But not god as a visitor in some kind of workspace. >> >> I’m not big fan of Richard Dawkins, but he does have a point when he >> asks, sarcastically, who created god? A god-god? Then who created god-god? >> A god-god-god? God as a creator makes no sense and explains nothing. >> >> Isaac Newton provided the axiomatic framework for a physics that did not >> make sense at the time. Now it makes perfect sense, and we bear witness to >> its relevance in our engineering and technological achievements. We need a >> similar awakening with the life sciences. What axiomatic framework does God >> the Creator/Designer relate to? Here’s my prediction… whatever the right >> theory is, it MUST make sense… and we will know it when we see it. A godly >> designer does not make sense. There is no phenomenology that explains his >> motivations or existence. >> >> And you raise the topic of mutations again. Natural selection based on >> mutations violates the principles of entropy, as the tendency to disorder. >> Nobody’s proven the relevance of mutations to evolution. Pure, >> unsubstantiated conjecture. Calvin Beisner, with reference to the work of >> RH Byles, dispenses tidily with the mutation mumbo jumbo: >> >> https://www.icr.org/article/270 >> >> >> Regards >> > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
