Edwina, Jon S, list, In my view the central question here is not whether JAS is a theist and that he is interpreting Peirce in that light, but whether Peirce was a theist and that his remarks on God and Mind *ought* to be interpreted in light of his theism. I would maintain that there there can be little, if any, doubt that he was a theist. Just a cursory glance at this page from Gary Furhman's blog should at least suggest as much. https://www.gnusystems.ca/CSPgod.htm But the literature is now packed with analyses of his theism.
So, contrary to your atheistic interpretation of, for example, Mind as not referring to God, I would say that Mind most certainly ought be interpreted in Peirce's work in light of his theism such that Mind (so capitalized) in Peirce's thinking *is* the Mind of God. I do not see a moment in his comments from his youth through the more extended arguments near the end of his life, notably in his writing "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God," where he ever--even once--expresses doubts regarding that Reality. If anyone knows of such an expressed doubt, I would be most eager to read it. On the other hand, his view of God seems to me to be essentially a non-standard and decidedly scientific one (Peirce was, for example, notably critical of theology and theologians). There are, however, other moments when he seems to align himself with the Judeo-Christian religious traditions, say, in the interest of participating in a larger community of faith (see, for example, his comments on why he says the Apostle's Creed with his fellow congregates in which he seems to suggest that he does so in the spirit of Christian brotherhood and community). As for Jon's remarks to which you responded, I do not see that he speaks of or even hints at "the Five Ways" or "a First Cause." Where'd that come from? So, in a word, it seems to me much more natural to interpret Mind as Peirce employs it, as well as his arguments relating to the earliest cosmology --which, btw, are *not* definitively stated in the passage you most frequently quote regarding this matter, viz., CP 1.411-412, and which early cosmological views are, in fact, modified dramatically categorially in the last of the 1898 lectures (I'm thinking of the famous "Blackboard" analogy: see Jon Alan Schmidt's excellent paper which includes a discussion of this, "A Neglected Additament: Peirce on Logic, Cosmology, and the Reality of God," in which, btw way, he acknowledges your help, through discussions on Peirce-L, in honing his argumentation)--again, it is natural to interpret Mind and his Early Cosmological discussions through Peirce's theism. As an atheist you will no doubt continue to disavow theism; but there have been not only many articles and papers, but now also a number of books analyzing Peirce's theism. This has always been a contentious matter for some Peirce scholars (I mean especially the ones who are atheists or agnostics), but in my view Peirce's arguments regarding the Reality of God speak for themselves. Best, Gary R *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 .
