I agree that Peirce though influenced by religious experience would probably refrain from a detailed argument. He says more than once I think that there should be a synthesis of what has been called metaphysics with science as he understands it. Peirce's influence on theology has not been great as yet but I would argue that he, Wittgenstein and Nietzsche are the precursors of a universal spirituality that will gradually overtake moribund religions. His conclusion is simple and even somewhat childlike. But that is not at odds with Jesus.
amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 4:31 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary, list: > > 1] The 'Five Ways' or Quinque viae, refers to the very famous purely > logical arguments by the scholastics [ Aquinas Summa Theologiciae but see > also Anselm's Proslogian] for the reality of God. I know that JAS didn't > refer to these arguments but I am very sure as a theist himself that he > would have to know of them; after all - they form the analytic backbone of > theistic Arguments for the Reality of God. It isn't enough to say: > I believe God exists'; that's not an argument but a Fixation of Belief from > ...a priori, Authority..whatever. There has to be an Argument - and the > Five Ways is The Argument. I consider each one actually illogical and > thus inadequate, but...many accept them...and there have been over the > years, many volumes devoted to both support and rejection of the Five Ways. > > 2] I disagree with you that Peirce was a theist. His references to 'Mind', > do not, in my reading, outline it or even examine it as the Mind of God. > After all- to do so, would require an analysis of God himself - and Peirce > doesn't do this. His cosmological arguments, his evolutionary arguments do > not outline this 'Reality', this metaphysical Being. Instead - what he > outlines in his analysis of What is Matter/Life.....are the three basic > categories of MIND: Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness. He sees them as > 'ens necessarium' in themselves and I see no correlation of these > operations with any specific Mind of God'. > > 3] As for Judeo-Christian traditions, I consider these societal rather > than religious traditions. All religions, after all, besides their > metaphysical outlines, are methods of forming and continuing a sense of > 'community'. Our species is a social species - and this sense of belonging > to a community is vital for our rational and psychological health. Anyone > who lacks this - is a psychopath. > > So- we'll have to disagree on this issue. > > Edwina > > > > > > On Sat 12/05/18 3:56 PM , Gary Richmond [email protected] sent: > > 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 <[email protected]> > 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 [email protected] 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 <[email protected]> >> 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 >> [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> >> 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
