Edwina, List: 1. The Five Ways constitute *one *approach to arguing for the existence (or Reality) of God, but it is a considerable overstatement to call them "the analytic backbone of theistic Arguments" or (especially) "The Argument" as if there were no others--like Peirce's "Neglected Argument," for example.
2. If Peirce was not a theist, then what other term should we use instead for someone who very explicitly, on more than one occasion, in no uncertain terms, affirmed his belief in the Reality of God? So, then, the question being whether I believe in the reality of God, I answer, Yes. (CP 6.496; c. 1906) The word "God," so "capitalized" (as we Americans say), is the definable proper name, signifying *Ens necessarium*; in my belief Really creator of all three Universes of Experience. (CP 6.452; 1908) By the proper name, God, I shall refer to that Being who possesses those Attributes which I take to be most essential to the traditional notion; that is to say, while His nature is incomprehensible, He doubtless has Attributes called by proper extension of the terms Omniscience, Omnipotence, and Infinite Benignity ... But I had better add that I do not mean by God a being merely "immanent in Nature," but I mean that Being who has created every content of the world of ideal possibilities, of the world of physical facts, and the world of all minds, without any exception whatever. For the argument that I am to consider; and which, by the way, I will designate as 'The Neglected Argument,' would not be true of any other being than God. But I do not, by 'God,' mean, with some writers, a being so inscrutable that nothing at all can be known of Him. I suppose most of our knowledge of Him must be by similitudes. Thus, He is so much like a mind, and so little like a singular Existent (meaning by an Existent, or object that Exists, a thing subject to brute constraints, and reacting with all other Existents,) and so opposed in His Nature to an ideal possibility, that we may loosely say that He is a Spirit, or Mind. (R 843; 1908) Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 3:31 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 >
----------------------------- 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 .
