Edwina, list,
You wrote:
ET:
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
. . .
I have nothing to add to Jon's comments on this today. Your
introducing the 'Five Ways' seems to me to offer nothing of value to
the discussion and, perhaps, muddles it.
ET:
2] I disagree with you that Peirce was a theist.
If you would rather not call Peirce a theist, well that's fine with
me. I just don't see how you can argue against his repeated assertion
that he believed in the "Reality of God."
ET: [Peirce's] references to 'Mind', do not, in my
reading, outline it or even examine it as the Mind of God.
I refer you to the conclusion of the third and final quotation which
Jon offered today.
CSP: 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) (emphasis added)
ET: 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'.
You continue to ignore Peirce's explicit statements on "ens
necessarium" and "Spirit, or Mind" == God. Yours appears to me to be
an idiosyncratic interpretation of what Peirce explicitly says he
means by "ens necessarium."
ET: 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'.
It is news to me that my Christian faith, or, say, Martin Buber's
Jewish faith, do not represent "religious traditions." Your
perfunctory analysis of "All religions" as but "methods of forming and
continuing a sense of 'community' is, I suppose, what one might expect
from an atheistic sociologist. But, as far as I'm concerned, my
Christian faith is decidedly centered in a "religious tradition" and
to say otherwise appears to me to be perfect nonsense.
ET: 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.
I agree.
ET: So- we'll have to disagree on this issue.
On the issues of whether Peirce believed in the Reality of God and saw
God as similtudine to "Spirit, or Mind," and whether Christian and
Jewish faith do or do not represent "religious traditions," we most
certainly appear to completely disagree.
Best,
Gary
*
*
*
*
*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
*718 482-5690*
On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 4:31 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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
<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
<http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
<http://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
<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] <mailto:[email protected]> . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to
[email protected] <mailto:[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> .
