BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list:
1] I was not trivializing all other approaches to justifying belief
in God by referring to the Five Ways. I was outlining the FACT that
the Five Ways is the most famous analysis for justifying a belief in
God; the fact that you [and I remain stunned] don't know about them
doesn't take away from the fame of these Arguments. And I was most
certainly not trivializing 'all other approaches' - since none have
been referred to on this list!!!!
2] I was outlining Peirce's equation of the TERM of God with 'Mind'
- and I certainly accept that equation. But - it is quite, indeed,
totally different from 'traditional definitions of the meaning of
God' - and I referred to the Five Ways as a major example of
'traditional definitions'.
3] Deism is not identical with theism. I don't see your point.
Peirce's outline of Mind is that it is a continuous action of
creation. Again see his outline of the emergence of both matter and
mind in his cosmological descriptions. 1.412. No mention of god.
Edwina
On Mon 14/05/18 1:17 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
Edwina: Again, your attempt to trivialize all other approaches to
justifying belief in God by insisting that the Five Ways constitute
THE "basic theistic argument" is in my view invalid.
John C.: Deism is usually characterized as the view that God
created the universe in the distant past, but has not been involved
in it ever since, the typical analogy being someone who winds up a
watch and then lets it go. By contrast, Peirce held that "The
creation of the universe ... did not take place during a certain busy
week, in the year 4004 B.C., but is going on today and never will be
done" (CP 1.615, EP 2:255; 1903).
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 8:04 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
John, list:
That's my point. To declare that one person's semantic term of
God=Mind means that they are a 'theist' is not an Argument.
JAS's attempt to trivialize the basic theistic argument for the
reality of God [the Five Ways] by reducing it to merely 'one view'
and thus, to elevate Peirce's semantic equivalence to a basic
argument, is, in my view invalid.
Edwina
On Sun 13/05/18 8:50 AM , John Collier ag...@ncf.ca [4] sent:
It seems to me that Peirce was a deist of some
sort, but I am not especially familiar with any details he has
written on religious belief except in the references to the
reality of God. I am afraid I do not find these arguments
coherent with anything I was taught to be God.
John
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[4]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'ag...@ncf.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
-----------------------------
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 .
