Edwina, List: Wow, you just amply demonstrated my point about responding without digesting what I actually wrote.
1a. I have not looked anything up about the Five Ways in quite a long time--not one single thing. There was no need--everything that I have said about them comes from previous familiarity. Your perception of hostility is inaccurate. 1b. Characterize the other arguments however you want, they are still arguments for theism that are *different *from the Five Ways. I never claimed anything else. 2. My point was that *Peirce *sometimes capitalized Mind; in particular, he described God as "like a mind" and as "loosely ... a Spirit, or Mind" in the very same sentence, clearly indicating that the two words meant subtly different things in that context. 3. That is not what I said. If you have no desire to understand *why *I interpret Peirce's writings as I do, then we are really just wasting each other's (and everyone else's) time. I have worked hard to understand *your *reading of Peirce, even though I disagree with it, and was hoping for the same courtesy. Jon S. On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 4:10 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > JAS, list: > > 1] You seemed unaware of the Five Ways - I'm sure you have looked it up > now - and you seemed quite hostile to my reference to it. The other > arguments [eg, Moral/Kant, Lewis] and other arguments [design]...are, as I > see them, part of the attempts to rationalize the unknowable. That is, I > see them as logical arguments to affirm a belief [in this case, in god] - > but they are simply that: logical arguments. They rest on faith not > evidence. And I don't see the assertion that 'faith is a gift that comes > from God' - as anything other than yet another 'belief'. > > 2] My putting a capital in the word 'Mind' rather than 'mind' is nothing > other than my typing - and has no intrinsic deep meaning. > > 3] No- I don't like being told that UNLESS I read someone's paper, THEN, I > am wasting your and my and every one else's time. I have very different > views from you on many aspects of Peirce but I don't insist that you read > my papers. > > Edwina > > On Mon 14/05/18 4:39 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent: > > Edwina, List: > > Over the weekend I finished reading an excellent book, How to Think by > Alan Jacobs. One of the best pieces of advice that it contains is, "Take > five minutes." As I can confirm from my own experience, when we read or > hear something with which we disagree, we tend to switch from Listening > Mode to Refutation Mode; we are so busy already formulating a rebuttal that > we are no longer paying attention to what the person is actually saying. > Instead, we should let things simmer for a little while before responding; > research clearly indicates that this results in better understanding of the > actual arguments that the other person has put forward. > > With that in mind, I have a friendly request--this is one of two posts > that I am sending more or less simultaneously; please read both of them > carefully, wait at least five minutes, and then read both of them again > before beginning to reply to either of them. > > 1. What gave you the idea that I do not know about the Five Ways? I > stated that they were "identified by Aquinas and grounded in a number of > very specific (and controversial) metaphysical presuppositions," and later > described them as " deductive arguments for a fairly definite conception > of God." > > 2. I am not trivializing the Five Ways, I am simply pointing out that-- as > specifically formulated by Aquinas --they do not exhaust the > philosophical arguments for the existence (or Reality) of God, even though > they are indeed quite venerable. > > 3. Besides (obviously) the Neglected Argument, examples that come to mind > are the Moral Argument, the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and the Argument > from Design. The last two are similar, but not identical, to two of the > Five Ways; they are not grounded in exactly the same metaphysical > presuppositions that Aquinas utilized. > > 4. As a Lutheran, "I believe that I cannot, by my own reason or strength, > believe in Jesus Christ my Lord or come to Him; but the Holy Spirit has > called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept > me in the true faith" (Small Catechism). In other words, no one ultimately > believes in the true God because of a philosophical argument; faith is a > gift that only comes from God Himself. > > CSP: If, walking in a garden on a dark night, you were suddenly to hear > the voice of your sister crying to you to rescue her from a villain, would > you stop to reason out the metaphysical question of whether it were > possible for one mind to cause material waves of sound and for another mind > to perceive them? If you did, the problem might probably occupy the > remainder of your days. In the same way, if a man undergoes any religious > experience and hears the call of his Saviour, for him to halt till he has > adjusted a philosophical difficulty would seem to be an analogous sort of > thing, whether you call it stupid or whether you call it disgusting. If on > the other hand, a man has had no religious experience, then any religion > not an affectation is as yet impossible for him; and the only worthy course > is to wait quietly till such experience comes. No amount of speculation can > take the place of experience. (CP 1.655; 1898) > > CSP: One who sits down with the purpose of becoming convinced of the > truth of religion is plainly not inquiring in scientific singleness of > heart, and must always suspect himself of reasoning unfairly. So he can > never attain the entirety even of a physicist's belief in electrons, > although this is avowedly but provisional. But let religious meditation be > allowed to grow up spontaneously out of Pure Play without any breach of > continuity, and the Muser will retain the perfect candour proper to > Musement. (CP 6.458; 1908) > > > 5. If we cannot agree on a definition of "God" that is at least roughly > coextensive with "theism," then we will just continue going around and > around. In this context, I am following Peirce's "vernacular" usage as > quoted below. > > 6a. I did not reject Peirce's equation of "God" with "Mind," I rejected > your equation of "Mind" with "mind." Peirce was quite deliberate about > capitalizing terms when he intended a very specific meaning. > 6b. Being, Supremacy, and infinity are all found in CP 6.494 as quoted > below; and Peirce listed other traditional attributes--"Omniscience, > Omnipotence, and Infinite Benignity"--in R 843, as also quoted below. > 6c. Again, what led you to think that I have not already read it? I > even quoted it in my recently published paper. I suggest that you > re-read Peirce's later outlines of the emergence of the world of matter, > such as CP 6.202-208 (1898) and CP 6.490 (1908). > > Better yet, if you sincerely wish to understand why I interpret his > writings on these subjects as I do, please read my entire paper ( > https://tidsskrift.dk/signs/article/view/103187/152244). If you have no > such desire, then we are really just wasting each other's (and everyone > else's) time. > > Regards, > > Jon S. > > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 12:47 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > wrote: > >> JAS, list >> >> 1. Your attempt to trivialize the famous Five Ways [and they are famous; >> I'm stunned that you, a theist, don't know about them] won't work. Neither >> of my statements is 'patently false' -which is merely your assertion, >> and is not an Argument. Kindly provide evidence for your claim that it is >> 'not shared by all Catholics' and others etc. [And frankly, that is not >> only an assertion without empirical evidence but is also a false argument- >> a negative] Alsd - I refer to scholars who have studied these >> Arguments...The fact that the Five Ways is both a famous argument that IS >> accepted and is also Argued Against - takes nothing away from its validity >> as a Logical Argument. >> >> I would certainly hope that an atheist would research Arguments for the >> Reality of God - and not come to their own conclusion merely via any of the >> false Fixations of Belief. I am equally stunned that you would think that I >> came to my conclusion without research!!! Therefore your mocking my >> research as 'ironic' denigrates the scientific method of arriving at >> conclusions. I remain stunned that you are unaware of these Arguments. >> >> 2. Moreover, these Arguments are hardly confined to one section of the >> Christian theology - and your attempt to trivialize them by doing so >> ..won't work. >> >> 3. You, by the way, haven't provided the other Arguments [i.e., from your >> Lutheran background?] which differ from the Five. >> >> 4. An incomprehensible object is not the same as 'his nature' - and >> it remains incomprehensible - outside the realm of Reason or Argument and >> meant to be accepted only ..by faith. That's not good enough for an >> Argument, relying as it does on a belief grounded in Authority, A priori or >> Tenacity. >> >> 5. Please provide empirical evidence for your assertion [not an >> Argument] that Peirce's vague outline of God is 'widely shared by most >> [perhaps all] theists}. Why would you state such an Appeal-to-Populam claim >> - and not provide the statistical evidence? >> >> 6. I totally disagree with your rejection of Peirce's equation of the >> term 'God' with Mind. I think he says it quite clearly. Furthermore your >> claim that God means""Supreme Being" does not do adequate justice to the >> other >> traditional attributes of God, besides Being and Supremacy, including >> infinity.".. These other traditional attributes are not mentioned by >> Peirce. Therefore - what is their source? Being, Supremacy and infinity >> are not found in Peirce. >> >> I suggest you read Peirce's outline of the emergence of the world of >> matter - which has no evidence of any 'god-like' activity. [1.412] but does >> indeed outline the emergence of Mind. >> >> Edwina >> >> On Mon 14/05/18 1:15 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent: >> >> Edwina, List: >> >> 1. Who said anything about "fame" or "extensive analysis," and what >> relevance do they have anyway? You straightforwardly asserted that the >> Five Ways "form the analytic backbone of theistic Arguments for the Reality >> of God," and that they constitute "The Argument," but both of these >> statements are patently false. I trust that the irony is not lost on >> anyone of an atheist dictating to two theists (Gary R. and myself) which >> kinds of arguments we must employ to defend our belief in >> God--conveniently, arguments that you have already dismissed as >> "inadequate." Not all theists are Christians, not all Christians are Roman >> Catholics--Gary is an Episcopalian, and I am a Lutheran--and not all Roman >> Catholics are Thomists; so imposing the Five Ways, as identified by Aquinas >> and grounded in a number of very specific (and controversial) metaphysical >> presuppositions, as the only available intellectual defense of theism is >> completely absurd. >> >> 2a. I ask once more--what should we call Peirce's very explicitly >> expressed view that God is Real, if not theistic? He certainly did not >> "reject[] the traditional definition as incomprehensible"; on the contrary, >> as carefully stated in the third quote that I provided below, God is "that >> Being who possesses those Attributes which I take to be most essential to >> the traditional notion"; and it was not this definition that he called >> "incomprehensible," but "His nature." Similarly ... >> >> CSP: The hypothesis of God is a peculiar one, in that it supposes an >> infinitely incomprehensible object, although every hypothesis, as such, >> supposes its object to be truly conceived in the hypothesis. This leaves >> the hypothesis but one way of understanding itself; namely, as vague yet as >> true so far as it is definite, and as continually tending to define itself >> more and more, and without limit. (CP 6.466, EP 2:439; 1908) >> >> CSP: "God" is a vernacular word and, like all such words, but more than >> almost any, is vague. No words are so well understood as vernacular words, >> in one way; yet they are invariably vague; and of many of them it is true >> that, let the logician do his best to substitute precise equivalents in >> their places, still the vernacular words alone, for all their vagueness, >> answer the principal purposes. This is emphatically the case with the very >> vague word "God," which is not made less vague by saying that it imports >> "infinity," etc., since those attributes are at least as vague. (CP 6.494; >> c. 1906) >> >> >> The Five Ways are deductive arguments for a fairly definite conception >> of God, which (again) is not shared by all Roman Catholics, let alone all >> Christians, much less all theists. By contrast, Peirce offered a >> retroductive >> argument for a fairly vague conception of God, which is widely shared by >> most (perhaps all) theists. >> >> 2b. Peirce did not associate God as Mind--capitalized, not mind as the >> primordial "stuff" of the universe, such that "matter is effete mind" (CP >> 6.25; 1891)--with all three Categories; on the contrary, as carefully >> stated in the third quote that I provided below, he described God as "so >> little like a singular Existent" (2ns) "and so opposed in His Nature to an >> ideal possibility" (1ns) "that we may loosely say that He is a Spirit, or >> Mind" (3ns). Where did Peirce ever write about God in terms of matter, >> let alone "Matter-as-Self Organized"? He indeed objected to calling God "a >> Supreme Being," but for precisely the opposite reason that you are claiming. >> >> CSP: Hume, in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion , justly points >> out that the phrase "Supreme Being" is not an equivalent of "God," since it >> neither implies infinity nor any of the other attributes of God, excepting >> only Being and Supremacy. (CP 6.494; c. 1906) >> >> >> "Supreme Being" does not do adequate justice to the other traditional >> attributes of God, besides Being and Supremacy, including infinity. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon S. >> >> On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 7:33 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> >> wrote: >> >>> JAS, list >>> >>> 1] Peirce's 'Neglected Argument' is hardly comparable to the fame and >>> extensive analysis done on the Five Ways - with many books and >>> articles about these as theistic arguments. Therefore, the Five Ways is not >>> 'one approach', a comment by which you trivialize its hundreds of >>> years within both religious and philosophical research and literature. >>> >>> 2] Peirce's outline of God is not, in my view, a theistic one nor is it >>> an argument, but is instead, purely semantic. He rejects the traditional >>> definition as incomprehensible - and we all know that he said that it is >>> useless to 'know' the incomprehensible. Instead - Peirce defines 'god' as, >>> instead, Mind. And his analysis of Mind is always as a functioning of all >>> three Categorical Modes: Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness. That's it. >>> And that definition is as far removed from any theistic concept of a >>> Supreme Power as it could be, since it moves Power, so to speak, within >>> all of Matter-as-Self Organized. >>> >>> Edwina >>> >>> On Sat 12/05/18 10:02 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com >>> sent: >>> >>> 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/JonAlanSch midt >>> <http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >>> >>> On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 3:31 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> >>> 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 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 .
