Jon, Edwina, list, Jon, responding to Edwina wrote:
1. Defining "God" and "Real" as Peirce did in CP 6.452-453, which of my premises is false, such that the conclusion is false? 2. The subject at hand is not what one *can *say, but what Peirce *did *say; he believed in God, *and *affirmed His Reality. 3. It is demonstrably false that "Peirce denies God as the Creator"; on the contrary, he explicitly affirmed it, over and over. 1. Your premises are not false, Jon, and this nonsense coming from Edwina is strictly illogical 2. Peirce most certainly said "he believed in God, and affirmed His Reality" and to attempt to deny this is simply absurd. 3. Saying, as Edwina did, that "Peirce denies God as the Creator" is false and the whole of her absurd illogic on this matter is becoming offensive. I would like to strongly suggest that you offer a retraction of that last statement, Edwina. Best, Gary (writing at 3. as list moderator) *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *718 482-5690* On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 5:58 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > Edwina, List: > > 1. Defining "God" and "Real" as Peirce did in CP 6.452-453, which of my > premises is false, such that the conclusion is false? > > 2. The subject at hand is not what one *can *say, but what Peirce *did *say; > he believed in God, *and *affirmed His Reality. > > 3. It is demonstrably false that "Peirce denies God as the Creator"; on > the contrary, he explicitly affirmed it, over and over. > > Jon S. > > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> JAS, list: >> >> 1] Your argument may be logically valid as a basic syllogism but its >> premises could be false. The problem is: the terms: God, Real - are vague >> and therefore, can mean anything that one subjectively wishes. >> >> 2] Yes - I suggest that one can say "I believe in god' and yet, deny >> god's reality - since the terms are vague [god, reality]..Furthermore, such >> vague beliefs are, in themselves, without anything other than emotional >> meaning and strictly personal and subjective. >> >> 3] Peirce denies God as the Creator - instead, his complex semiosis means >> that matter is always being created, Mind-as-Matter. >> >> Edwina >> >> On Mon 14/05/18 4:41 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected] sent: >> >> Edwina: >> >> This is one of two posts that I am sending more or less simultaneously; >> please read the other one first. >> >> Here is the only formal argument that I offered below; note that it is >> deductively valid. >> >> Someone who believes that God is Real is a theist. >> Peirce believed that God is Real. >> Therefore, Peirce was a theist. >> >> >> Since you deny the conclusion, which premise do you deny? The first is a >> straightforward definition, and the second is something that Peirce >> explicitly affirmed. >> >> 1. Are you seriously suggesting that someone can say, "I believe in >> God," and yet deny that God is Real? That strikes me as completely >> incoherent. >> >> 2. Again, I stated quite plainly, " a theist is by definition someone >> who believes in God." Are you operating with some other idiosyncratic >> definition of "theist"? >> >> 3. Peirce explicitly defined both "God" and "Real" at the beginning of >> "A Neglected Argument," and plainly described God (so defined) as being " >> in my belief Really [so defined] creator of all three Universes of >> Experience" (CP 6.452-453). "Theistic God" is redundant; what kind of God >> could possibly be "non-theistic"? If what you are really questioning is >> whether Peirce believed in a personal God, then there is likewise no >> need to speculate. >> >> CSP: The mere carrying out of predetermined purposes is mechanical. >> This remark has an application to the philosophy of religion. It is that a >> genuine evolutionary philosophy, that is, one that makes the principle of >> growth a primordial element of the universe, is so far from being >> antagonistic to the idea of a personal creator that it is really >> inseparable from that idea; while a necessitarian religion is in an >> altogether false position and is destined to become disintegrated. But a >> pseudo-evolutionism which enthrones mechanical law above the principle of >> growth is at once scientifically unsatisfactory, as giving no possible hint >> of how the universe has come about, and hostile to all hopes of personal >> relations to God. (CP 6.157; 1892, emphasis added) >> >> CSP: A difficulty which confronts the synechistic philosophy is this. >> In considering personality, that philosophy [synechism] is forced to >> accept the doctrine of a personal God; but in considering communication, >> it cannot but admit that if there is a personal God, we must have a direct >> perception of that person and indeed be in personal communication with him. >> Now, if that be the case, the question arises how it is possible that the >> existence of this being should ever have been doubted by anybody. The only >> answer that I can at present make is that facts that stand before our face >> and eyes and stare us in the face are far from being, in all cases, the >> ones most easily discerned. That has been remarked from time immemorial. >> (CP 6.162; 1892, emphasis added) >> >> CSP: But when a person finds himself in the society of others, he is >> just as sure of their existence as of his own, though he may entertain a >> metaphysical theory that they are all hypostatically the same ego. In like >> manner, when a man has that experience with which religion sets out, he >> has as good reason--putting aside metaphysical subtilties--to believe in >> the living personality of God as he has to believe in his own . Indeed, >> belief is a word inappropriate to such direct perception. (CP 6.436; 1893, >> emphasis added) >> >> >> 4. There has to be some common denominator that warrants categorizing >> all theists as theists; such is the nature of any general term. >> Peirce's point was that this common denominator is necessarily vague, >> rather than definite. Demanding "evidence of what exactly a 'vague concept >> of God' specifically means" is self-contradictory; "vague" is the opposite >> of "exact" and "specific." >> >> 5. The Five Ways are indeed deductively valid, but this merely entails >> that their conclusions follow necessarily from their premises. Can you >> provide evidence that all Christians subscribe to every single one of >> those premises? On the contrary, I am a Christian, but neither a Roman >> Catholic nor a Thomist; consequently, while I certainly embrace some of >> Aquinas's premises, I do not hold to all of them. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon S. >> >> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 1:07 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> JAS, list: >>> >>> Those are all circular and thus invalid arguments. >>> >>> 1] To equate someone who says: 'I believe in God' with a claim that this >>> person is also saying: 'God is Real' - is an invalid argument - both >>> syllogistically and informally, [the latter since the terms of 'real' >>> and god are undefined'.] and syllogistically since thee are only two terms >>> :god/real] >>> >>> 2] To equate someone who says: 'I believe in God' to be a 'theist' is >>> also an invalid argument, since yet again, the terms 'theist' and God are >>> not defined. >>> >>> 3] You can't claim that the use of the terms '[God, Real] are the same >>> for everyone - so, your assertion that Peirce's 'God' is a theistic God - >>> is unfounded. >>> >>> 4] Please provide evidence for your assertion that 'a vague conception >>> of God that is common to most or all theists". I am not aware of such >>> evidence and await your proof. Please also provide evidence of what exactly >>> a 'vague concept of God' specifically means! >>> >>> My understanding of Peirce's equation of God with Mind is a very >>> specific equation. Nothing vague about it at all. >>> >>> And please provide evidence that the Five Ways - which is a famous >>> argument which you seem to be unaware of - is held by only a certain subset >>> of Christians and held only by the use of Authority rather than Reason. >>> [Note - I don't accept the Five Ways - but, that doesn't take away from >>> their deductive validity]. >>> >>> Edwina >>> >>> On Mon 14/05/18 1:19 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected] >>> sent: >>> >>> Edwina, List: >>> >>> When someone says, "I believe in God," it is bordering on the >>> ridiculous to assert that the person is not saying that God is Real; and it >>> is completely ridiculous to claim that the person is not a theist, >>> since a theist is by definition someone who believes in God. It gets >>> worse for your position, though--in Peirce's case, he stated not only that >>> he believed in God, but also--quite explicitly--that he believed God to be >>> Real. There is simply no getting around this--someone who believes that >>> God is Real is a theist, and Peirce believed that God is Real; therefore, >>> Peirce was a theist. >>> >>> The allegation that there is "a multitude of descriptions" of God is a >>> red herring. Again, Peirce quite deliberately argued for a vague conception >>> of God that is common to most or all theists, while the Five Ways advocate >>> a definite conception of God that is held only by a certain subset of >>> Christians. The latter do not at all deal with "different subjective >>> descriptions of the term 'God'," but a very specific definition; and they >>> are strictly "Authoritative" only for Roman Catholic Thomists. >>> >>> 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 Sun, May 13, 2018 at 9:16 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hey, John - you forgot: Happy Mother's Day. >>>> >>>> [mutter, mutter, seethe, fume...if my kids ever did that..mutter, >>>> mutter]. >>>> >>>> By the way - I fully agree with your comments. I think it is bordering >>>> on the ridiculous to declare that because someone says: >>>> >>>> "I believe in God'..that this means that 'God is Real'..and that this >>>> person is also a theist...[That's a reverse and invalid Argument]...\\ >>>> >>>> ..and then, when asked to define the term. people.come up with a >>>> multitude of descriptions which differ from those of other people - So, we >>>> cannot conclude, as some would like to conclude: That God is Real. Nor can >>>> we conclude that these people are all 'theists'. >>>> >>>> That's what the 'Five Ways' was meant to deal with; the different >>>> subjective descriptions of the term 'God'. It certainly set up the >>>> Authoritative definition of the Church, but as purely rhetorical it >>>> doesn't, in my view, have any validity as an Argument. >>>> >>>> So- I think it remains; belief in God is subjective and the definition >>>> of God is equally subjective. Therefore - to move from the subjective to >>>> the objective [ie to declare that God is Real]...can't be done. >>>> >>>> Edwina >>>> >>>> On Sun 13/05/18 9:41 AM , John F Sowa [email protected] sent: >>>> >>>> On 5/13/2018 8:50 AM, John Collier wrote: >>>> > I am afraid I do not find these arguments coherent with anything >>>> > I was taught to be God. >>>> >>>> I recall a survey some years ago in which the interviewers asked >>>> people two questions: (1) Do you believe in God? (2) How would >>>> you describe God? >>>> >>>> What they found: No two people described God in the same way. >>>> The descriptions by believers and non-believers showed the same >>>> amount of variation. And from the way God was described, they >>>> couldn't reliably distinguish believers from non-believers. >>>> >>>> This was not a statistically reliable survey. And very few >>>> of the people they surveyed had studied any philosophical >>>> or theological arguments. >>>> >>>> But from my own experience, I find it convincing. And from hearing >>>> or reading what people who have studied philosophy or theology say, >>>> I suspect that the results would have been the same, independently >>>> of how much they had thought, read, or studied. >>>> >>>> Happy Sunday, Sabbath, Meditation Day, or Picnic Day to all, >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
