Jon and Edwina, Your debate depends entirely on the definition of God. There is sufficient evidence that Peirce believed in a definition that was within the broad range of what is called Christianity.
But it is also consistent with the broader range that encompasses the fundamental beliefs of all or nearly all of the preachers, philosophers, and other people who look at nature in awe. CSP
Meantime, for all those who have not yet themselves received that illumination, testimony to that effect lies open;--testimony stupendous in volume, and moreover quite unopposed if, as I believe to be the case, all Atheists are Nominalists ... (R 641:19-20; 1909 Nov 7)
JAS
Again, anyone is free to disagree with him about this, but to claim that he believed otherwise is untenable.
I don't believe that any subscriber to Peirce-L doubts that point. ET
Nor can nominalism be defined as asserting that something is inexplicable. The definition of nominalism is simple: a belief only in 2ns and 1ns [individual particular things and random interactions] - and a rejection of 3ns or laws of mind
This point is completely consistent with the definition by John the Evangelist and his translators: Theos = Logos = Tao. It's also consistent with Einstein's various replies to the question "Do you believe in God?" Depending on the person who asked the question, Einstein would reply "No" or "I believe in the God of Spinoza". End of story. I don't believe that there is any point in wasting time, electrons, or disk space in further debate on this issue. 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 .
