BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Agreed - the discussion is based on definitions - and JAS, myself
and Peirce and others don't necessarily share the same definition.
For example, I disagree with JAS's definition of God as an
external-to-the-universe 'Object/Reality'. I disagree with Peirce's
definition of atheism as focused only within 2ns and 1ns and lacking
3ns - for my definition of Atheism as a belief that the Universe is
grounded in Mind, a rational force, most certainly includes 3ns. But
does NOT include any metaphysical external agent/Object - aka, God.
So, if you define an atheist as functioning only within 1ns/2ns -
then of course this means that they are nominalists. But if you
define an atheist as I do, which includes Mind or 3ns, then - they
are NOT nominalists.
I also don't see the point of continuing the discussion.
Edwina
On Mon 03/06/19 9:15 AM , John F Sowa [email protected] sent:
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 .
