Edwina, List, ET: A problem I have with the assertion of the 'existence of "god' is the lack of a clear definition of that term.
As has been noted in this forum many times, Peirce thought that to refer to the "existence" of God, that ia to speak as if God were but a thing among other things, was fetishistic (see: CP 6.495, ca. 1906). So the title of his 1908 essay is decidedly *not* "A Neglected Argument for the *Existence* of God" but, rather, "A Neglected Argument for the *Reality* of God." As for the definition of God, the essay begins with this assertion: CSP: THE word "God," so "capitalised" (as we Americans say), is the definable proper name, signifying Ens necessarium; in my belief Really creator of all three Universes of Experience. ET: But, I do not doubt that our universe operates as a "MIND', with all the attributes of abduction, induction and deduction that can be used to describe the functioning of a Mind. That is, my view - and I consider that this is also Peirce's view If your atheistic view "is also Peirce's view," then why in the world would he write an essay on the reality of God? And, of course, the N.A. is hardly the only place where he discusses his theism. There are indeed many. ET: But there is no other attribute that I can see within the Universe; no agenda, no purpose [other than preventing dissipation of energy]; no inherent morality etc. Yes, there are certainly those who see evolution, for example, as purposeless, lacking morality, etc. But one can't say that of Peirce. See, for prime example, his famous essay, "Evolutionary Love" (1893), the last in *The Monist* series. Joseph Ransdell described it as "An impassioned and lyrical defense of a rationality model for evolution, set in sharp contrast with the Social Darwinist conception which was coming into ascendance." Of course none of the above is meant to try to change your or any atheist's viewpoint, but it does mean to suggest that those of us who do not share that viewpoint can appeal to Peirce for support of theism. For anyone who wants to delve deeper into Peirce's argument for the reality of God, you might want to take a look at his pragmatistic definition of God (CP 6.502 - 503) and the first Additament to "A Neglected Argument (CP 6.490) Best, Gary R “Let everything happen to you Beauty and terror Just keep going No feeling is final” ― Rainer Maria Rilke *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 1:38 PM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > List > > A problem I have with the assertion of the 'existence of "god' is the lack > of a clear definition of that term. > > As I am an atheist, then, I cannot logically- never mind empirically > - conclude the reality of an a priori agency or even conscious agent within > our universe. But, I do not doubt that our universe operates as a "MIND', > with all the attributes of abduction, induction and deduction that can be > used to describe the functioning of a Mind. That is, my view - and I > consider that this is also Peirce's view - is that the hylomorphic > operation of matter and mind means that matter is always organized in its > Form, such that it can both interact with other Forms of Matter, and > replicate these Forms and interactions in continuity. This organization of > interactions and continuity of material form is obviously a function of > Mind. But there is no other attribute that I can see within the Universe; > no agenda, no purpose [other than preventing dissipation of energy]; no > inherent morality etc. > > Edwina > > > > > > On Wed 08/09/21 12:47 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent: > > Gary R., List: > > GR: Strange, but I woke up this morning recalling that most of my > quotations yesterday were from the N.A., and the peculiar hypothesis there > being of the reality of God and not some strictly scientific question put > to nature, I began to question my entire analysis of yesterday. > > > There is no inconsistency here, since Peirce considered the hypothesis of > God's reality to be legitimately scientific in accordance with his broad > notion of the scope of science, which includes metaphysics. "[T]he N.A. is > the First Stage of a scientific inquiry, resulting in a hypothesis of the > very highest Plausibility, whose ultimate test must lie in its value in the > self-controlled growth of man's conduct of life" (CP 6.480, EP 2:446, 1908). > > GR: ... the guess, or abduction, or retroduction is invariably from > experience. > > > Indeed, as we discussed on-List a couple of weeks ago ( > https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-08/msg00341.html), > although the historical order of inquiry is abduction/retroduction > followed by deduction and then induction, there is a sense in which its > logical order is induction followed by abduction/retroduction. > > CSP: The only end of science, as such, is to learn the lesson that the > universe has to teach it. In induction it simply surrenders itself to the > force of facts. But it finds, at once,--I am partially inverting the > historical order, in order to state the process in its logical order--it > finds I say that this is not enough. It is driven in desperation to call > upon its inward sympathy with nature, its instinct for aid, just as we find > Galileo at the dawn of modern science making his appeal to il lume > naturale. (CP 5.589, EP 2:54-55, 1898) > > > Again, it is only "the well-prepared mind" that "has wonderfully soon > guessed each secret of nature" (CP 6.476, EP 2:444, 1908). > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 10:10 AM Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Phyllis, List, >> >> Strange, but I woke up this morning recalling that most of my quotations >> yesterday were from the N.A., and the peculiar hypothesis there being of >> the reality of God and not some strictly scientific question put >> to nature, I began to question my entire analysis of yesterday. >> >> I still think 'retroduction' is an excellent term for inference from >> scientific consequent to antecedent for the reason you gave today, namely, >> the prefix, 're-'. suggesting a 'turning back' from effect to cause. And >> using it for scientific inquiry would leave abduction free for more general >> uses. >> >> However, in one of the passages I quoted yesterday, Peirce comments that >> "retroduction is from experience to hypothesis" (emphasis added). In >> that sense, whether it is a guess as to what palette of colors the painter >> thinks might best get her artistic vision across, or the scientist's guess >> that such and such an hypothesis has some likelihood of conforming to the >> question to nature asked by him and so worth testing, or the peculiar, >> singular, and very vague question regarding the reality of God, the guess, >> or abduction, or retroduction is invariably from experience. >> >> So, perhaps this exercise was all a terminological tempest in a teapot. >> Still, I'm glad to have rehearsed it yesterday and today to help clarify my >> own thinking about it. I just hope it wasn't too tedious for you to go >> through that lengthy review with me. >> >> Best, >> >> Gary R >> >> “Let everything happen to you >> Beauty and terror >> Just keep going >> No feeling is final” >> ― Rainer Maria Rilke >> Gary Richmond >> Philosophy and Critical Thinking >> Communication Studies >> LaGuardia College of the City University of New York >> > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the > message and nothing in the body. More at > https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . > ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and > co-managed by him and Ben Udell. >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
