Ben, list:
I think that's from Aquinas' Five Arguments for the Existence of
God: Unmoved Mover, First Cause, Necessary Being, the Absolute Being
and the Grand Designer.
These are essentially ' a posteriori', in that they are conclusions
based on observations of the world; ie, that 'movement and change
exists; that causality exists...etc...and, along with the reality of
time - leads one to wonder and hypothesize about: First cause and so
on.
That is - Aquinas is looking at the Natural World - and my view is
that is what Peirce was doing. To call 'Nature' or 'Mind' or
'reasoning and organization' by a term of 'god' - that's another
issue - since it adds in dimensions of experience that have nothing
to do with 'Mind'...such as worship, devotion, the narratives of
heaven/hell and morality. These other issues, which are attributes of
an organized religion, are sociological rather than philosophical in
nature.
Edwina
On Wed 08/09/21 6:16 PM , Ben Udell baud...@gmail.com sent:
Edwina, list,
Edwina wrote,
Now, you can say that this 'reality' is 'the creator' of the
three universes of experience [the formations of matter and
relations in 1ns, 2ns, 3ns] but this, to me, is not a definition
of 'god' for it does not analyze or explain 'why' such a
creation emerged and 'what' this 'force/god' actually does.
When Peirce calls and defines God as THE ens necessarium in "A
Neglected Argument for the Reality of God", he is referencing a
very old idea, from Aquinas or some other Scholastic
philosopher, that God's reality does not require explanation, a
"why", He does not need it, because (at least in the
monotheistic version) God is necessary, not contingent. I.e.,
God causes the rest of things but nothing causes God and
nothing is needed in order to cause God, He is already
necessary, not contingent. I guess it goes back to Aristotle
at least. FWIW, I speak as an agnostic.
Best, Ben On 9/8/2021 5:11 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Gary R, List I am sure you understand that the term of 'existence'
in my comment refers to 'reality' - and I wasn't at all using the term
of 'existence' to refer to a 'material entity' in a mode of 2ns!!
Therefore, your- and even Peirce's suggestion of fetishism is not
relevant.6.495. But, the term of 'reality' still does not provide a
definition! Now, you can say that this 'reality' is 'the creator' of
the three universes of experience [the formations of matter and
relations in 1ns, 2ns, 3ns] but this, to me, is not a definition of
'god' for it does not analyze or explain 'why' such a creation
emerged and 'what' this 'force/god' actually does. Peirce often
referred to 'god' as Mind 6.502, and 'reason' ..and 'order' and even
'nature' 8.211. TO me, these are the key terms. We can see from these
terms that the answer to 'what' and 'why' refers to the
'organization' of matter-as-form, this hylomorphic synechist
continuity of matter in our universe. This, to me, defines the
functionality of what some people refer to as 'god'. But I am
satisfied with Peirce's use of Mind, Reason, Nature as analogies. As
for evolution, I certainly don't see it as having any 'morality' [and
I think the term of 'morality' needs to be defined!!] but evolution
certainly has a purpose. In my view, the 'purpose' of evolution is to
increase complexity via diversity and networking of matter. The
FUNCTION of such complexity networking is to prevent the dissipation
of matter to free energy. This is certainly not Neo-Darwinism, which
is a mechanical, random and almost pointless process. This evolution
has an 'agenda', so to speak, and Peirce's agapasm, in my view, fits
in well with this evolving 'rational complex diversity'. But there is
no utopian Finale! Edwina On Wed 08/09/21 4:32 PM , Gary Richmond
gary.richm...@gmail.com sent: 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 ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City University of New York On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at
1:38 PM Edwina Taborsky 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
[2] 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
[3]), 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,
USAStructural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [4] - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[5] On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 10:10 AM Gary Richmond 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 ThinkingCommunication
StudiesLaGuardia 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 [6] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send
a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu [7] 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 [8] . ►
PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond;
and co-managed by him and Ben Udell. Links: ------ [1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose('tabor...@primus.ca','','','')
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose('jonalanschm...@gmail.com','','','')
[3] https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-08/msg00341.html
[4] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [5]
http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [6]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose('peirce-L@list.iupui.edu','','','')
[7]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose('l...@list.iupui.edu','','','')
[8] https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
