By human behavior I mean that Peirce applied the pragmatic maxim to the meaning of God. He also used St. John's synonym God is love. So you can substitute the term, love, for God and shape behavior accordingly. I'd keep this love term in mind if you read the additiment, which I recommend. It is a topic all it's own. Also, it fits into levels 4 & 5 of his ethical classes of motives.
On Wed, Sep 8, 2021, 4:02 PM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Phyllis, list > > Yes - I agree; Peirce wasn't focused on the sociological aspect of 'god', > but the term, as used among human behaviour, IS focused around the > sociological aspects. > > I don't, however, see that his outline of god was on the conduct of human > behaviour - but on the role of Mind and Reason in the natural world - and > in human understanding of our world. > > Edwina > > > > On Wed 08/09/21 6:57 PM , Phyllis Chiasson > phyllis.marie.chias...@gmail.com sent: > > As I recall, Peirce said nothing about worship, devotion or heaven or > hell. His take on God was based on the conduct of human behavior. > > On Wed, Sep 8, 2021, 3:50 PM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > >> 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 >> topeirc...@list.iupui.edu [6] . >> ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but tol...@list.iupui.edu >> [7] with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE >> of the message and nothing in the body. More >> athttps://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. >> > >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
