List: On the contrary, the key point in this discussion is to acknowledge that Peirce *does not* "define 'god' as [merely] Mind" nor "the universe as a vast self-organized process of Mind." Instead, he explicitly defines "God" as *Ens necessarium*, "Really creator of all three Universes of Experience" (CP 6.452, EP 2:434, 1908); "that which would Really be in any possible state of things whatever ... the author and creator of all that could ever be observed of Ideas [1ns], Occurrences [2ns], or *Logoi* [3ns]" (R 339:[295r], 1908 Aug 28); "Who, out of Nothing, less than a blank, is creating all three Universes of experience. I do *not *mean, then, a 'soul of the World' or an intelligence is 'immanent' in Nature, but is the Creator of the three Universes of minds, of matter, and of ideal possibilities, and of everything in them" (R 843, 1908). He also considers his "Neglected Argument" to be quite conclusive for establishing the reality of God (so defined).
CSP: As for ... the presupposition of God’s Reality, most of the usually current Arguments in its favour are Logically Valid, as Probable Arguments, however weak some of them are; and the host of Nominalists who deny this are, upon this and much else, led far astray from sound Logic, chiefly by their false Metaphysics. The most *powerful *of the proofs of His Being is that the sincere inquirer, (who will first have been freed from Nominalism, so as no longer to confound the assertion of God’s Reality, with the proposition that God Exists, since this, being a contradiction *in terminis*, will not receive five minutes’ consideration from any clear-headed person,)--if he meditates well upon God’s Reality considered as a mere hypothesis,--and until he has done this, he is unfit to judge of it,--will, as a fact, find himself utterly incapable of doubting it, which is more than a *Proof *of it to him;--it is a *Rational Compulsion*. (SWS:282-283, 1909 Nov 7) Even more controversially, he goes on to assert that "all Atheists are Nominalists" and then states, "It may, therefore, truly be said that each of us believes in God, and that the only quest is how to believe less crudely" (SWS:283). Anyone may certainly *disagree *with Peirce on these matters--after all, he would be the first to insist that his beliefs were entirely fallible, just like everyone else's--but no one can credibly ascribe *contradictory *views to him, e.g., by claiming to have a different "reading" of his own words. Of course, I happen to *agree *with Peirce that "logic requires us to postulate of any given phenomenon, that it is capable of rational explanation," including "the co-reality of the three universes" that encompass "all the phenomena there are" (R 339:[293r&295r], 1908 Aug 28), instead of treating them as somehow coming into being on their own from absolutely nothing (self-creation) or otherwise inexplicable. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, Sep 4, 2024 at 11:11 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > List > > I think the key point in this discussion is to acknowledge that a belief > in theism [ and its various types] or atheism, or pantheism or panentheism, > remains, always - a belief. That is, it is, as a conclusion about the > world, outside the realm of fallibility, of empirical evidence, …and > remains, therefore, strictly an intellectual construct. > > One can set up logical arguments and so on - all the cosmological, > ontological, design, causal and so on - but, it remains, always: a belief. > Which means - you either believe it or you don’t. Logical arguments may be > valid in their format, but if their premises are unsound and fallacious, > then..the argument no matter how logical- is empty! > > Therefore - I’m not sure that one can conclude that any belief is ‘better > than’ another. The key problem occurs when the individual belief is moved > into a communal requirement - ie - when it becomes politicized and remade > as, not a belief, but a FACT!. And becomes a social requirement! We see > this in all fundamentalisms - whether it be the medieval Christian Church > with its vicious heresies or Islam, with its equally vicious attacks on > infidels. > > I consider that Peirce defines ‘god’ as Mind’, and the universe as a vast > self-organized process of Mind, within the operation of the three > categories and the semiosic triad. I’m not going to fill this post with > quotations - since this analysis is, I feel, found all throughout Peirce’s > work. Others may disagree - but again - I stress that any belief in God - > and above all - a definition and description of the attributes of god - has > to be, not fact, but belief…and therefore, beyond conclusive argument. It > remains, always, a discussion….perhaps..an ‘endless discussion’..since > there cannot be a single conclusion. > > Edwina >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► 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 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.
