List: Everyone reading along has seen for themselves what Peirce said in his own words about the reality and necessity of God as creator of all three universes. At this point, I am content to leave it at that.
Regards, Jon On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 6:20 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > List, JAS > > And I continue to disagree with you, JAS, that the key point of this > discussion is NOT how YOU understand Peirce’s outline of the emergence of > the universe; and its operative functioning, nor the use of the term ‘god’ > - but how each one of us understands Peirce’s outline of the above. And - I > disagree with your interpretation which is a classic theist one. And I > find my explanation to be well documented in Peirce’s writings. I’m not > going to repeat the quotations or paragraphs since I’ve already given them > in previous posts. > > I think it’s very important to understand, also, that a belief in any > ‘ism’ - such as theism, deism, pantheism, panentheism and atheism - > are beliefs . Not facts. And therefore - are held by any one of the three > ‘fixations of belief’ - authority, tenacity, a priori- but most certainly, > are not open to the scientific method. > > That includes Peirce’s outline of the emergence of the universe from > Nothing, of the emergence of the three modal organizing principles of 1ns, > 2ns, 3ns, of the functioning of the triadic semiosic process; of the role > of Mind-as-Matter….etc. All of this - can be found in Peirce’s writings. > > The question then turns to one where one must ask: Can Peirce’s outline of > the ermgence of the universe from nothing, of the reality of the modal > actions of chance, creation andn continuity - can these be examined > scientifically? I think : Yes.. Can the triadic process be > examined scientifically? Yes. What about Mind-as-Matter? I think- yes. I > think the advances in quantum physics, in biology and in complex adaptive > systems are areas where these Peircean explanations can logically and > functionally be used. > > JAS - Can your understanding of God - which I do not find in Peirce - be > examined scientifically? I don’t think so, and therefore - I feel it is > your belief - and I stay out of such discussion. I only comment when I > feel that you insist that YOUR interpretation of Peirce leads you to > declare that your interpretation is the only correct one. > > As for ‘atheism’ - and Peirce’s definition it as nominalism, I would agree > with him that in most cases, atheism is indeed nominalist in that it > rejects the reality of generals.. But- my atheism - merely rejects an > agential a priori metaphysical authority [ defined as god] but I certainly > don’t reject the formative authority of the generals of 3ns, or the > productive results of chance, or the immediate effects of reaction. So- > trying to equate that nominalist definition of atheism with mine- [why did > you do this?]..doesn’t work. > > Edwina > > On Sep 5, 2024, at 6:08 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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 > <http://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.
