List: Again, Peirce's *explicit *definition of God is not "Mind," it is "*Ens necessarium*; in my belief Really creator of all three Universes of Experience" (CP 6.452, EP 2:434, 1908). The very first *hint *that he subsequently gives toward "the pragmaticistic definition of *Ens necessarium*" is that "A disembodied spirit, or pure mind, has its being out of time, since all that it is destined to think is fully in its being at any and every previous time. But in endless time it is destined to think all that it is capable of thinking" (CP 6.490). I already quoted Peirce's earlier description of God as an "analogue of a mind" (CP 6.502, c. 1906), and in a manuscript draft for "A Neglected Argument," he says of God, "I suppose most of our knowledge of Him must be by similitudes. Thus, He is so much like a mind, and so little like a singular Existent ... and so opposed in His Nature to an ideal possibility, that we may loosely say that He is a Spirit, or Mind" (R 843, 1908). In a later manuscript, he adds, "For we must not predicate any Attribute of God otherwise than vaguely and figuratively, since God, though in a sense essentially intelligible, is nevertheless essentially incomprehensible" (SWS:283, 1909).
In short, I inserted "[merely]" when briefly quoting a previous post <https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2024-09/msg00009.html> to which I was replying <https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2024-09/msg00012.html> (not Peirce's own words) to emphasize that for Peirce, "God" is by no means *synonymous *with "Mind," even though there is a sense in which God is "pure mind"--an analogous, loose, vague, and figurative sense. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 7:51 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > JAS, Jeff, Gary R, Helmut, List > > JAS- you wrote: > Moreover, Peirce follows up on the first statement by adding, "Now such > being the pragmaticist's answer to the question what he means by the word > 'God,*' the question whether there really is such a being is the question > whether all physical science is merely the figment--the arbitrary > figment--of the students of nature" (CP 6.503)*. He seems to be saying > that the reality of God is *logically equivalent* to the reliability of > scientific study of the universe. Why? "But whatever there may be of > *argument *in all this is as nothing, the merest nothing, in comparison > to its force as an appeal to one's own instinct, which is to argument what > substance is to shadow, what bed-rock is to the built foundations of a > cathedral" (ibid). Consider, then, his final words in the main text of "A > Neglected Argument for the Reality of God," right before its published > additament that begins by explaining pragmaticism. > > I disagree with your interpretation of the underlined above. You write > that Peirce seems to be saying “that the reality of God is logically > equivalent to the reliability of scientific study of the universe”. You > seem to be saying, if I understand your comment, that the ‘reality of God’ > is equivalent to the reliability of science. We know that Peirce places an > emphasis on the role of empirical scientific analysis - but to me, he > seems to be saying that the physical sciences, which *cannot prove* the > existence or non-existence off God, are NOT arbitrary actions. And > therefore - have no role in this question. > > And Peirce’s answer to the.. meaning of the word ‘God’ - is clear. He > defines it as ‘Mind’. I know you have previously put the word ‘merely’ in > square brackets before Peirce’s reference to Mind, but to Peirce, Mind is a > key, THE key agency in the formation of the universe. I won’t detail his > many references to the role of Mind [ habit formation, Thirdness]. > > As for his references to a belief in God, as a ’natural instinct’, that is > akin to the a priori method of ‘fixing belief’ - based as it is on an > emotional attraction for the idea. But - such a belief is outside of any > scientific examination. BUT, following the pragmatist's definition of God > as ‘Mind’ then, I can accept that it is a ‘natural instinct’ to believe in > the reality of Mind or Reason as an operative force in the universe [a > belief which I accept and consider as amenable to scientific methods of > proof]. > > Whether one instead believes in the notion of an agential God - this, I > consider is outside of any evidence - it becomes a personal choice. The > question then becomes societal - since almost ALL peoples develop some kind > of ‘religious’ ideology - whether it be animism, polytheism, monotheism. As > I have outlined before, I consider that the type of religious ideology is > directly related to population size, which is itself related to economic > mode. But, pragmatically, it is a societal fact, that a belief in > metaphysical agencies is a ’natural instinct’ in mankind. There must be > some psychological and communal need for such a belief. Again - my point is > that it’s not a scientific fact but a psychoglocial fact. > > And of course, I accept that his explanation of the emergence of the > universe from nothing [1.412 and elsewhere; 6.215, 6.262] is scientifically > viable and not in the least illogical, > > 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.
