Objections to Charles Peirces Article, A Neglected Argument for the Re

Objections to Charles Peirces Article, A Neglected Argument for the Reality of divinity epitome Charles S. Peirce sketches a nest of three affirmations for the Reality of God in his bind A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God. I provide metrical outline and explication of Peirces argument, along with consideration of some objections. I argue that (1) thither are hearty differences between Peirces neglected argument and the traditional arguments for Gods initiation (2) Peirces analysis of the neglected argument into three arguments is misleading (3) there are two distinct levels of argument that Peirce does not recognize and (4) it is doubtful whether the argument meets all the criteria set by Peirce himself. Charles S. Peirce published in the Hibbert Journal in 1908 an article titled, A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God. The article sketches what Peirce calls, in a later comment, a nest of three arguments for the Reality of God (6.486). (1) I provide an analysis of Peirces argument and his interpretation of it along with a consideration of some objections. I shall argue(1) that there are significant differences between Peirces neglected argument and the traditional arguments for Gods existence (2) that Peirces own analysis of the neglected argument into three arguments is misleading(3) that there are two distinct levels of argument that Peirce does not acknowledge, and(4) that it is doubtful the argument meets all the criteria Peirce himself establishes.I trust that your response to what I have to say will not mirror the response Michael Raposa reports he received from a prominent American philosophical theologian, when he gave a presentation on this topic that... ... 77-78. Also, if we dramatize Karl Barth. s interpretation of Anselm. s ontological argument, then the prayerful stage setting in which Anselm offers his argument gives it a more religious cast. However, whatever similarities whitethorn exist I think it vital to recognize t he differences otherwise cardinal will expect to find yet another bit of metaphysical argumentation about God and be disappointed at not finding it.(5) It must, however, be admitted that if everyone who mused reached the same conclusion, this rather impressive fact would prognosticate out for some explanation.(6) C.F. Delany, Peirce on the Hypothesis of God, op. cit., p. 735.(7) Donna Orange, Peirces Conception of God. op. cit., p. 86.(8) Michael L. Raposa, Peirces Philosophy of Religion. op. cit., p. 128.(9) magic E. Smith, The Tension Between Direct Experience and Argument in Religion. op. cit., p. 497.