東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

C. S. Peirce's "A Neglected Argument...

Rohr, David Anthony.

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

C. S. Peirce's "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God": A Critical and Constructive Interpretation.

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	C. S. Peirce's "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God": A Critical and Constructive Interpretation./
作者:	Rohr, David Anthony.
出版者:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2020,
面頁冊數:	414 p.
附註:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 82-05, Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International82-05A.
標題:	Philosophy of science. -
電子資源:	https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=27833425
ISBN:	9798691227547

C. S. Peirce's "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God": A Critical and Constructive Interpretation.
Rohr, David Anthony.

C. S. Peirce's "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God": A Critical and Constructive Interpretation. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2020 - 414 p.

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 82-05, Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Boston University, 2020.

This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.

This dissertation provides a critical and constructive interpretation of "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God" [NA], the sole primarily theological essay written by the logician, scientist, and philosopher C. S. Peirce (1839-1914). Despite recent scholarly attention, NA has confused its readers from its publication in 1908 until today. This dissertation interprets NA in light of: (a) Peirce's philosophy of science and his theory of signs (semeiotic); and (b) a close reading of the published essays and unpublished manuscripts Peirce composed during the decade before NA's publication and the six years he lived post-publication. These primary materials suggest that the key to understanding the so-called humble argument at the heart of NA is Peirce's conviction that the universe is a divine sign. The humble argument is a recommendation that one make musement, or the playful contemplation of the universe, a daily habit. Since Peirce believed that the universe is a divine sign, he predicted that anyone who mused for forty to fifty minutes daily would eventually come to believe in God's reality. Peirce describes the humble argument as the innermost of three nested arguments, the latter two defending the reasonableness of the humble argument. The second argument, which Peirce accuses theologians of neglecting, appeals to the instinctiveness of the idea that God is real as evidence of the truth of that idea. As stated, that argument is flawed, but it can be reformulated as an empirical prediction that intelligent extraterrestrial lifeforms will tend to develop conceptions of God or Ultimate Reality. The third argument defends the reasonableness of the humble argument by construing the idea of God as arising, like scientific hypotheses, through abductive inference. Contra Peirce, this dissertation argues that, although analogous to certain abstractions that play important roles in science, the idea of God is not a valid scientific hypothesis because it entails no testable predictions. Given this lack of testable consequences, Peirce's pragmatic defense of the meaningfulness of the idea of God is inconsistent with his pragmaticism, having more in common with William James's individualistic interpretation of pragmatism, which Peirce had previously opposed.

ISBN: 9798691227547Subjects--Topical Terms:

2079849
Philosophy of science.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Abduction

C. S. Peirce's "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God": A Critical and Constructive Interpretation.
LDR:03489nmm a2200385 4500 001 2280380
005 20210827095936.5
008 220723s2020 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9798691227547
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI27833425
035 $a AAI27833425
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Rohr, David Anthony. $0 (orcid)0000-0001-8625-3866 $3 3558894
245 1 0 $a C. S. Peirce's "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God": A Critical and Constructive Interpretation.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2020
300 $a 414 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 82-05, Section: A.
500 $a Advisor: Wildman, Wesley J.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--Boston University, 2020.
506 $a This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.
520 $a This dissertation provides a critical and constructive interpretation of "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God" [NA], the sole primarily theological essay written by the logician, scientist, and philosopher C. S. Peirce (1839-1914). Despite recent scholarly attention, NA has confused its readers from its publication in 1908 until today. This dissertation interprets NA in light of: (a) Peirce's philosophy of science and his theory of signs (semeiotic); and (b) a close reading of the published essays and unpublished manuscripts Peirce composed during the decade before NA's publication and the six years he lived post-publication. These primary materials suggest that the key to understanding the so-called humble argument at the heart of NA is Peirce's conviction that the universe is a divine sign. The humble argument is a recommendation that one make musement, or the playful contemplation of the universe, a daily habit. Since Peirce believed that the universe is a divine sign, he predicted that anyone who mused for forty to fifty minutes daily would eventually come to believe in God's reality. Peirce describes the humble argument as the innermost of three nested arguments, the latter two defending the reasonableness of the humble argument. The second argument, which Peirce accuses theologians of neglecting, appeals to the instinctiveness of the idea that God is real as evidence of the truth of that idea. As stated, that argument is flawed, but it can be reformulated as an empirical prediction that intelligent extraterrestrial lifeforms will tend to develop conceptions of God or Ultimate Reality. The third argument defends the reasonableness of the humble argument by construing the idea of God as arising, like scientific hypotheses, through abductive inference. Contra Peirce, this dissertation argues that, although analogous to certain abstractions that play important roles in science, the idea of God is not a valid scientific hypothesis because it entails no testable predictions. Given this lack of testable consequences, Peirce's pragmatic defense of the meaningfulness of the idea of God is inconsistent with his pragmaticism, having more in common with William James's individualistic interpretation of pragmatism, which Peirce had previously opposed.
590 $a School code: 0017.
650 4 $a Philosophy of science. $2 bicssc $3 2079849
650 4 $a Theology. $3 516533
650 4 $a Religion. $3 516493
653 $a Abduction
653 $a C. S. Peirce
653 $a Humble argument
653 $a Pragmaticism
653 $a Semeiotic
653 $a William James
690 $a 0322
690 $a 0402
690 $a 0469
710 2 $a Boston University. $b Religious Studies GRS. $3 3194892
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 82-05A.
790 $a 0017
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2020
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=27833425