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

Objections to Charles Peirce's Article, A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God ABSTRACT: Charles S. Peirce sketches "a nest of three arguments for the Reality of God" in his article "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God." I provide careful analysis and explication of Peirce's argument, along with consideration of some objections. I argue that (1) there are significant differences between Peirce's neglected argument and the traditional arguments for God's existence; (2) Peirce's 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 Peirce's argument and his interpretation of it along with a consideration of some objections. I shall argue: (1) that there are significant differences between Peirce's neglected argument and the traditional arguments for God's existence; (2) that Peirce's 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 follow Karl Barth. s interpretation of Anselm. s ontological argument, then the prayerful context in which Anselm offers his argument gives it a more religious cast. However, whatever similarities may exist I think it vital to recognize the differences otherwise one 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 cry out for some explanation. (6) C.F. Delany, "Peirce on the Hypothesis of God," op. cit., p. 735. (7) Donna Orange, Peirce's Conception of God. op. cit., p. 86. (8) Michael L. Raposa, Peirce's Philosophy of Religion. op. cit., p. 128. (9) John E. Smith, "The Tension Between Direct Experience and Argument in Religion." op. cit., p. 497.