{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02045209903121636, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0016146393972012918, 'mean_word_length': 4.939297124600639, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Neglected Arguments of Peirce’s Neglected Argument: Beyond a Theological Dead-End

T he Neglected Argument for the Reality of God is something of a rorschach test for scholars of Peirce.1 some see a creative presentation of his mature philosophy of inquiry, while others find evidence that Peirce was unable to free himself of his conservative religious milieu. As the editors of The Essential Peirce collection noted: “Whether this paper is an elaboration of or an offense against pragmatism is an unsettled question.”2 The primary import of the essay, i contend, is not to defend god’s reality but rather to highlight continuities between religion and science. in doing so, Peirce aims to show theologians how they might better do their jobs. my aim in this paper is to take Peirce’s advice seriously and to highlight his recommendations for doing theology in an empirical, comparative, and thoroughly fallible manner. This requires that we push past Peirce’s exclusively theistic rhetoric in order to gain a greater appreciation of the indexical qualities of his arguments. his essay, i argue, points competent students of theology and world religions in the direction of multiple sources of robust correction that can sustain the flow of religious inquiry and resist overly determinate theological formulations. in other words, the essay indicates a Peircean program for theology. my first important claim is that a “linear reading” of The Neglected Argument is largely to blame for the schizophrenic appraisals of this essay. Therefore, reading through the lens of the much earlier The Fixation of Belief,3 i offer a linear reading in order to expose its pitfalls. however, this is not a mere rehearsal, for i am making the stronger claim that the linear reading is not only tempting, it is more importantly a dead-end. The second and third sections