Grice's God

Speranza

 The link

http://russell.mcmaster.ca/cpbr11p69.pdf

also points to Plato who uses

"ho theos"

which I would translate, _literally_ as 'the god''. In Latin, plain "deus" 
should do, as per Pliny, cited below, in connection with the Jupiter and
the  thunderbolts).

Russell, and Grice, were interested in logical variants for such locutions 
as

"some" ("at least one") -- (Ex)

and

"the" (iota operator, (ix))

And all this seems to be implicated by Russell's ingenious question:

"E! God?"

(read "E shriek God?")

-- the full utterance
“Yes. Before end Feb. E! God?”

which Edith Russell notes was Russell's answer to Stanley Jackson, the 
assistant editor of "Illustrated", as to Jackson's question whether Russell 
would contribute an essay to the planned 'theological' series in that 
magazine.

Now, as Seidl notes, "God" may be correlated to what Grice (in the section 
on "Names and Descriptions" in Vacuous Names, repr. in the "Definite 
Descriptions" compilation, MIT) and Evans ("Varieties of Reference") calls a

'dossier'

-- Grice uses "δ" -- the God [Jupiter?] strikes a lightning, for example, 
to use Seidl's illustration -- and Pliny's (N.H., on 'god', Book II, in the 
first fragment cited below).

In a conversation between A and B (say Dr. and Mrs. Hawking) there may (but
then again there may not) be some overlap of some description that matches
their  use of

"God"

Mrs. Hawkings: "I'm C. of E.," says Mrs. Hawking. And later in "The theory 
of everything" [*NOW PLAYING*]

Mrs Hawkings: "But this sentence of yours, "we shall understand the mind of
God" -- grants his existence, doesn't it?"

(paraphrased).


Bertrand Russell: "Is there a God?" [1952] is published in The  Collected
Papers of Bertrand Russell, volume 11: Last Philosophical Testament,  1943–
68.

The paper Russell hoped to see published in his lifetime, but never did. 
Seidl goes on:

"Russell notes the title of his paper as (citation from the editor's 
introduction)"

"E! God?"

"(“E!”, which he read “E shriek”, was part of the notation for “unique 
existence” in Principia Mathematica (*14.02).)"

Indeed, with *14 starts the discussion of _descriptions_, and  14.02
defining uniqueness as symbolised by the iota operator, paraphrased by  'the'.

The existential quantifier simpliciter is best rephrased by Grice as  "some
(at least one)", while something like the iota operator gets best 
rephrased as "the". In "Methods of Logic" (and elsewhere) Quine uses numerical 
quantifiers that relate "(12E) Apostles" -- there are twelve apostles.

(And it was via Quine -- and Strawson's misreadings of Quine -- that got 
Grice working on this -- vide Strawson, "Introduction" to "Philosophical
Logic",  Oxford Readings in Philosophy, citing Quine and Grice).

The question, for Russell (as motivated by the editor of "Illustrated" who 
commissioned the thing from him, but never cared to publish) is, then:

"Is there a God?"

"E! God?"

The question PRESUPPOSES, implicates, or entails that the proposition 
behind it

E! God

if not given _true_ as such (otherwise, what would the _point_ of the 
question be) is what Russell would call a "wff", a well-formed formula -- in 
some semi-formal system, and I see why it shouldn't. For Kant, perhaps it 
shouldn't, since for him, 'existence' was NOT a predicate. Now Russell's 
question, behind the

"E! God"

can be paraphrased not just as

"Is there a God?"

but as

"Is there ONE God?"

with something like a Quinean 'numerical quantifier' in mind, with the 
proposition to prove being, "There is ONE God". Monotheism, that is, and the 
attending proof for the existence of ONE god.

Russell, who wrote a History of Western Philosophy, notes in  that essay
that philosophical monotheism starts with Plato (as opposed  to religious
monotheism, which is a different animal).

There are two references to Plato by Russell in "Is there a God?".

The first as the originator of monotheism.

The second, as the originator of a specific conception of God (or  'the
god', 'ho theos', as Plato prefers) as not necessarily omnipotent, if my 
reading of Russell is correct.

The citation is not given by Russell, but by his editor. On p. 768, a 
reference is given to Plato's Timaeus 30a, which I checked.

It reads: Plato:

"παρ᾽ ἀνδρῶν φρονίμων ἀποδεχόμενος ὀρθότατα ἀποδέχοιτ᾽ ἄν.  βουληθεὶς γὰρ ὁ θεὸς ἀγαθὰ μὲν πάντα, φλαῦρον δὲ μηδὲν εἶναι κατὰ δύναμιν, οὕτω  δὴ πᾶν ὅσον ἦν ὁρατὸν παραλαβὼν οὐχ ἡσυχίαν ἄγον ἀλλὰ κινούμενον πλημμελῶς καὶ  ἀτάκτως, εἰς τάξιν αὐτὸ ἤγαγεν ἐκ τῆς ἀταξίας, ἡγησάμενος ἐκεῖνο τούτου πάντως  ἄμεινον. θέμις δ᾽ οὔτ᾽ ἦν οὔτ᾽ ἔστιν τῷ ἀρίστῳ δρᾶν ἄλλο πλὴν τὸ  κάλλιστον."

Note first the use of "ho theos" -- the God, versus "some" God (or other --
the Greeks had quite a few -- a whole 'pan-theon'), "a God", and the more 
correct "one God".

Russell's first reference to Plato concerns Plato's philosophical 
monotheism (as having predated Jewish monotheism, if I read Russell aright), but  no
specific citation is given.

This second reference, with the citation provided by Russell's editor, 
rather, expands a stronger argument pursued by Plato, aimed, to use Russell's 
wording, to a view that "the god" ("ho theos") is not omnipotent, but 
merely

"doing his best"

even

"in spite of great difficulties", to use Rusell's colloquial idiom (which 
pervades throughout the essay).

And Russell brings in Plato just to prove that this idea is hardly  "new in
the history of thought", since Plato had held it some _time_  ago! Now, the
English translation for Timaeus 30a, referred to by the  editor of
Russell's "Is there a God?" runs:

[30a] For God [Greek "ho theos"] desired that, so far as possible, all 
things should be good and nothing evil; wherefore, when He took over all that 
was visible, seeing that it was not in a state of rest but in a state of 
discordant and disorderly motion, He brought it into order out of disorder, 
deeming that the former state is in all ways better than the latter. For Him
who  is most good it neither was nor is permissible to perform any action
save what  is most fair. As He reflected, therefore, He perceived that of such
creatures as  are by nature visible...

A more line-by-line rendition should  go more or less like:
βουληθεὶς ------ desired
γὰρ  --------------  thus
ὁ θεὸς ------------- God
ἀγαθὰ μὲν πάντα ------ on the one hand, good  all
φλαῦρον δὲ μηδὲν εἶναι ----- on the other hand, bad nothing  be.
κατὰ δύναμιν οὕτω δὴ πᾶν ὅσον ἦν ὁρατὸν παραλαβὼν  οὐχ
  ἡσυχίαν ἄγον ἀλλὰ κινούμενον πλημμελῶς
καὶ ἀτάκτως εἰς τάξιν αὐτὸ ἤγαγεν ἐκ  τῆς ἀταξίας
ἡγησάμενος ἐκεῖνο τούτου πάντως  ἄμεινον. θέμις δ᾽ οὔτ᾽ ἦν
  οὔτ᾽ ἔστιν τῷ ἀρίστῳ δρᾶν ἄλλο πλὴν τὸ κάλλιστον.

"For God desired that, so far as possible,
all things should be good  and nothing evil.
Wherefore, when God took over all that was visible,
seeing that it was  NOT in a state of [perfect] *rest*
but in a state of discordant and  disorderly motion,
God brought it into

*order* [TAXIS]

out of _disorder_, deeming that the former state [TAXIS] is in *all*  ways
_better_ than the latter.  For God, who is most good, it neither  was  nor
is permissible to perform any action
save what is most fair  [KALLISTON, most beautiful]. 

For the record the reference to Pliny uses 'deus' simpliciter (I use the 
Loeb English translation): "I deem it a mark of human weakness to seek to 
discover the shape and form of God." "others cheat in the very Capitol and
swear  false oaths by Jupiter who wields the thunderbolts" ["alii in Capitolio
fallunt  ac fulminantem periurant Iovem"]" (*).

Finally, the reference to Whitehead's and Russell's Principia Mathematica, 
given by the editor to Russell's "Is there a God?", happens for the record 
to have been selected by Wikipedia!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica

✸14:  Descriptions:

"A description is
a phrase of the form

"the term y which satisfies φŷ,"

where φŷ is some function satisfied by

ONE AND ONLY ONE

argument."

Wikipedia notes:

"[Whitehead's and  Russell's] original typography [in Principia
Mathematica] employs an "x" with a  circumflex rather than "ŷ". This continues below.)

From this, Principia Mathematica" employs two new symbols, a forward  "E"
and an inverted iota "ɿ".

And it is this more specific within *14 that the editor to Russell's "Is 
there a God?" gives:

"Here is an example", Wikipedia notes, which is precisely the  proposition
cited by the editor:

✸14.02. E ! ( ɿy) (φy) .=: ( Ǝb):φy . ≡y . y = b Df.

This has the meaning:

"The y satisfying φŷ exists."

which holds when, and ONLY when "φŷ" is satisfied by ONE value of "y" and 
by no other value."

(PM 1967 edition, pp. 173–174). And which is given as a  'definition' in
terms of "=".

* For the record, Pliny concludes that section by providing HIS  own
'dossier' for 'God' as it were:

God = the power of Nature

deus = naturae potentia

("God cannot cause twice ten not to be twenty, or do many things on similar
lines: which facts unquestionably demonstrate the power of NATURE" --
well, he  is writing what he calls "Historia Naturalis" -- "and proves that it
is THIS  [the power of nature, "naturae potentia"] that we mean by the word
'God'."  [deus] "ut bis dena viginti non sint aut multa similiter efficere
non posse: per  quae declaratur haut dubie naturae potentia, idque esse quod
deum  vocemus.")

Further references:

Grice, H. P. "Names and descriptions", a section of his "Vacuous Names", 
repr. in Ostertag, "Definite descriptions", MIT -- Grice remarks on various 
readings of (Ex) occurring in a previous section.
Grice, H. P. "Aristotle on the multiplicity of being".
Grice, H. P. "Definite descriptions in Russell and in the vernacular".