It will be interesting to see if this attracts any comments on the Templeton Foundation's "Big Questions" site. I know that I noted that I'd post again around May 15, but this condenses Peirce's idea better than my previous post on this argument. I'll be reading through background info on this argument in the meantime. I will post further "conversation" on this topic, if it arises. Otherwise, posts will resume by 5/15.
RE: Whole Series
From C.S. Peirce's point of view, science confirms the God hypothesis. If we entertain the idea that an analogue of mind is suggested by the universe, the only way to test the hypothesis is to investigate the world in a way that sees to what extent it does conform to human understanding. Thus, the ongoing march of science is the basis for belief in God.
But Peirce was careful to separate the reality of God from an understanding of God that supposes God's "[reacting] with other like things in the environment," which he called "fetishism" ("A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God"). If so, neither can the kind of understanding science provides undermine Peirce's God hypothesis.
Peirce begins with a simple analogy that suggests the reality of God; the operation of science confirms it in the only possible way; and yet the analogy cannot be critiqued by science without implying "fetishism." This fine little conundrum deserves a name: how about "Peirce's Pretty Pickle"?