|
|
The validity of Dawkins' Metaphysical PhilosophyI encountered an interesting appeal to authority in the reverse that I would like a better reference to the nature of this fallacy.
The claim is two fold. First, because Dawkins is a scientist and not a PhD authority as credentialed philosopher, his argument for Metaphysical Naturalism, ie atheism, is flawed or not valid. Second, his widely accepted published books and speaking engagements on Metaphysical Naturalist Philosophy would not be published nor excepted if he was not a well respected qualified scientist and his moderate wealth. |
| asked on Thursday, Nov 03, 2016 12:15:33 PM by Frank | |
Top Categories Suggested by Community |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.
In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
|
First, because Dawkins is a scientist and not a PhD authority as credentialed philosopher, his argument for Metaphysical Naturalism, ie atheism, is flawed or not valid. The inference here is that only PhDs in philosophy can hold a non-flawed or valid argument. This is false. He might be more credible if he had such credentials, but that is all we can say. This is typical ad hominem . Second, his widely accepted published books and speaking engagements on Metaphysical Naturalist Philosophy would not be published nor excepted if he was not a well respected qualified scientist and his moderate wealth. This is just a claim. I doubt wealth has anything to do with getting published (I am wealthy... it never helped me), but reputation can certainly help. Being in the publishing business, I know that publisher's care most about selling books than they do the credentials or even the content of the books. Authors who have a large following are like gold mines for publishers. Regardless, this says nothing about the arguments in the book. Each argument should be addressed on its own merit. |
| answered on Thursday, Nov 03, 2016 02:09:52 PM by Bo Bennett, PhD |
Comments |
|
| |
|
|
Dawkins has never been accused of being valid......lol...
http://www.oxfordtutorials.com/Dawkins%20Debunked%20Summary.htm |
| answered on Friday, Nov 04, 2016 04:30:01 AM by skips777 |
Comments |
|
| |
