|
|
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 Second, his widely accepted published books and speaking engagements on Metaphysical Naturalist Philosophy would not be published nor excepted if he was not a well respected qualified scientist and his moderate wealth.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."
Part one is about how science works even when the public thinks it doesn't. Part two will certainly ruffle some feathers by offering a reason- and science-based perspective on issues where political correctness has gone awry. Part three provides some data-driven advice for your health and well-being. Part four looks at human behavior and how we can better navigate our social worlds. In part five we put on our skeptical goggles and critically examine a few commonly-held beliefs. In the final section, we look at a few ways how we all can make the world a better place.
* 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 Second, his widely accepted published books and speaking engagements on Metaphysical Naturalist Philosophy would not be published nor excepted if he was not a well respected qualified scientist and his moderate wealth.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 |
|
| |