Talk:Argument from degree

Philosophy: Logic / Religion Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic
	Philosophy of religion

Other than Dawkins?[edit]

I think a more qualified rebuttal is needed. Dawkins is a biologist, not a "philosopher," i.e., we know he's critical of religion and that he's popular, but that's like using a comment from the Jonas Brothers to argue that pop rock is greater than metal. If we can find something from someone more qualified to make a rebuttal, it would improve the article drastically. Dawkins' comments are nothing new really, and aren't really much of a reply. Jean-Paul Sartre or (early) Antony Flew, for instance? 98.198.83.12 (talk) 08:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Qualification" is a very POV thing in this business. In a lot of senses it's just metaphysical punditry. Peter Deer (talk) 14:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page is problematic to say the least. Aquinas was not the first to use this kind of argument - see for example Anselm's Monologion. It has a long tradition in Platonic and Augustinian thought. The so-called syllogistic version of Aquinas' argument is neither a syllogism nor Aquinas' argument and ought to be removed. The use of the argument from Dawkins, who as has already been said, is no philosopher, further undermines the credibility of this page. The first consideration, before tightening up the rebuttal, should be to provide an accurate account of such arguments.Anselmus Oxoniensis (talk) 08:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is saying a more qualified rebuttal is needed a BAD thing? It's not POV, it's common sense. When reading the page from a philisophical view, you can't help but laugh at Dawkin's reply. There is a plethora of philosophers MUCH more qualified to give a MUCH better response than Dawkins. Sartre being one of them. His reply undermines the page (as noted above) and provides no real argument, making the page read as though it's making fun of Dawkins rather than trying to provide a real argument. 64.234.0.101 (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Argument from degree. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070220225324/http://www.regent.edu:80/acad/schcom/phd/com707/aquinas.html to http://www.regent.edu/acad/schcom/phd/com707/aquinas.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal[edit]

It's pretty obvious this page needs a rebuttal section. The one that was there seemed quite plausible and the arguements for removing it weak William M. Connolley (talk) 10:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]