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.
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? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 08:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)