Verecundiam, Argumentum, Ad/To My Friend In Regard To C.S. Lewis
Preface
May 6 2016 updated August 29 2023 for an entry on academia.edu
Photo features 'Bob Ross' 'cheater trees', covered by 'pollution', August 27, 2023, Port Moody, British Columbia
Verecundiam, Argumentum, Ad
A Facebook discussion: May 2016
A Facebook friend and I were at one time discussing C.S. Lewis as a writer. My friend was defending Lewis as a fiction writer, which I can view as reasonable. There was no disagreement on that issue.
My friend was offended that I did not particularly embrace the non-fiction theological and philosophical writings of C.S. Lewis. In particular his writings on the problem of evil and the nature of God, as these are areas of my academic expertise through academic degrees and website work. I am not whatsoever, claiming to be a C.S. Lewis scholar or a scholar in regard to his fictional works. I do agree with Lewis on several theological and philosophical points.
I am not stating I cannot learn from the writings of C.S. Lewis in regard to theology and philosophy. There are many writers and speakers I can learn from. However, C.S. Lewis is not primarily an authority I would appeal to, which I very much realize is contrary to many evangelical, North American pastors and church attenders.
My friend opined (paraphrased) that appealing to academic sources such as myself in regard to theology and philosophy of religion and differing in any negative way from the theological and philosophical work of C.S.Lewis was fallacious. As in the fallacy, 'Verecundiam, Argumentum, Ad', my friend indicated.
My friend also stated that some in the 'New Age' have doctorates and are not authorities. I stated that I was not academically and intellectually defending all of the views of those with doctorates. Far from it, if a person actually regularly reads my articles posted on my sites; I am not a supporter of views primarily, at least, based on the fact a source has a doctorate or not.
Again, the review of the Pirie text:
My friend opined (paraphrased) that appealing to academic sources such as myself in regard to theology and philosophy of religion and differing in any negative way from the theological and philosophical work of C.S.Lewis was fallacious. As in the fallacy, 'Verecundiam, Argumentum, Ad', my friend indicated.
My friend also stated that some in the 'New Age' have doctorates and are not authorities. I stated that I was not academically and intellectually defending all of the views of those with doctorates. Far from it, if a person actually regularly reads my articles posted on my sites; I am not a supporter of views primarily, at least, based on the fact a source has a doctorate or not.
Again, the review of the Pirie text:
(As a different friend told me on the phone one time, 'It is like you have three jobs.')
Pirie and Blackburn
Pirie explains that Verecundiam, Argumentum, Ad is an appeal to false authority. (210).
Pirie and Blackburn
Pirie explains that Verecundiam, Argumentum, Ad is an appeal to false authority. (210).
Here is a key, quote
'...it is a fallacy to suppose that an expert in one field can lend support in another. Unless one has special expertise, he is a false authority' (210).
Blackburn agrees basically with Pirie and my view:
'ad verecundiam appealing to an authority outside its legitimate area'. (24).
'ad verecundiam appealing to an authority outside its legitimate area'. (24).
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Cited
'The ad verecundiam fallacy concerns appeals to authority or expertise. Fundamentally, the fallacy involves accepting as evidence for a proposition the pronouncement of someone who is taken to be an authority but is not really an authority. This can happen when non-experts parade as experts in fields in which they have no special competence—when, for example, celebrities endorse commercial products or social movements. Similarly, when there is controversy, and authorities are divided, it is an error to base one’s view on the authority of just some of them.' (End citation)
My perspective
C.S. Lewis was a Christian apologist and 'pop' popular theology writer on some issues.
C.S. Lewis was not an academically trained theologian or philosopher.
C.S. Lewis Wikipedia
Cited
'Clive Staples Lewis, FBA (29 November 1898 – 22 November 1963) was a British writer, literary scholar, and Anglican lay theologian. He held academic positions in English literature at both Oxford University (Magdalen College, 1925–1954) and Cambridge University (Magdalene College, 1954–1963).'
Cited
'A lay theologian is a theologian "who is not ordained, or a theologian who has not been trained as a theologian".[1] Lay theologians often have academic qualifications in other academic disciplines.'
(End citation)
Academic research in theology, philosophy and philosophy of religion, is special expertise. My professional and special expertise and academic training is in theology, philosophy of religion and biblical studies.
More specifically, my professional and special expertise and academic training is in regard to the problem of evil, the nature of God, free will and determinism. I reviewed C.S. Lewis' theological views in regard to problem of evil and the nature of God, within my MPhil thesis.
Academic research in theology, philosophy and philosophy of religion, is special expertise. My professional and special expertise and academic training is in theology, philosophy of religion and biblical studies.
More specifically, my professional and special expertise and academic training is in regard to the problem of evil, the nature of God, free will and determinism. I reviewed C.S. Lewis' theological views in regard to problem of evil and the nature of God, within my MPhil thesis.
Therefore, I commit no fallacy by with at least some expertise, opining on the related theological and philosophical work of C.S. Lewis. Pirie further explains that that fallacy introduces material that has no bearing on the matter under discussion. (211). Such as in my case, with friend, attacking my credentials, because even some people in the 'New Age' have doctorates.
As I did research some C.S. Lewis for my MPhil thesis, I do happen to acknowledge that Lewis is a reasonable source within Christian scholarship. But, he is not personally, one of my key sources. My work is not perfect, and I admit I edit my work. I admit I am finite and sinful, but I am not in error on this issue by using a fallacy or the Verecundiam, Argumentum, Ad, fallacy. At the same time, I am not claiming an infinite understanding of the issue, I am not infinite, obviously!
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.
LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy).
LEWIS, C.S. (1961)(1983) A Grief Observed, London, Faber and Faber. MPhil 2003
LEWIS, C.S. (1941)(1990) The Screwtape Letters, Uhrichsville, Ohio, Barbour and Company. MPhil 2003
LEWIS, C.S. (1940)(1996) The Problem of Pain, San Francisco, Harper-Collins. MPhil 2003
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
STANFORD ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY (2020) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
by
Hans Hansen.
