As a scientist, I appreciate your rigorous look at the 'Expertise' factor. The fact that specialists in Philosophy of Religion—those most familiar with the actual arguments—lean toward theism (69.5%) completely flips the narrative. It’s a classic case of why we must look at the 'AOS' (Area of Specialization) rather than just the generalist consensus. A brilliant breakdown of selection effects!
Great piece--thanks for posting it. To build on your point about the likelihood of first exposure to philosophy being hostile to the rationality of religious belief: it is rather shocking how bad/error-ridden the presentations of classical theistic arguments are in mainstream philosophy textbooks. For many (if not most) university students, these textbooks will be their only sustained exposure to the philosophy of religion. Something to consider.
Another selection effect issue is that theists who are philosophically minded might select more into theological studies which may not always show up in this sort of surveys.
Good article and I agree “most philosophers are atheists” is basically meaningless but it’s actually surprising to me that 30% of philosophers of RELIGION are atheists. I would have predicted like 10% or something
Another limitation of the PhilPapers surveys is that it doesn't tell us what God means. Vast disagreement on what God means may undermine vast agreement that God exists.
Grossly lacking in philosophy is consideration for those of us who are neither theist nor materialist. We would welcome being offered our own origin story, an alternative to both creationism and physicalism. I've a suggestion. It's secular, but can also explain how mind could evolve. More at https://x.com/evolvedself. Is anyone else working on this?
I don’t know what sort of “consideration” you’re after here, but there are plenty of philosophers who aren’t either theists or materialists. That’s quite common.
As a scientist, I appreciate your rigorous look at the 'Expertise' factor. The fact that specialists in Philosophy of Religion—those most familiar with the actual arguments—lean toward theism (69.5%) completely flips the narrative. It’s a classic case of why we must look at the 'AOS' (Area of Specialization) rather than just the generalist consensus. A brilliant breakdown of selection effects!
Great piece--thanks for posting it. To build on your point about the likelihood of first exposure to philosophy being hostile to the rationality of religious belief: it is rather shocking how bad/error-ridden the presentations of classical theistic arguments are in mainstream philosophy textbooks. For many (if not most) university students, these textbooks will be their only sustained exposure to the philosophy of religion. Something to consider.
Another selection effect issue is that theists who are philosophically minded might select more into theological studies which may not always show up in this sort of surveys.
Great article. Thanks for sharing.
Good article and I agree “most philosophers are atheists” is basically meaningless but it’s actually surprising to me that 30% of philosophers of RELIGION are atheists. I would have predicted like 10% or something
Another limitation of the PhilPapers surveys is that it doesn't tell us what God means. Vast disagreement on what God means may undermine vast agreement that God exists.
Grossly lacking in philosophy is consideration for those of us who are neither theist nor materialist. We would welcome being offered our own origin story, an alternative to both creationism and physicalism. I've a suggestion. It's secular, but can also explain how mind could evolve. More at https://x.com/evolvedself. Is anyone else working on this?
I don’t know what sort of “consideration” you’re after here, but there are plenty of philosophers who aren’t either theists or materialists. That’s quite common.
Sorry, my bad judgment.