Do you have a link for a chart comparing the current survey results with results in the past?

I'm thinking that a lot of theists would be drawn to philosophy as a career due to it's elastic nature, more easy to corrupt then science based subjects.
Just a hunch.

Most philosophers, and most philosophy students, are atheists. That is the opposite of the general population in the U.S.

(September 11, 2015 at 4:34 pm)Little lunch Wrote: I'm thinking that a lot of theists would be drawn to philosophy as a career due to it's elastic nature, more easy to corrupt then science based subjects.
Just a hunch.

Philosophy is about asking why. The exact opposite of what theists are drawn to.

(September 11, 2015 at 5:23 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

(September 11, 2015 at 4:34 pm)Little lunch Wrote: I'm thinking that a lot of theists would be drawn to philosophy as a career due to it's elastic nature, more easy to corrupt then science based subjects.
Just a hunch.

Philosophy is about asking why.  The exact opposite of what theists are drawn to.

It can be. It can also be about obtuse ways of justifying your views. Probably the appeal to theists.

(September 11, 2015 at 4:26 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: Do you have a link for a chart comparing the current survey results with results in the past?

I do not.

(September 11, 2015 at 7:56 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I don't know, man, I'd read between the lines a little, because I see in her the mark of the establishment.  The truth is that to more easily gain access toward higher positions, you are going to have to agree with your seniors and to tow the party line as it were.  Unless you are capable as an undergrad of writing a paper so startlingly unique that it gains a lot of notice, you are stuck sucking your way up to the top like everyone else.  The elders of philosophy have clearly sided with compatibilism to the point that it's "obvious," and will crow "show me the evidence" in response to idealism or other views, ignoring the deeper philosophical issues.

Well, it's certainly much more difficult to establish that reality consists of something above and beyond the sum of our experiences - after they've been subjected to sober reflection - but philosophers like David Chalmers, who will probably go down as one of the greats of our time, demonstrate that one can carve out their own place with innovative ways of thinking about difficult problems. I don't quite know what evidence you have to suggest that university encourages groupthink rather than challenging individuals to examine the evidence of their senses and reasonings that impel them towards certain positions... seems to me to be kind of a plea for a point of view that hasn't got much room to stand on its own.

(September 12, 2015 at 12:00 am)Nestor Wrote:

(September 11, 2015 at 7:56 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I don't know, man, I'd read between the lines a little, because I see in her the mark of the establishment.  The truth is that to more easily gain access toward higher positions, you are going to have to agree with your seniors and to tow the party line as it were.  Unless you are capable as an undergrad of writing a paper so startlingly unique that it gains a lot of notice, you are stuck sucking your way up to the top like everyone else.  The elders of philosophy have clearly sided with compatibilism to the point that it's "obvious," and will crow "show me the evidence" in response to idealism or other views, ignoring the deeper philosophical issues.

Well, it's certainly much more difficult to establish that reality consists of something above and beyond the sum of our experiences -  after they've been subjected to sober reflection - but philosophers like David Chalmers, who will probably go down as one of the greats of our time, demonstrate that one can carve out their own place with innovative ways of thinking about difficult problems. I don't quite know what evidence you have to suggest that university encourages groupthink rather than challenging individuals to examine the evidence of their senses and reasonings that impel them towards certain positions... seems to me to be kind of a plea for a point of view that hasn't got much room to stand on its own.

Let me ask a simple question.  If the vast majority of high-level philosophers all agree with each other on most of the salient points of their world view. . . is any philosophy still being done at all?  I'd say the true philosopher must be, almost by definition, outside of the majority, since it is exactly the willingness to challenge those views most entrenched that gives philosophy its value.

It also seems to me that physical monists in an academic setting base that confidence on the commonality of their assumptions, rather than on the necessity of their conclusions. But this is not so much evidence for truth as evidence for minds too lazy to push the envelope in seeking it.