Does Deep Thought Lead to God? Here's a Shallow Answer

[Jenny A]

After reading a few posts suggesting that atheism is shallow and deep thought leads to religion I googled "percentage of philosophers who are atheists" on a lark and came up with a survey of philosophers. What Do Philosophers Believe? David Bourget and David J. Chalmers Here's a useful summary with some thoughtful analysis: The Largest-Ever Survey of Philosophers: What Do They Believe? by Luke Muehlhauser

The short answer is :72.8% atheism; 14.6% theism; 12.5% other

The exception is of course philosophers of religion:

"[T]hough theism is unpopular in philosophy in general, it is more popular among philosophers of religion (72.3%) than physicalism is among philosophers of mind (61.2%). Trent Dougherty sees this as a credence-boost for theism, since the experts on the subject of God tend to believe in him. But the obvious reply is that most people aren’t going to do philosophy of religion if they don’t believe in God. There doesn’t seem to be anything about philosophy of mind in general that would show a selection effect for physicalism, but obviously philosophy of religion will show a selection effect for theism." Muehlhauser

But there isn't any correlation between the study of applied ethics and a belief in moral realism.

The correlations between what atheist philosophers believe and specialize in compared to what theist philosophers believe in and specialize in is, at least to my mind, predictable:

"Atheism is most correlated with not being a philosopher of religion, with not identifying with Plato or Aristotle or Kant or Leibniz, with analytic philosophy, with identifying with Hume and Quine, and with specializing in philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, philosophy of biology, and philosophy of cognitive science.

Theism is most correlated with being a philosopher of religion or specializing in medieval and renaissance philosophy, with identifying with Plato and Aristotle and Kant and Leibniz, with being a continental philosopher, and with not identifying with Hume and Quine." Muehlhauser

[FatAndFaithless]

After reading a few posts suggesting that atheism is shallow and deep thought leads to religion I googled "percentage of philosophers who are atheists" on a lark and came up with a survey of philosophers. What Do Philosophers Believe? David Bourget and David J. Chalmers Here's a useful summary with some thoughtful analysis: The Largest-Ever Survey of Philosophers: What Do They Believe? by Luke Muehlhauser

The short answer is :72.8% atheism; 14.6% theism; 12.5% other

The exception is of course philosophers of religion:

"[T]hough theism is unpopular in philosophy in general, it is more popular among philosophers of religion (72.3%) than physicalism is among philosophers of mind (61.2%). Trent Dougherty sees this as a credence-boost for theism, since the experts on the subject of God tend to believe in him. But the obvious reply is that most people aren’t going to do philosophy of religion if they don’t believe in God. There doesn’t seem to be anything about philosophy of mind in general that would show a selection effect for physicalism, but obviously philosophy of religion will show a selection effect for theism." Muehlhauser

But there isn't any correlation between the study of applied ethics and a belief in moral realism.

The correlations between what atheist philosophers believe and specialize in compared to what theist philosophers believe in and specialize in is, at least to my mind, predictable:

"Atheism is most correlated with not being a philosopher of religion, with not identifying with Plato or Aristotle or Kant or Leibniz, with analytic philosophy, with identifying with Hume and Quine, and with specializing in philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, philosophy of biology, and philosophy of cognitive science.

Theism is most correlated with being a philosopher of religion or specializing in medieval and renaissance philosophy, with identifying with Plato and Aristotle and Kant and Leibniz, with being a continental philosopher, and with not identifying with Hume and Quine." Muehlhauser

What the heck is the 'other' in a question of atheism vs theism?

[Jenny A]

What the heck is the 'other' in a question of atheism vs theism?

Apparently it means undecided:

" The following list summarizes the results for the target faculty group, collapsing answers that "accept" and "lean toward" for a given view and collapsing all "other" answers." http://philpapers.org/archive/BOUWDP.4.pdf

---

Here's a summary of the results for all the questions:

1. A priori knowledge: yes 71.1%; no 18.4%; other 10.5%.
2. Abstract objects: Platonism 39.3%; nominalism 37.7%; other 23.0%.
3. Aesthetic value: objective 41.0%; subjective 34.5%; other 24.5%.
4. Analytic-synthetic distinction: yes 64.9%; no 27.1%; other 8.1%.
5. Epistemic justification: externalism 42.7%; internalism 26.4%; other 30.8%.
6. External world: non-skeptical realism 81.6%; skepticism 4.8%; idealism 4.3%; other
9.2%.
7. Free will: compatibilism 59.1%; libertarianism 13.7%; no free will 12.2%; other
14.9%.
8. God: atheism 72.8%; theism 14.6%; other 12.6%.
9. Knowledge claims: contextualism 40.1%; invariantism 31.1%; relativism 2.9%;
other 25.9%.
10. Knowledge: empiricism 35.0%; rationalism 27.8%; other 37.2%.
11. Laws of nature: non-Humean 57.1%; Humean 24.7%; other 18.2%.
12. Logic: classical 51.6%; non-classical 15.4%; other 33.1%.
13. Mental content: externalism 51.1%; internalism 20.0%; other 28.9%.
14. Meta-ethics: moral realism 56.4%; moral anti-realism 27.7%; other 15.9%
15. Metaphilosophy: naturalism 49.8%; non-naturalism 25.9%; other 24.3%.
16. Mind: physicalism 56.5%; non-physicalism 27.1%; other 16.4%.
17. Moral judgment: cognitivism 65.7%; non-cognitivism 17.0%; other 17.3%.
18. Moral motivation: internalism 34.9%; externalism 29.8%; other 35.3%.
19. Newcomb’s problem: two boxes 31.4%; one box 21.3%; other 47.4%.
20. Normative ethics: deontology 25.9%; consequentialism 23.6%; virtue ethics 18.2%;
other 32.3%.
21. Perceptual experience: representationalism 31.5%; qualia theory 12.2%; disjunc-
tivism 11.0%; sense-datum theory 3.1%; other 42.2%.
22. Personal identity: psychological view 33.6%; biological view 16.9%; further-fact
view 12.2%; other 37.3%.
23. Politics: egalitarianism 34.8%; communitarianism 14.3%; libertarianism 9.9%;
other 41.0%.
24. Proper names: Millian 34.5%; Fregean 28.7%; other 36.8%.
25. Science: scientific realism 75.1%; scientific anti-realism 11.6%; other 13.3%.
26. Teletransporter: survival 36.2%; death 31.1%; other 32.7%.
27. Time: B-theory 26.3%; A-theory 15.5%; other 58.2%.
28. Trolley problem: switch 68.2%; don’t switch 7.6%; other 24.2%.
29. Truth: correspondence 50.8%; deflationary 24.8%; epistemic 6.9%; other 17.5%.
30. Zombies: conceivable but not metaphysically possible 35.6%; metaphysically pos-
sible 23.3%; inconceivable 16.0%; other 25.1%

http://philpapers.org/archive/BOUWDP.4.pdf

[Dystopia]

After reading a few posts suggesting that atheism is shallow and deep thought leads to religion I googled "percentage of philosophers who are atheists" on a lark and came up with a survey of philosophers. What Do Philosophers Believe? David Bourget and David J. Chalmers Here's a useful summary with some thoughtful analysis: The Largest-Ever Survey of Philosophers: What Do They Believe? by Luke Muehlhauser

The short answer is :72.8% atheism; 14.6% theism; 12.5% other

The exception is of course philosophers of religion:

"[T]hough theism is unpopular in philosophy in general, it is more popular among philosophers of religion (72.3%) than physicalism is among philosophers of mind (61.2%). Trent Dougherty sees this as a credence-boost for theism, since the experts on the subject of God tend to believe in him. But the obvious reply is that most people aren’t going to do philosophy of religion if they don’t believe in God. There doesn’t seem to be anything about philosophy of mind in general that would show a selection effect for physicalism, but obviously philosophy of religion will show a selection effect for theism." Muehlhauser

But there isn't any correlation between the study of applied ethics and a belief in moral realism.

The correlations between what atheist philosophers believe and specialize in compared to what theist philosophers believe in and specialize in is, at least to my mind, predictable:

"Atheism is most correlated with not being a philosopher of religion, with not identifying with Plato or Aristotle or Kant or Leibniz, with analytic philosophy, with identifying with Hume and Quine, and with specializing in philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, philosophy of biology, and philosophy of cognitive science.

Theism is most correlated with being a philosopher of religion or specializing in medieval and renaissance philosophy, with identifying with Plato and Aristotle and Kant and Leibniz, with being a continental philosopher, and with not identifying with Hume and Quine." Muehlhauser

What the heck is the 'other' in a question of atheism vs theism?

Probably because some philosophers may be deists, pantheists, or hold other kind of belief in the supernatural (such as spirits or ghosts) that are not related to theism.

[ShaMan]

I read the title as "Does Deep Throat Lead to God?"

[Diablo]

I read the title as "Does Deep Throat Lead to God?"

It certainly leads to Paradise.

[Minimalist]

Religion never demands that a person think. Quite the opposite. It demands that a person accept their bullshit without question. They turn stupidity into a virtue by calling it "faith."

[FatAndFaithless]

I read the title as "Does Deep Throat Lead to God?"

It certainly leads to Paradise.

Jesus is coming.

[Diablo]

It certainly leads to Paradise.

Jesus is coming.

The usual little mess, I suppose.

[JesusHChrist]

One of the tropes of "serious", sophisticated theologians is that modern atheists don't devote the necessary level of effort required to understand these Deep Thoughts, emanating from the bowels of Sophisticated Theological academia.

Unfortunately, I've never, not once read anything from a Sophisticated Theologian, that wasn't the same platitudes, fallacies, vacuity, and fuzzy-headed nonsense their less sophisticated compadres routinely trot out. Complicated nonsense with big words, is still nonsense. Grounds of Being notwithstanding.

I've asked many a so-called Sophisticated Theologian to describe the procedures/processes/means whereby their field of "study" adds one whit to humanity's body of knowledge. After a few feeble stabs of Aquinas! and the Five Proofs!, they usually shut their gobs. I can only assume they have no data, nor processes, nor knowledge, nor anything tangible.

It's akin to the Emperor with no clothes criticizing modern fashion. You Village Atheists aren't educated enough to discuss such vaunted subjects!

And yet, there is no there, there. All attempts to discover a "there" have failed.

Jesus is coming.

Hmmm, I'm thinking I need to scan my house for bugs.