Why Are So Many Philosophers Atheists?
Reflections From the Inside
Philosophers tend to be non-theist, while philosophers of religion are more likely to be theist. Why the difference?
No doubt there are many factors (including a strong value for critical thinking, aiding the discovery of various problems with traditional views). Here I will draw attention to one potential factor: selection-effect. In my experience (from stories of friends and my own life) philosophically inclined people are more likely to question the views of their culture (early on in life). This questioning sometimes leads them away from mainstream views of their culture, including theism, and sometimes it does not. If their search involves still retaining a culture's broadly theistic outlook, they have ministry careers open to them (pastor, priest, etc.) not open to non-theists. By contrast, non-theist philosophers are more likely to filter into organizations where non-belief is not a disqualifier (e.g., universities). This by itself predicts that the number of theists will be lower in academic institutions where belief in God is not a requirement for the job.
The field of philosophy of religion, in contrast to other fields in philosophy, tends to attract more theists. My impression is that many who come into phil religion as non-theists but later move toward theism have a similar profile as those who go into other fields as non-theists, but who don't work as closely with philosopher-types who are theists on theological questions of mutual interest. Many non-theists philosopher-types I know tend to have similar stories of departing from cultural views through critical thinking.
The selection effect also makes sense of the general de-polarization among those who go into phil religion. In particular, philosophers in this field don’t tend to become atheists upon a closer examination of the arguments discussed in philosophy of religion (though some do). In this study, there is evidence that the opposite may be so: among those who change their mind upon going into the field of philosophy of religion, revision is more frequently toward theism—and almost always toward depolarization. (See more on that here.)
The idea here is not that people tend to become non-theists through a career in philosophy (while that does happen). Instead, a career in philosophy tends to attract those who were already more likely to question the mainstream views of culture, including theism.
This isn't the only explanation, of course, but I think it also contributes to a natural selection. To me, it also helps explain why theists are in a minority among philosophers in general (because of other career options), but not among those who specialize in philosophy of religion, which attracts more theists than other fields.
I don’t think that by itself, selection effect can account for such a large (~80%) atheist majority among philosophers. For that kind of majority, there must be some kind of structural cause.
And if you look at the history of philosophy, you could roughly identify Hume and Kant as the pivot point after which metaphysics moved in a principled way in the direction of agnosticism and atheism. Kant defends a principled scepticism of the extension of our knowledge beyond the limits of empirical science. The consequence of this is that the claims of physics can't be grounded in a broader epistemic framework. Our metaphysical theories will necessarily have elements which go unexplained because of a principled scepticism of any attempt to place them in a broader system of knowledge.
Many people take for granted that theism is an optional extra added on to a naturalist understanding, a god of the gaps. But a theistic metaphysics makes systematic reference to theism in explaining what nature is, what knowledge is, what our values are and things like this.
There is a disconnect in our discussions about metaphysics, many take for granted the modern naturalist worldview is our starting point, and beyond that are optional extras like theism, or even these days consciousness as incorporated into a naturalist panpsychism or dual aspect monism.
But theism proper involves a rejection of the naturalist world view. It’s not a rejection that it’s incorrect, but fatally incomplete. For the theist, nature consists of more than the scientific description.
With this way of viewing the situation, the modern a/theism debate is mostly talking past each other, using the word nature and assuming it refers to the same concept. The substance of the case for theism becomes isolated syllogisms that focus on the grounding of scientific theories. Things like the need to explain the existence of the entire space-time cosmos, the apparent design/fine-tuning of its scientifically described elements, the grounding our moral facts, etc. But with the rejection of adequate warrant for things like the principle of sufficient reason, the arguments for theism lose their power. It’s not that the atheist viewpoint renders these arguments false, but views them as an unjustified metaphysical extravagance.
Why would pastor, priest, "etc." be the alternative for philosophically minded religious people? Seems like a pretty different job description and daily life than philosophy professor.