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.
Interesting! Speaking of theists, the Biblical scholar might perhaps support this argument with a mention of theists being “called” by God, rather than just stumbling into theism due to social pressures.
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.
Interesting! Speaking of theists, the Biblical scholar might perhaps support this argument with a mention of theists being “called” by God, rather than just stumbling into theism due to social pressures.
Great musings. Feels accurate.