Blog powered by Typepad

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz

Become a Fan

« Nietzsche and democracy | Main | Modal Realism and Oracles »

December 10, 2009

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83452b54c69e20128763fedce970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The survey results:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Jim Farmelant

I would think that the reason why there is such a difference in views, concerning theism, between philosophers of religion and philosophers in general, might simply be one of self-selection. That is people who take religious claims seriously are more likely to become philosophers of religion, while atheistic philosophers are perhaps less likely to see religion as being a peculiarly interesting source of philosophical problems to which they would want to devote their professional careers. In other words, it may be the case that the non-theistic philosophers, who, not taking religious claims so seriously, find other kinds of problems to be of greater interest and so devote their professional careers to doing things other than philosophy of religion.

www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnxJ4f7MH5TOcsHH4TXJwXvI_WUBM4iNr8

It doesn't seem surprising to me that 'philosophers of religion' tend to be believers, no more than if a survey were taken of astrologers and the findings indicated many believed in the influence of the stars and planets on the human personality. It seems like it would be a self-selecting set. Whether it's probative of anything about the claims of religion is another story.

The comments to this entry are closed.