What Percentage Of Philosphers Believe In God?

[Cheerful Charlie]

https://io9.gizmodo.com/wha....
....
What percentage of philosophers are
theists? How many of them believe in free will? More importantly: how
many of them think zombies are actually possible? Finally, a study has
provided an answer to all these questions, and more.
Philosophers David Bourget and David Chalmers have conducted a worldwide survey to gauge where members of their field stand on a variety of philosophical topics, including a priori knowledge, moral judgment, free will... and the metaphysical possibility of zombies*.
...

God: atheism 72.8%; theism 14.6%; other 12.6%.


Go atheists, go!

[no one]

6.66

[Thumpalumpacus]

Meh, of all the opinions in the world, those of philosophers carry little weight with me. Thought-experiments are nice, but I'm a fan of facts, which seem pretty rare in philosophical circles.

[Cheerful Charlie]

I have been having some debates far away from here. Theology, philosophy and metaphysics are used to defend the idea that God is provable and us atheists don't know nothing at all. It looks like for all the huffing and puffing, philosophers are still largely unconvinced God is a good idea, much less provable, much less demonstrated. Years ago, Alvin Plantinga found the Society Of Christian Philosophers in 1978. With 14.6% of philosophers now believing in God, they have their work cut out for them.

https://www.societyofchristianphilosophers.com/

Their website in all it's glory.

[Bucky Ball]

I have been having some debates far away from here.  Theology, philosophy and metaphysics are used to defend the idea that God is provable and us atheists don't know nothing at all.  It looks like for all the huffing and puffing, philosophers are still largely unconvinced God is a good idea, much less provable, much less demonstrated.  Years ago, Alvin Plantinga found the Society Of Christian Philosophers in 1978.  With 14.6% of philosophers now believing in God, they have their work cut out for them.

https://www.societyofchristianphilosophers.com/

Their website in all it's glory.

If their god(s) are "provable" then they don't need faith, and they're totally fucked.
Ephesians 2:8
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--"

I noticed something bizarre this morning, (I got asked to sub at the last minute for a good friend who is the organist at a big church in San Diego .. in La Jolla), ... the end of the gospel reading (Mark 9:2-10) ... it's the transfiguration story. Obviously mythological literature. "As they were coming down from the mountain, he charged them not to relate what they had seen to anyone, except when the Son of Man had risen from the dead. So they kept the matter to themselves, questioning what rising from the dead meant." So first of all the writers/editors use a Greek expression, not a Hebrew one, (THE Son of Man). Secondly, I never noticed before that the gospel actually says they don't know what "rising from the dead" even meant. Jews at the time did have a concept of "exaltation" (being *raised up* in status, which is actually the phrase Paul uses), but Jewish heroes were never raised from the dead.

[Minimalist]

They tended to die in droves every time they tried some shit, though.

Some people never learn!

[Dom]

Yabbut, science rose from philosophy.

Philosophy - Wikipedia

[Dānu]

I view our understanding of reality as resting on three pillars: science, mathematics, and philosophy. Any two without the other is impotent.

[airportkid]

I view our understanding of reality as resting on three pillars: science, mathematics, and philosophy.  Any two without the other is impotent.

Hmm.  I coulda swore one of those pillars was a hot mug of strong coffee.

[Minimalist]

[Dancefortwo]

I have been having some debates far away from here.  Theology, philosophy and metaphysics are used to defend the idea that God is provable and us atheists don't know nothing at all.  It looks like for all the huffing and puffing, philosophers are still largely unconvinced God is a good idea, much less provable, much less demonstrated.  Years ago, Alvin Plantinga found the Society Of Christian Philosophers in 1978.  With 14.6% of philosophers now believing in God, they have their work cut out for them.

https://www.societyofchristianphilosophers.com/

Their website in all it's glory.

If their god(s) are "provable" then they don't need faith, and they're totally fucked.
Ephesians 2:8
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--"

I noticed something bizarre this morning, (I got asked to sub at the last minute for a good friend who is the organist at a big church in San Diego .. in La Jolla), ... the end of the gospel reading (Mark 9:2-10) ... it's the transfiguration story. Obviously mythological literature. "As they were coming down from the mountain, he charged them not to relate what they had seen to anyone, except when the Son of Man had risen from the dead. So they kept the matter to themselves, questioning what rising from the dead meant." So first of all the writers/editors use a Greek expression, not a Hebrew one, (THE Son of Man). Secondly, I never noticed before that the gospel actually says they don't know what "rising from the dead" even meant. Jews at the time did have a concept of "exaltation" (being *raised up* in status, which is actually the phrase Paul uses), but Jewish heroes were never raised from the dead.

It would seem that exaltation of a high ranking person of esteem for Jewish heroes got conflated and twisted around in the oral storytelling of the Christians.  I wonder what the Hebrew word for exaltation is and how it translates into Greek.

[Bucky Ball]

It was written in Greek in the first place, so in a way it doesn't matter.
I'll try to find part of a paper I wrote once on the subject and post it.
There was a long history of the "exaltation" of Jewish apocalyptic heroes, including the seven sons of Hanna.

[SYZ]

Meh, of all the opinions in the world, those of philosophers carry little weight with me. Thought-experiments are nice, but I'm a fan of facts, which seem pretty rare in philosophical circles.

Agree totally.  As I've said in the past, any philosophical notions posited by the ancients have
lost most of their expository value in an enlightened 21st century.  

Current philosophers, dreaming in their academic ivory towers, are basically a waste of oxygen,
with many of them sucking at the taxpayers' teat.

—How many so-called philosophers are helping us with global warming or Coronavirus?

[epronovost]

Meh, of all the opinions in the world, those of philosophers carry little weight with me. Thought-experiments are nice, but I'm a fan of facts, which seem pretty rare in philosophical circles.

No philosophy doesn't provide facts. It define what's a fact in and on itself and how to find them too.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Meh, of all the opinions in the world, those of philosophers carry little weight with me. Thought-experiments are nice, but I'm a fan of facts, which seem pretty rare in philosophical circles.

No philosophy doesn't provide facts. It define what's a fact in and on itself and how to find them too.

I'm pretty sure that it's reality that defines facts. I'm pretty sure reality existed before the first philosophers came along.

[epronovost]

Meh, of all the opinions in the world, those of philosophers carry little weight with me. Thought-experiments are nice, but I'm a fan of facts, which seem pretty rare in philosophical circles.

No philosophy doesn't provide facts. It define what's a fact in and on itself and how to find them too.

I'm pretty sure that it's reality that defines facts. I'm pretty sure reality existed before the first philosophers came along.

That's true in the same way that physics existed before the existence physicists. Gravity, electromagnetism all existed well before we discovered them. In the same fashion, epistemology, ontology, logic all existed before philosophy formalised the study of such things but if you want to explore reality you need all those things. You can't tell reality from fiction without it nor assess anything as a fact without it. That would be like trying to count without doing any mathematics.

[Thumpalumpacus]

How did humans assess reality before we invented philosophy?

That would be like trying to count without doing any mathematics.

Animals do this.

[Dānu]

How did humans assess reality before we invented philosophy?

Ignoring the fact that philosophy has always been with us, so there is no "before philosophy," the less well developed philosophy was, the more poorly people understood the world. Perhaps that's an effect of time rather than any relation between the two, but imagine if science still believed that how confirmable a hypothesis was indicated its likely truth rather than its resistance to falsification. Would we have as robust an understanding of the world? Imagine history without Plato or Aristotle. There would be no science without epistemology.

That would be like trying to count without doing any mathematics.

Animals do this.

Animals count without doing any mathematics? Hookay. Put the crack pipe down and back away slowly.

[Dānu]

Thought-experiments are nice, but I'm a fan of facts, which seem pretty rare in philosophical circles.

So facts are the best basis for understanding reality?

a) Is this a mathematical statement? No.

b) Is there an observation which would falsify this or confirm it? No.

c) Then, either this isn't a fact, and thus not the best way to understand reality, or it's a statement that belongs to another field of study. I wonder what that field could be?

[epronovost]

Animals do this.

You are aware that animal counts do you? For example, dogs can count up to five without much training. Animals also make philosophical assumptions about the nature of the world. They simply don't create systems of beliefs, methodologies, classification systems, develop epistemological tools based on those assumptions which is what philosophy is. Animals don't care about facts or reality as you and I understand it. They care about their senses and how those can let them get what they want. in a sense, you could describe animals as hardcore empiricists and naturalists whose sole epistemological tools are touch, smell, taste, sight, hearing and for some electrical and heat detection.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Thought-experiments are nice, but I'm a fan of facts, which seem pretty rare in philosophical circles.

So facts are the best basis for understanding reality?

a) Is this a mathematical statement?  No.

b) Is there an observation which would falsify this or confirm it?  No.

c) Then, either this isn't a fact, and thus not the best way to understand reality, or it's a statement that belongs to another field of study.  I wonder what that field could be?

Experience.

Animals do this.

You are aware that animal counts do you? For example, dogs can count up to five without much training. Animals also make philosophical assumptions about the nature of the world. They simply don't create systems of beliefs, methodologies, classification systems, develop epistemological tools based on those assumptions which is what philosophy is. Animals don't care about facts or reality as you and I understand it. They care about their senses and how those can let them get what they want. in a sense, you could describe animals as hardcore empiricists and naturalists whose sole epistemological tools are touch, smell, taste, sight, hearing and for some electrical and heat detection.

Philosophers cannot agree on the most basic claims, and yet make astounding claims all the same, with little of no evidence we see. Forgive my not really giving a shit about their opinions.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Animals count without doing any mathematics?  Hookay.  Put the crack pipe down and back away slowly.

Pick up a book and pull up a chair.

[epronovost]

Philosophers cannot agree on the most basic claims, and yet make astounding claims all the same, with little of no evidence we see. Forgive my not really giving a shit about their opinions.

Which is eve more strange since you do give a shit about their opinion. You care about logic, you try to avoid fallacies, you subscribe to certain form of philosophical naturalism. You use their epistemological tools to assess what's evidence and how to find them. You articulate beliefs in objectivity and you subscribe to a variety of humanist ethical position. That's all philosophy and their opinion.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Philosophers cannot agree on the most basic claims, and yet make astounding claims all the same, with little of no evidence we see. Forgive my not really giving a shit about their opinions.

Which is eve more strange since you do give a shit about their opinion. You care about logic, you try to avoid fallacies, you subscribe to certain form of philosophical naturalism. You use their epistemological tools to assess what's evidence and how to find them. You articulate beliefs in objectivity and you subscribe to a variety of humanist ethical position. That's all philosophy and their opinion.

My opinions are actually my own, thanks. I find some of the product of philosophy useful. I find much of it useless.