Philosopher and theologian, William Lane Craig, has frequently made reference to the turn of events in philosophy over the past 40 years. What was once a very secularized field has been “invaded” by theists. As evidence of this phenomenon, consider what atheist philosopher, Quentin Smith, had to say in the journal Philo:
By the second half of the twentieth century, universities and colleges had been become in the main secularized. … Analytic philosophers (in the mainstream of analytic philosophy) treated theism as an antirealist or non-cognitivist world-view, requiring the reality, not of a deity, but merely of emotive expressions…. The secularization of mainstream academia began to quickly unravel upon the publication of [Alvin] Plantinga’s influential book on realist theism, God and Other Minds, in 1967. It became apparent to the philosophical profession that this book displayed that realist theists were not outmatched by naturalists in terms of the most valued standards of analytic philosophy: conceptual precision, rigor of argumentation, technical erudition, and an in-depth defense of an original world-view. … [T]oday perhaps one-quarter or one-third of philosophy professors are theists, with most being orthodox Christians. … God is not “dead” in academia; he returned to life in the late 1960s and is now alive and well in his last academic stronghold, philosophy departments.[1]
In other words, the intellectual respectability of theism was resurrected. Theism was rational after all (even if [as Quentin thinks] it is ultimately false), and formed a beachhead against secularism in university philosophy departments. What I find interesting, however, is the response of naturalists. According to Smith
the great majority of naturalist philosophers react by publicly ignoring the increasing desecularizing of philosophy (while privately disparaging theism, without really knowing anything about contemporary analytic philosophy of religion) and proceeding to work in their own area of specialization as if theism, the view of approximately one-quarter or one-third of their field, did not exist. … [N]aturalist scientists…are so innocent of any understanding of the philosophy of religion that they do not even know that they are innocent of this understanding, as it witnessed by their popular writings on science and religion.[2]
And again,
If each naturalist who does not specialize in the philosophy of religion (i.e., over ninety-nine percent of naturalists) were locked in a room with theists who do specialize in the philosophy of religion, and if the ensuing debates were refereed by a naturalist who had a specialization in the philosophy of religion, the naturalist referee could at most hope the outcome would be that “no definite conclusion can be drawn regarding the rationality of faith,” although I expect the most probable outcome is that the naturalist, wanting to be a fair and objective referee, would have to conclude that the theists definitely had the upper hand in every single argument or debate.[3]
Be sure, this is not because Smith thinks theists have the better arguments. On the contrary, he is persuaded that naturalism is the true ontology. But he recognizes that 99% of naturalists are so ignorant of the philosophy of religion that they would not be able to refute the arguments. I have found this to be true of many naturalists. They continue to speak as if theism requires an irrational, blind leap of faith into the dark, and continue to present tired-old arguments against theism as if those arguments have not been answered by theists both past and present. They are unaware of those responses, because they do not engage the philosophy of religion with the same rigor that theists engage philosophical naturalism.
Furthermore, because most naturalists ignore philosophers of religion, they are also unaware of the fact that theistic philosophers have defeated their arguments for naturalism, and thus ignorant of the fact that their belief in naturalism is not justified (at least until they are able to undercut or rebut those defeaters). As Smith notes, “They may have a true belief in naturalism, but they have no knowledge that naturalism is true since they do not have an undefeated justification for their belief.”[4]
While Smith is concerned about the recent turn of events in philosophy, I find it reason to rejoice. It is a testimony to the intellectual credibility of the Christian faith. Religious faith does not require a commitment of the will in the absence (or in spite of the) evidence, but rather is a persuasion based on reasonable knowledge. Christians need not fear philosophy; we need only avoid the false philosophies of men (Colossians 2:8). As C.S. Lewis once said, “Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered.”
[1]Quentin Smith, “The Metaphilosophy of Naturalism,” Philo, 4:2 (2001); available from http://www.philoonline.org/library/smith_4_2.htm; Internet; accessed 07 January 2009.
[2]Ibid.
[3]Ibid.
[4]Ibid.
February 13, 2009 at 8:49 am
There are no credible arguments for theism – all have been completely demolished (see philosopher (yes, there are philosophers that think theological philosophy is just so much fluff) Nicholas Everitt’s The Non-existence of God. Philosophy without empirical evidence to back it up is simply sophistry. The road of philisophy is littered with clunker arguments and trainwrecks caused by an ugly fact.
I am a naturalist because of one thing, as Michael Ruse (another naturalist philosopher) once said – it works! How many theological explanations for natural phenomena have been demolished by understand the underlying natural laws governing them? We ignore theological philosophy simply because we have long since realized it has nothing to offer in terms of understanding the universe and is therefor irrelevant.
LikeLike
February 13, 2009 at 2:21 pm
shamelesslyatheist far overstates his case.
The idea that naturalism ‘just works’ is an often repeated moniker that simply does not correlate to the totality of reality. Just for starters, there is no empirical justification for the existence of abstract objects, high order mathematics, or the sum of human experience (aka qualia). Ironically, science itself is predicated on an epistemology that demands the reality of non-physical and non-empirical facts and methods of reasoning and deduction.
In the context of this very brief post, I will surrender that theism is not by default the ‘winner’, but it still goes to say that naturalism falls far short and is by definition ill equipped to explain *all* of reality.
LikeLike
February 13, 2009 at 5:14 pm
shamelesslyatheist,
I agree with discolando. You overstated your case. I’ll go one step further, and say you misunderstand the purpose and role of philosophy/theism.
First, to say there are no credible arguments for atheism is disingenuous to the highest degree. Even if you do not personally find them cogent enough to change your views, they are both valid (in their form) and reasonable (meaning a reasonable person could be persuaded by them). In my experience, most people who claim there are no credible arguments for theism have spent little (if any) time interacting with philosophers of religion. It’s hard to read the arguments for the other side (presented by the best of their defenders), and walk away thinking there is not a single good argument for their position, even if you ultimately remain convinced of naturalism.
Second, science, not philosophy, deals with empirical data. Philosophy deals with metaphysical issues. To fault philosophy for not having empirical data to back it up is like faulting mathematics for lacking in biochemical confirmation.
With that said, there are times when philosophical conclusions have been backed up by empirical evidence. Take the beginning of the universe. Philosophy demonstrates that the past cannot be past-infinite. And this conclusion has received empirical confirmation in what has come to be the Standard Model of cosmic origins (Big Bang cosmology).
Thirdly, I won’t even get into the problems of pragmatism as a guide to truth. What I find more amazing is that you want to fault philosophy/theism for not helping you to better understanding the universe. Again, that is primarily the role of science, not philosophy. Philosophy tells us about the metaphysical, not the physical per se. Saying philosophy/theology is irrelevant because it does not help you navigate the physical world is like saying economics is irrelevant because it doesn’t help you understand the origin of the universe. That’s not what economics are for! Likewise, that is not what philosophy is for. If what philosophy/theology claims is true is actually true, it would primarily benefit your understanding of the metaphysical, not the physical.
Jason
LikeLike
February 14, 2009 at 3:31 pm
hey! i like there is no god and i hate him. maybe a pic of a 4 year old with an angry face.
LikeLike
August 10, 2014 at 11:19 pm
It should surprise no one that Craig made up the ‘resurgence’ of theism in philosophy to suit his agenda. (I don’t know what the hell Smith was thinking). Here are some actual figures from a survey of professional philosophers:
God: atheism 72.8%; theism 14.6%; other 12.6%.
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/04/29/what-do-philosophers-believe/
LikeLike
August 11, 2014 at 6:59 am
@Garret — Smith was not talking about philosophers per se. He was talking specifically about philosophers of religion. And “here are some actual figures from a survey of professional philosophers” of religion
God: theism 69.3%; atheism 19.8%; other 10.9%
http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl?affil=Philosophy+faculty+or+PhD&areas0=22&areas_max=1&grain=coarse
LikeLike
August 15, 2014 at 9:51 pm
Those numbers are interesting, but I’m not sure how much they tell us. It’s quite possible that most philosophers choose something other than philosophy of religion because they see that subdiscipline as settled (e.g.–it’s pretty clear there is no God, so why bother debating it?), thus leaving only those who enter into their studies with the foregone conclusion that God exists. (William Lane Craig has explicitly stated that God is a foregone conclusion for him, and that he is proudly immune to any evidence or argument to the contrary.)
I would like to see numbers on how many philosophers (in general, and in phil religion) begin their college education with one set of religious beliefs (atheist/theist, Christian/Muslim/Jew, etc.) and finish with another.
LikeLike
August 17, 2014 at 10:37 am
Agreed: there are many realities that the statistics could represent. But let’s be fair: there is certainly no clearer message in the numbers that you posted than in the numbers I posted.
Not sure why philosophers need be granted some exalted status. The statistics on people in general are quite interesting. The children of atheists abandon their parents “faith” in higher proportion than the children of other “religions” abandon theirs.
LikeLike
February 4, 2015 at 7:43 am
@Garret Merriam,
Again, I’m not sure why you appeal to Philosophers outside of Religion as though they are somehow the authority on the issue. Philosophers outside of religion, as Quentin Smith noted, know next to nothing about these issues. The ones who do are the very few who have interest in debating these subjects.
That is because Philosophy is not a field in studying God. Philosophy is a field in thinking hard about something and giving reasons for it.
If that’s the case, then you have committed the Appeal to an authority fallacy since philosophers who don’t study religion are not very knowledgeable about it.
To say that PoR just accept theism because of forgone conclusions is a huge misonomer. I am assuming you have never read PoR and the arguments for/against God. You will see that these philosophers don’t base their conclusions on emotion or outdated evidence.
LikeLike