Philosohpers David Bourget and David Chalmers recently surveyed 931 philosophy faculty members to determine their views on 30 different issues. Here were some of the more interesting results:
God: atheism 72.8%; theism 14.6%; other 12.6%.
Metaphilosophy: naturalism 49.8%; non-naturalism 25.9%; other 24.3%.
Mind: physicalism 56.5%; non-physicalism 27.1%; other 16.4%.
Free will: compatibilism 59.1%; libertarianism 13.7%; no free will 12.2%; other 14.9%.
Meta-ethics: moral realism 56.4%; moral anti-realism 27.7%; other 15.9%.
Normative ethics: deontology 25.9%; consequentialism 23.6%; virtue ethics 18.2%; other 32.3%.
Science: scientific realism 75.1%; scientific anti-realism 11.6%; other 13.3%
Time: B-theory 26.3%; A-theory 15.5%; other 58.2%.
Truth: correspondence 50.8%; deflationary 24.8%; epistemic 6.9%; other 17.5%.
Notice that although 72.8% of respondents are atheists, 56.4% are moral realists. This goes to show the strength of our moral intuitions. While atheists do not have a sufficient ontological grounding for objective moral values, they still believe in them nonetheless.
I was surprised that only 13.7% believe in libertarian free will. I would expect it to be much higher. Perhaps this correlates with the high rates of physicalism.
HT: Scot McKnight
Thinking to Believe 
May 13, 2013 at 10:41 am
I think you mean “only 14.6% of respondents are theists.” : )
LikeLike
May 13, 2013 at 11:09 am
Thanks for the catch. I actually meant to refer to the 72.8% number. Corrected.
LikeLike
May 13, 2013 at 6:38 pm
Jason:
ON YOUR COMMENTARY:
I am struck by the comment you make that atheists do not have sufficient “ontological grounding” which seems to me to be saying that atheists do not have the “grounding” because they do not believe in god and that belief in a god is a prerequisite for the study of reality and therefore atheists do not have moral grounding.
Ontology is basically the study of what things are. So, when someone says someone (atheists in this case) has no “ontological ground”, they’re just saying that atheists have no basis in reality but saying so in a way as to try to sound sophisticated. In the context of online debate it may merely parroting talking points from disingenuous blowhards. But of course you then go on to say, first: “This goes to show the strength of our moral intuitions.”
The ‘our’ moral intuitions you refer to, I assume, means (Christian or religious) intuitions and does not include general “human intuitions”. Now I could be wrong (as has been abundantly noted in previous postings) about what you mean here by ” ‘our’ intuitions” but it seems to me that you are excluding normal human intuition.
Second: “While atheists do not have a sufficient ontological grounding for objective moral values, they believe in them nonetheless.”
This very observation was made by Paul in Romans 2: 13-15. Paul actually endorsed Atheism as a natural, human intuition, albeit without religious law, but Paul was not so blunt as to say that Atheists(Gentiles) were not sufficiently grounded in reality; as a matter of biblical fact, as much as biblical writings can be considered “fact”, Paul summed up his philosophical observations thusly: 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, BY NATURE do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, ARE A LAW TO THEMSELVES (writer’s caps), 15 who show the work of the law WRITTEN IN THEIR HEARTS (writer’s caps), their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)
Paul’s philosophy quite clearly indicates Atheists have a thorough “grounding in reality” despite what religious zealots would argue. In the context of online debate, your reference may simply be parroting talking points from disingenuous blowhards.
ON THE SURVEY:
In the context of the stats you presented, it is worth noting that the questions asked of the subjects were used to determine how the subjects believed their colleagues would answer the questions, not what the respondents themselves believed but how they expected their colleagues to respond.
“In the Metasurvey,(the group stats you noted in your article) respondents had to estimate what percentages of respondents in the primary target population would either accept or lean toward any of the main positions mentioned in the Survey.”
One consistent effect is that the (Metasurvey, the stats you quote) respondents greatly underestimated the number of “other” answers.
Atheism: 72.8±1.7% ; Accept: (61.9%, Lean toward (11.0%)
The Actual Target Group response was 83.3% Atheism,(a mean error of 11.1% and an actual error of 15%) leaving Theism, Agnostics and Undecided to argue over the division of the remaining balance of 16.7% in the Target Group Survey. The Metasurvey respondents overestimated theism, agnostics and undecided at a whopping 27.2%
Theism: 14.6±0.8%; Accept (10.6%), Lean toward (4.0%)
Other: 12.6±0.7%; Agnostic/undecided (5.5%)
Actual Target responses totaled 16.7% for theism, agnostics and undecided combined, a figure that was too low to calculate in the Target Group and only the results of Atheism at 83.3% was tabled.
THE SURVEY LINK:
http://philpapers.org/archive/BOUWDP
LikeLike
May 13, 2013 at 6:59 pm
Thus a huge percentage, 83.3% of Philosophers are Atheists while only a mere 10% perhaps believe in God with another 6%, perhaps ( the split of 16.7% is not noted) undecided or agnostic
This is a world trend to observed as the evolution of the pendulum of reality continues to swing away from the supernatural belief system of religious god myths.
Believers are on the wrong side of history AND on the wrong side of reality, I’m afraid.
LikeLike
May 13, 2013 at 8:41 pm
text correct: “This is a world trend to be observed…..”
LikeLike
May 15, 2013 at 11:08 am
Leo, I’m assuming the argument is something like:
“While theists and atheists alike have moral intuitions, only theists have ontological grounding for those intuitions, because ‘morality is God-driven’ is the only legitimate ontological grounding for morality.”
I didn’t think there was any reason to address this claim because, even as a Christian, I don’t believe morality has any ontological grounding, except insofar as real subjects exist and also have interests.
LikeLike
May 15, 2013 at 1:15 pm
Stan:
Yes that seems to be the religious argument for Christian intuition with respect to their righteous morality. My counter to that argument is: if morality has its foundation in intuition and human righteousness is intuitive from where I sit, it is from that human righteousness morality springs.
My argument is not for morality per se but for human intuitive righteousness from where morality springs, if morality springs from intuition at all and that morality, if it springs from intuition, would not spring from religious teachings that is God-driven but from natural human intuition.
LikeLike
May 15, 2013 at 1:17 pm
A thing on which we can agree is that our having moral intuitions, many of which are shared with one another, do not contribute to the likelihood nor make less likely the existence of God.
LikeLike
May 16, 2013 at 10:16 am
Leo,
Ontological grounding refers to some X in the real world that explains Y. The ontological grounding for why we stick to the surface of the Earth rather than flying out into space is gravity. When it comes to morality, most atheist philosophers agree that moral values are objectively real (which is to say they exist in a mind-independent way) and that we know them (epistemology). What they cannot do is refer to the X in the real world that explains the existence of these moral values.
I never said nor meant to imply that one must believe in God as a prerequisite for studying reality. But I do think that when one studies reality, they will not be able to sufficiently explain reality without God.
No, “our” refers to all humans, not just Christians. We all have intuitions about what is right and what is wrong. Moral knowledge is built into us. But recognizing X and explaining X are two different things. Atheists can only recognize morality. They cannot explain why or how it exists.
Your interpretation of Rom 2 is ludicrous. Paul’s point in Rom 1-2 was not an endorsement of atheism, but to show that all men, even those who do not serve YHWH, have moral knowledge, and yet fail to live up to that moral code and thus deserve judgment. Paul is speaking of epistemology, not ontology.
As for the number of philosophers who are atheists, you act like this proves something about the existence of God. Since when was reality determined by head-count? And why look just at philosophers? Why not look at other fields of academics? Besides, not all philosophers are created equal. Expecting a philosopher who specializes in philosophy of mind or analytical philosophy to be qualified to make judgments regarding the philosophy of religion is like expecting biologists to be qualified to tell us how the universe came into being. They are different fields. And for another thing, anyone who has read philosophers knows how many of them are out to lunch. A lot of smart people make a lot of silly mistakes when it comes to thinking about religion. Indeed, many of them make a lot of mistakes in thinking period. A.J. Ayers et al put forth logical positivism which said that a statement is not meaningful unless it is analytically true (true by definition) or can be empirically verified. They didn’t see the blatant error of their philosophy: that principle itself cannot be verified empirically, and is not true by definition, and thus by its own definition it is meaningless.
Jason
LikeLike
May 16, 2013 at 10:18 am
Stan,
What do you mean when you say you don’t believe morality has any ontological grounding? If it doesn’t have an ontological grounding, then it is an illusion.
If morality is rooted in human interests, and human interests can differ cross-culturally or trans-temporally, then morals are relative. How do you square moral relativism with Christian theism?
Jason
LikeLike
May 16, 2013 at 10:25 am
Jason, I believe that would be revisiting much of what we have already covered in our discussion in the comments here…
https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/morality-is-a-meaningless-category-if-moral-relativism-is-true/
… before Leo derailed the comments section.
LikeLike
May 16, 2013 at 10:55 am
Jason:
“….… before Leo derailed the comments section.”
You gotta love that cop out, don’t you?
LikeLike
May 16, 2013 at 10:58 am
Leo, I don’t think you and I have ever “gotten into it,” so I’m not sure where your attitude is coming from. It’s pretty obvious that the linked-to discussion veered wildly off topic, so I should just be stating a matter of fact.
LikeLike
May 16, 2013 at 12:22 pm
Stan, I thought we had discussed this before. I can’t keep the conversations straight.
LikeLike