Skip to main content

Most Philosophers are Atheists

Details here.

HT: Prosblogion and Bradley Monton

UPDATE: Trent Dougherty takes an optimistic view of it, here. It'll be interesting to see how the comments play out on his post.

Comments

Wes said…
Your "details" link is to the Phil of Religion AOS, which has more theists than atheists.
Wes said…
It's weird how different the responses are from those with the Phil of Rel AOS on all the issues.
exapologist said…
Whoops -- Thanks for the correction. Must've fiddled with it before posting. Originally, it was on "Philosophy faculty or PhD" and "all respondents". I think I've fixed it now. Let me know if I've flubbed up anything else.
TKD said…
This survey made an interesting discussion topic for the first few minutes of my metaethics course this morning. I'm a little surprised at some of the results, personally, but I've noticed that I have some pretty non-standard intuitions, lol.

Popular posts from this blog

Notes on Mackie's "Evil and Omnipotence"

0. Introduction
0.1 Mackie argues that the problem of evil proves that either no god exists, or at least that the god of Orthodox Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, does not exist. His argument is roughly the same version of the problem of evil that we’ve been considering.
0.2 Mackie thinks that one can avoid the conclusion that God does not exist only if one admits that either God is not omnipotent (i.e., not all-powerful), or that God is not perfectly good. 0.3 However, he thinks that hardly anyone will be willing to take this route. For doing so leaves one with a conception of a god that isn’t worthy of worship, and therefore not religiously significant.
0.4 After his brief discussion of his version of the problem of evil, he considers most of the main responses to the problem of evil, and concludes that none of them work.

1. First Response and Mackie's Reply
1.1 Response: Good can’t exist without evil; evil is a necessary counterpart to good.
1.2 Mackie’s reply:
1.2.1 this see…

Notes on Swinburne, "On Why God Allows Evil"

Notes on Swinburne’s “Why God Allows Evil”

1. The kinds of goods a theistic god would provide: deeper goods than just “thrills of pleasure and times of contentment” (p. 90). For example:
1.1 Significant freedom and responsibility
1.1.1 for ourselves
1.1.2 for others
1.1.3 for the world in which they live
1.2 Valuable lives
1.2.1 being of significant use to ourselves
1.2.2 being of significant use to each other

2. Kinds of evil
2.1 Moral evil: all the evil caused or permitted by human beings, whether intentionally or through negligence (e.g., murder, theft, etc.)
2.2 Natural evil: all the rest: evil not caused or permitted by human beings (e.g., suffering caused by hurricanes, forest fires, diseases, animal suffering, etc.)

3. The gist of Swinburne’s answer to the problem of evil: God cannot – logically cannot -- give us the goods of significant freedom, responsibility and usefulness without thereby allowing for the possibility of lots of moral and natural evil. This is why he has al…