Why are there so many atheists in philosophy? Is this evidence that religion does not stand up to philosophical scrutiny?

Charles Taliaferro has a good point, but I feel the need to add that many intelligent religious thinkers who might be 'philosophically oriented' end up going to seminary or studying formal religion instead of going into philosophy. So, there are many attractive options open to an 'abstract thinking' religious person who wants to pursue in-depth metaphysical studies that atheists don't have. After all, if you are satisfied with relatively conventional religious answers there's no need to go into philosophy. I wouldn't read any more into the pattern than that. Finally, I'd note that the number of theists in philosophy is increasing rather than decreasing as Charles and I recently commented upon at length in another question.

Has philosophy really been transformed into petty qualms about semantics? I haven't been studying it for very long, but a lot of recent talk has led me to believe that 1.) Philosophy is pretty much completely analytic now, and 2.) Analytic philosophy might as well be called 'rigorous linguistics'. I've learned that there are even philosophers who believe that all philosophy can do is help us clarify what we already know, and it *should* just be rigorous linguistics (Ayer, Wittgenstein, Russell). I thought (and would still like to believe) philosophy was about finding the truth, not narrowing the scope of what could potentially be solved...until there is nothing left but the sentence itself! I totally understand that it is necessary to clarify propositions and arguments before they can be given their deserving assessments, but I'm worried that philosophy has become some kind of unrecognisable monster that will never revert back into truth-finding and reality-understanding. I want to major in philosophy,...

Wow, there is quite a lot in your question here. First, I think it is true that a broadly 'analytic' approach is probably dominant in the English speaking world, but I wouldn't say that all of philosophy is 'analytic'. Also, I don't think that the broadly analytic approach is reducible to 'rigorous linguistics.' Yes, there is a corner of the philosophical world that never seems to argue about anything other than linguistics, but it seems pretty clear to me that it is only a small portion of philosophy. I still think there are important debates that are being examined.... for example in ethics compare John Rawls's A Theory of Justice , Alasdair MacIntyre's After Virtue or Three Rival Versions of Moral Inquiry , and Peter Singer's How Are We To Live? these thinkers are certainly engaging in very substantial debates. Or in philosophy of religion read J.L. Mackie's Miracle of Theism and Richard Swinburne's The Existence of God . I'm sure other panelists could come up with their...

When, if ever, should philosophy get mixed into politics?

I'm afraid that philosophy and politics are deeply mixed whether we like it or not. Consider a question like 'what rights do/should people have?' This is deeply philosophical question and what answer you give will be very influenced by your philosophical views. Other important philosophical questions include: what is the purpose of government? what is the purpose of laws? what is justice? Every government is rooted in some sort of philosophy whether we like it or not. Perhaps, you meant to ask a different question like 'what role should philosophers have in society?'.... I've always liked Plato's answer to that question, philosophers should be kings! ;-)

Partially inspired by some responses on this website, I am currently pursuing teaching licensure toward the eventual end of teaching philosophy at the secondary school level. However, a cursory canvass of philosophy professors from the local university and some on the internet via their blogs has left me slightly disheartened about my future career choice. They argue that philosophy cannot (or perhaps should not) be taught to pre-college-aged students because their abstract reasoning faculties are not yet adequately developed. In other words, they claim that philosophy could never be effectively taught at the secondary level because students (for the most part) are not yet biologically ready for philosophy. How do I go about discovering whether this objection is sound or not? And can the panelists specifically share some of their own experiences with teaching pre-college-aged students about philosophy in regards to the aforementioned objection?

I certainly think that high school juniors and seniors can learn the basics of critical thinking, ethics, and philosophy. I have breakfast semi-regularly with a teacher from a private high school who teaches philosophy to his students. He'll be teaching Plato's Republic to his seniors this year. So, I do not doubt that high school students have the capacity to comprehend philosophy. However, it has also been noted as far back as Plato's Republic that older students are better equipped to study philosophy. This claim also seems correct to me. Even most college age students lack the life experience to understand the importance of philosophical issues. In contrast, I once taught an ethics class to 30-40 year old nursing students.... this was an unusually positive teaching experience since they took the course very seriously and understood its relevance. My biggest concern for you would be whether there are any jobs available to teach philosophy at the high school level. It is hard...

If one is not a college student and yet still seeks a deep and professional knowledge in the field of philosophy but lacks methodology, how shall he acquire one !?

I think it is difficult for most people to learn much philosophy without the benefit of some sort of class structure. Your best strategy would probably be to find a mentor or a group of philosophical inclined friends with some grasp of philosophy who would be willing to read and discuss important philosophical texts along with you. I would also recommend auditing a couple of philosophy courses when you get the chance.

I am going to study philosophy this September at university. I am very much confused between an 'actual philosopher' and a 'philosophy professor'. I believe my confusion lies at my ignorance and lack of knowledge but please help me to see correctly. Would you agree that one can become a philosophy professor without becoming an actual philosopher? Do you think if Plato or Aristotle were born today, would they have enrolled in philosophy programs, get a master's degree, worry about publishing and afraid of not getting a tenure? The more I read about the profession of philosophy today, the less I am inclined to pursue it. But I don't want to abandon philosophy out of my life. I want to do philosophy for the rest of my life, but not as a professor. To be honest, when you step inside a philosophy department how many real philosophers do you see? I have been to my university's department, talked with philosophy grad students and felt that they do not care geniuinly about philosophy really. Please help me...

I sense a lot of admirable idealism behind your question. Yes, there is a conceptual difference between being an 'actual philosopher' and a 'philosophy professor', but fortunately there is still a lot of overlap between the two concepts. It is definitely possible to teach philosophy without being serious about advancing philosophical thought or living out a coherent thoughtful philosophy. More often, I think those whom you don't view as 'actual philosophers' started off more idealistically, but were discouraged either by the challenges of the 'philosophy profession' or by the skepticism they embraced as they developed philosophically. Not all philosophy departments are like your own. Some are populated with many professors that have successfully navigated the demands of the profession while maintaining a seriousness about philosophy and about service to their students. You should visit some other departments before embracing complete cynicism about the profession. And your final point is correct......

I hope no one is offended by this question: if you like doing philosophy much in college but are not particularly good at it (in the sense that he/she only gets average grades at it) and if you aren't quite well off economically to be reading philosophy every day, would you say that philosophy is low at the priority list? On another note: do you really need college philosophy education to understand complex philosophical books?

Whether we realize it or not, philosophy is something that is 'important, but never urgent'. Everyone lives by a philosophy, which is a set of assumptions concerning the ultimate nature of reality, ethics, knowledge, and what is important in life. However, not everyone has reflected upon these issues very deeply. Even if someone is not 'good' at philosophy, these issues are still of immense importance to his or her life. And the kind of life one lives is largely shaped by his or her philosophical assumptions. So, I would say that philosophy might be low on the priority list, but it is never low in importance. I'd also point out that virtually everyone finds time to do many things that are unimportant such as watching television. Also, I don't know if everyone NEEDS a college philosophical education to understand philosophical books, but philosophy is much easier to understand if you have such an education.

I've seen some people romanticize about philosophy in melancholic terms, as if it's a "symptom" of the depressed and sensitive minds to do philosophy. Is this generally true? Does the intricacy of philosophy require to some level quiet reserve and conscientiousness rather than an outgoing personality?

I don’t think there’s any necessary connection between doing philosophy and being ‘depressed and sensitive’. However, philosophy constantly puts one in a position where our society’s most cherished beliefs and assumptions are questioned. This can be quite depressing if you let this lead you to the edge of nihilism. I don’t think philosophers are generally dark and depressed, but I do think there are enough instances that confirm this stereotype of the philosopher to many people. Of course, there are also ‘happy philosophers’ who think they’ve figured out something very encouraging about the nature of the world. Similary, I don’t know if the intricacy of philosophy requires a level of ‘quiet reserve and conscientiousness’ that is greater than other academic disciplines in the humanities. One of the hard parts of the job for many philosophers is the enormous amount of alone time needed for writing and research. But, I think that would be true of any research oriented job that required a lot of reading...