Quentin Smith, “The Metaphilosophy of Naturalism” Philo 4/2(2001): 3-4.

For example, you’re now questioning “which study has shown this” despite the fact that you agreed earlier that the fact that many philosophers of religion are theists doesn’t prove anything

You’re making a claim that is very different to one previously made by me. Witness my claim…

“Many philosophers of religion are theists.” and “This does not prove theism.”

and your claim;

“A religious person who decides to become a philosopher is far more likely to become a philosopher of religion than a non-religious person who decides to become a philosopher.”

Very different. Now I was asking how you know this?

I don’t see any substance here.

Questions of clarification are not meant to be substantive. They are made because your comments lack clarity of wording and/or reasoning.

I’ll just let my 10:10 post stand and wait till someone challenges it.

Sometimes I think your statements are so outlandish. For instance, from your 10:10 comment…

Of all the subjects under the sun I can think of none which comes close to religion in that we recognise that non-experts (non-philosophers) should be listened to.

The claim made here is, “in religion we recognise that non-experts (non-philosophers) should be listened to.”

That is blatantly false. First, why should I listen to a philosopher when learning about some particular religion? I might listen to a philosopher when I want to understand if a particular religion is internally inconsistent or practically unliveable, but if I want information on a particular religion I would ideally go to the source – an expert. And if I want a considered and rational opinion on what religious thought is validity (say for example, the existence of God) I would go to a Philosopher of Religion.

Second, why would I seriously consider the opinion of a layman who has little or no affiliation on the particular religion on which s/he speaks? Or a layman on a topic of interest to the Philosopher of Religion. No one seriously considers the opinion of a three year old on what makes an healthy marriage. Why is religion considered among those things where everyone has a valid opinion? Not all opinions are valid.

The opinion of philosophers of religion does not reflect the status of religion. The opinion of philosophers in general does reflect the status of philosophy.

Reflect the status??? I don’t know what your saying.

So, no I don’t think philosophy of religion is alone, it is just very far over at the ‘everybody-has-a-valid-opinion’ end. Along with things like ethics.

Thanks for the laugh. Would you like to revise this statement, or would you like to affirm it again?

No I don’t make that assumption.

Your illustration did.

It is obvious, though, that a religious person who decides to become a philosopher is far more likely to become a philosopher of religion than a non-religious person who decides to become a philosopher.

What study has shown you this? Or do you want to negate your strong empirical bent and accept that you can know things apart from sensory experience?

David S Oderberg
John G. Cottingham
Nicholas Wolterstorff
Robert P George
Alvin Plantinga
Victor Reppert
Bill Vallicella
JP Moreland

and various others.

Not just William Lane Craig.

Look into the history of the philosophy of religion in recent decades. God is taken seriously now rather than e.g. simply dismissed as an incoherent concept, but that has not always been the case.

Yes, exactly! in my opinion. That is my whole point here: that me and you and the third person on the left all have valid things to say about religion, but that this is not true of chemstry and history and linguistics etc.

I can see that it seems ad-hoc, but I don’t think religion is alone on this. It’s not a black and white thing – it’s not that I think that for everything else we should defer to the academic field but for religion we should not. I think there is a grey-scale from, say, mathematics or physics all the way through to philosophy of religion or ethics. So, no I don’t think philosophy of religion is alone, it is just very far over at the ‘everybody-has-a-valid-opinion’ end. Along with things like ethics.

Anywho, this is how I would argue that while the opinion of experts in most areas really matters, it practically doesn’t matter at all with religion, and so religion is out to sea with all the crazy and insane things people believe the world over, while other topics are not.

In your opinion at least. You give no reason why we should take your opinion over that of someone who has taken great effort to study seriously religious thought and the philosophy of religion. It seems to me that distinguishing Philosophy of Religion apart from all other subjects is completely ad hoc.