I was thumbing through Richard Fumerton's Epistemology text tonight when I ran across a curious remark.
"An atheist, quite literally, would have trouble surviving in philosophy at certain historical moments. These days it's hard to find theists in the philosophical community." Fumerton pg6I'll grant the first line, but the second... really? It's a surprising remark coming from an epistemologist if one considers the number of reputable epistemologists who are theists. (i.e., Alston, Audi, Bergmann, DeRose, Greco, Hawthorne, Kvanvig, Plantinga, Senor, Warfield, Zagzebski, just to name a few.) I know it's just a throwaway line, but it is an unfortunate line for two reasons. It gives introductory students an incorrect impression of the field, and it perpetuates a myth that exists in the minds of some.
I should mention that the book is otherwise quite good!
really? not that i've done a survey, and i suppose that would be crucial, but i would be *extremely* surprised if thesists numbered more than 10% in philosophy departments...
but i don't think this matters. it's biography.
I don't think a group that constitutes 10% of philosophers counts as hard to find among philosophers. Consider: Would we say that it's "hard to find" philosophers whose last name starts with "B"? Not at all. We all know several, no doubt. But no more than about 10% of philosophers fall into that category. (If you disagree, choose a less common letter, with some exceptions.)
What may be true is that in some departments, a theist is hard to find--i.e., there is no theist, or if there is, she is secretive about being a theist--just as in some departments it's hard to find someone whose last name starts with "B". But in the profession at large, there is no problem, unless one doesn't know how to look.
I've read through this book several times, and that line never caught my eye. (BTW, in my edition, that quotation is on page 7, not 6.) You're right to note that in epistemology, especially, there is no shortage of theists. Maybe I'll ask him about it next chance I get when it won't be too awkward. :)
I want to second Matthew's overall assessment of this book. It is an excellent work, and I would highly recommend it to anyone wanting to learn contemporary analytic epistemology.
Matthew,
I think one of the reputable epistemologists you list is not now a theist. I won't say which. Of course, the interesting question is whether you are still justified in believing each of them individually to be theists.
that's fair alex. here in boulder, among 20 faculty, we have 0 theists. in bellingham, my old school, we have 4 out of 7 that are theists. i don't mean to select departments simply to confirm my gut, but i was only blunting fumerton's "hard to find a philosopher" with "around ten percent", but no doubt, that's overly nice.
I've heard, I think, that there are maybe 12K APA members. Anyone know? And I've heard that the SCP has something close to 2K members. I'd expect the overwhelming majority of those to be theists... And so not counting all the other theistic perspectives, not even a generous bar of 10% won't get Rich off the hook on this one.
I know: restricted quantification to the rescue! He was really expressing the thought that *at Iowa* it's hard to find a theist...
"He was really expressing the thought that *at Iowa* it's hard to find a theist..." -- Saying "These days it's hard to find theists *in the philosophical community*" is a very strange way to express this thought!
This much seems obvious to me: Fumerton *knew* that what he was saying was false. Why did he say it then? My guess: the answer is given in Matthew's post. Matthew writes, "It gives introductory students an incorrect impression of the field, and it perpetuates a myth that exists in the minds of some." Note that this is an introductory text -- the best place for propagating such myths! Why propagate such a myth? In order to intellectually intimidate introductory students. Philosophers, who think about this stuff seriously, all conclude that theism is false. You're an introductory student. Don't you think the sages have thought this stuff through a little more thoroughly than you, and have a deeper grasp of the issues than you. Do you really think they're all wrong and you're right . . .
Not very charitable to Fumerton, I know.
Yes, not very charitable, and out of line with Rich's character. So I'd look for a different explanation, such as information about Rich's primary acquaintances in philosophy.
Then there's Quentin Smith's contention that "between a quarter and a third" of philosophy academics are theists, citing "exceptionless, educated guesses of every atheist and theist philosophy professor I have asked." (from "The Metaphilosophy of Naturalism," http://www.philoonline.org/library/smith_4_2.htm)
As one of Fumerton's graduate students, I can second the spirit of Jon's response to Dylan's explanation of the quote.
Richard and I have talked about theism a few times, and my sense is that his position is agnosticism rather than atheism. Almost always, he just expresses puzzlement over some of the views held by some theists: "He really believes that?" etc. He has never said anything biting or slanderous about theism or any theist. Once he even said that newer versions of the design argument carry substantial weight. (Note: this is not a direct quote; in that conversation he didn't go on to add anything about how such an argument affected his overall appraisal of theism, nor do I think he meant to imply anything either way)