Does A Proper Understanding Of The Principles of Philosophy And Logic Point One To Monotheism And The Christian God?

Faith & Science Conversation
1

Numerous commenters on BioLogos have suggested that if one has a thorough understanding of the principles of philosophy and logic one will logically arrive at the conclusion that there is only one God (monotheism) and that that one God is the Christian God. But how does this claim fit with the fact that philosophers in non-monotheistic, non-Christian parts of the world overwhelming do not arrive at this conclusion? In Muslim countries, most philosophers would probably agree regarding monotheism but disagree vehemently regarding the Christian God. In western (Christian) countries, a majority of philosophers are atheists. Only in the field of philosophy of religion do theists comprise the majority. Could that be because every major evangelical university and seminary in the United States now offers a PhD in the philosophy of religion?

From AI: While some surveys indicate that the majority of philosophers overall are atheists, a significant portion of those who specialize specifically in the philosophy of religion are theists, with one survey showing that over 70% of these specialists lean towards theism. This is in contrast to the broader philosophical community where atheism is the dominant view.

  • Overall philosophical community: Surveys consistently show that most philosophers overall are atheists or lean atheist. A 2020 PhilPapers survey found that 66.72% of all philosophers accept or lean towards atheism, while 18.64% accept or lean towards theism.

  • Specialized field of philosophy of religion: Within the specific field of philosophy of religion, the numbers are different. A different 2020 survey indicates that 69.50% of philosophers of religion are theists, compared to 19.86% who are atheists.

  • Historical context: The trend in the broader field toward atheism is sometimes attributed to a shift after philosophers like Kant, who, according to some, moved metaphysics in a direction of agnosticism and atheism by questioning whether knowledge can extend beyond the empirical

Gary: Philosophy seems to be a very subjective field of study. It does not appear to be a reliable indicator of objective truth.

2

Betteridge’s law applies here.

2 Likes
3

From ChatGPT: “A few clarifications might keep this on the rails:

1) “Philosophy points to X” ≠ “Most philosophers already agree on X.”
Philosophy is a toolkit (logic, conceptual analysis, inference to the best explanation). Tools don’t guarantee consensus; they clarify premises and expose fallacies. Whether a conclusion follows depends on premises and background credences—and reasonable people disagree about both.

2) Validity vs. soundness.
Classical arguments for monotheism (e.g., contingency/cosmological, moral realism, consciousness/reason, fine-tuning, resurrection-centered historical arguments) are often valid: if the premises are true, the conclusion follows. The live debate is about soundness—are the premises true/more probable? That’s where worldviews diverge.

3) Polls don’t settle truth.
Appealing to PhilPapers percentages is sociological, not philosophical. We don’t decide special relativity, moral realism, or panpsychism by vote counts, and we shouldn’t decide theism that way either. Survey gaps typically reflect selection effects, specialization, pipelines, and background priors, not a final arbiter of reality.

4) Specialization matters (and “evangelical PhDs” is a red herring).
That philosophers of religion show different credences than the broad field isn’t shocking; domain expertise often reshapes priors. Suggesting this is because “evangelical schools offer PhDs” is a genetic fallacy—questioning belief by its sociology rather than its arguments. (And many leading philosophers of religion teach outside evangelical institutions.)

5) Cross-cultural disagreement counsels modesty, not nihilism.
Yes, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, and secular philosophers often disagree with Christian claims. The standard response in epistemology is peer-disagreement humility—update your confidence, examine premises, refine arguments—not “philosophy is subjective and unreliable.” If anything, philosophy’s value shows up here: it forces premise hygiene and makes hidden commitments explicit.

6) What “pointing to” should mean.
When Christians say “the principles of philosophy and logic point to God,” they usually mean: certain arguments make monotheism (and, with historical premises, Christianity) the best explanation of a wide dataset (existence of contingent reality, laws/math, consciousness, moral normativity, religious experience, and the origin of the Christian movement). That’s a cumulative-case claim, not “logic compels assent.”

If you want to engage that claim fairly, the next step isn’t surveys; it’s to pick one argument (say, a contingency argument) and tell us which premise you reject and why. That’s where philosophy does its best work.”

1 Like
4

Thus appears to be a continuation of all your other claims, with the hope that rewording it will change our minds and prove that you are right.

I use philosophy a great deal. I am a Christian, but do no adhere to the exclusivity clauses that you are criticising.

You have already had answers to all this.

Richard
Edit.
Just a note:
Philosophically “one size fits all” is not a good principle, but religions ignore this.

2 Likes
5

This is my argument. Philosophy is too subjective to use as an indicator of objective truth. So, does a creator God exist? Is monotheism true? Is the Christian God the only God?

Answer: Possibly, but we can’t use philosophy to answer those questions.

6

How then do you prove the existence of the Christian God without philosophy?

7

You don’t know what you are arguing or saying. In the other thread you were touting philosophical consensus in favor of atheism, now you sweepingly dismiss all of philosophy as irrelevant or too subjective to be useful? Is this only because it is out of your league as you appear to be used to arguing with poorly read fundamentalists on the dredges of the internet? Heaven forbid you have to actually dialogue with the arguments of 70% of the philosophers of religion with PhDs behind their names or the great intellectual tradition of Aristotle, Augustine or Aquinas. It must be pretty easy for you to argue against YECs and wooden literalists. You are again trying to rig the deck and go back to nihilistic science as the only way to truth. But many here won’t let you get away with that nonsense despite our deep love and passion for science. I am convinced you are an AI chatbot or just a really ignorant person. I could care less which one, but more importantly, your agenda here is to attack Christian faith and prove us wrong. I’ve only conversed with you two days and this is apparent.

I hope the @moderators are at least discussing why this forum is somehow now a haven for multiple atheists to repeatedly call into question basic Christian beliefs. I am fairly sure the reason Biologos exists is not to give atheists a platform to attack Christian faith over and over again or to have sincere readers of this forum and website who might be questioning aspects of their faith in lieu modern science constantly bombarded with attacks on God’s existence or being told their faith is absurd, or ridiculous to mainstream intellectuals.

There are two non-Christians on here that are both very respectful who do not make it a habit to attack our faith but post helpful information and sometimes partake in good spirited disagreements as times, but the rest of you seem to be lost trolls.

Vinnie

1 Like
8

Most of the world has been wrong before, so the fact that many world religions are not monotheistic is not by itself a problem for Christianity. Using that logic, you could argue Christianity is more likely to be true since it has the most adherents out of all the world religions. That is not a position I find compelling, but it is a conclusion you come to when you are just arguing based on numbers. A more fruitful discussion might be to discuss what specific objections you have to Christianity and why you feel the need to come onto a Christian forum covering what is really an in-house debate between Christians and question basic theological positions. There are forums that are specifically about discussions between Christians and atheists that you could go to instead.

1 Like
9

Welcome to those of you who are new! Since we’ve been tagged, I’ll just pop in here and give a reminder of a portion of our forum guidelines:

(from the “Politics and Religion” section)

Also, since this is a Christian discussion forum, we expect that basic Christian presuppositions like “God is good” and “the Bible is true” will not be constantly challenged by those who do not share those presuppositions. People of all beliefs are welcome to discuss evolutionary creationism here, but this is not the right place for debates on God’s existence or the general merits of the Christian faith.

Participants with no religion often bring valued perspectives of those outside the Christian sphere and we welcome all to participate here. But if someone has a desire to debate about the existence of God or whether Christianity is true, this isn’t the place for those discissions. There are many other places on the web where those kinds of debates can happen.

11 Likes
10

Hi Laura, just for clarification: So atheists can discuss the evidence for Darwinian evolution here but must accept as fact that this evolutionary process originated with the Christian God?

11

The only fact we’re asking you to accept is the fact that most people on this forum are approaching the topic of evolution from a Christian perspective, and therefore the basic premises of that worldview don’t need to be constantly challenged in debates.

5 Likes
13

The only other female embodied, embrained voice in this testosterone fuelled maelstrom of desperation. Polarized by the degree of metaphysical reaction to external reality; revulsion or acceptance.

More please!

There is a vast spectrum of Christian perspective, basic premises, worldview on evolution is there not?

14

A quick census gives me at least 6 more, some with fairly targeted interests.

We have a lot to do and are protecting our interests on multiple fronts in real life, particularly the Christian women with evangelical backgrounds.

Charming that some of our more titled, occasional visitors will not even reply to the women, which is why I have changed my avatar. Complementarianism infects even BL at times. So why even bother to engage?

I keep beginning replies and deleting them. 3 so far this morning. The time to put together a thoughtful post for minimal benefit just isn’t worth it.

Ya’ll menfolk just continue with the cudgel play until some of you get bored and move on.

6 Likes
15

Yep.

Can we move on now?

3 Likes
16

If people stopped posting faulty ‘proofs’ of God’s existence, there’d be no flaws to point out.

2 Likes
17

My apologies to 17 definite/probable / 187 posters in a year. Nearly 10%!

1 Like
18

How then do you prove existence with philosophy?

(Which is rhetorical, as you already conceded).

19

To where Ms. Kendel? We’re trapped in the malestrom of developmental failure of attachment and independence here.

20

Mr, Apistos,

Let’s step away from our computing devices, go outside and enjoy our existance with people whose existences we enjoy.

Let us do good and well.

Let us live our lives.

Me? I’m heading to the grocery store in a few minutes. Grateful to have the money I need to buy what my family needs. Then to knitting group with sassy women, who care about each other and wool.

Later, I will do other things, including dispising the evils of the Crusades and their romanticization, refiguring the math I obviously did wrong for my ambitious cardigan project, cook, bug my mom, bug my sister, procrastinate my arm-long to-do list and much, much more.

You?

3 Likes
21

Certainly. That’s one of the reasons we’re here. There is so much room for discussion within the many iterations of Christian beliefs and the way those beliefs interact with science and observation of the natural world. We still haven’t managed to run out of topics yet!

Amen! I wish I could be here more, but have to be selective due to limited personal bandwidth.

It can be a fine line, but pointing out flaws in another person’s arguments can be a helpful form of engagement when done well.

1 Like