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.

3

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.

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