It certainly isn't the case that both theists and atheists just assume that everyone knows what "God" refers to. Reflective theists worry about what "God" refers to. And indeed, at least for some atheists, their problems start exactly here too: they listen to what their local friendly theists are saying about the God they supposedly believe in and they find they just can't make enough sense of it. For such an atheist, it isn't that they well know what kind of thing this God would be if he existed but don't think that there's anything that fits the role. Rather, rightly or wrongly, they think that the stories about the alleged being -- at least those told by believers who try to go beyond crude anthropomorphic myth -- fail to describe a coherent role that anything could fit. Round our neck of the woods these atheists of course mostly hear Judeo-Christian stories to be ultimately baffled by; it is the local believers who, as it were, set the agenda for the local unbelievers. It isn't so much a matter...

Of course we might expect religions to take issues about sexual life and conduct seriously (though with some due sense of proportion, compared with other matters, like issues of social justice -- and it is the seemingly too prevalent lack of that sense of proportion that prompted my passing remark). What is quite bizarre is the kind of daft obsession that leads the Anglican communion to point of breaking up over the question of gay bishops. And what is simply vile is the kind of lunatic obsession that gets women stoned for adultery.

You might well enjoy reading the wonderful Philosophers without Gods (edited by Louise Antony, one of the contributors to this site). Some of the essays in that book might help you see that belief need not be "equivalent to superstition and group-think"; other essays question the "advantages to having a moral framework as one finds in [a] chosen/inherited religious tradition"; and other essays again will help in thinking through a decent secular moral framework.

Charles Taliaferro is, of course, right that there are philosophers who are serious theists. But noting that doesn't really answer the question why more aren't. (My guess about the proportion of serious theists in UK philosophy departments is no more than one in eight, probably less.) But I rather doubt that this is because "religion does not stand up to philosophical scrutiny": my non-believing colleagues mostly show no interest at all in the philosophy of religion. The reasons why they find no sustenance in theistic religion and it wouldn't cross their mind to attend church are more complex than explicit argumentative considerations. And so too for other non-believers. For at least in the UK, among the educated middle classes (as opposed e.g. to among immigrant communities maintaining a cultural identity), religion is in quite general and continuing decline, and the lack of belief among philosophers is matched much more generally. And not, surely, just because of how the arguments...

Charles Taliaferro's third sentence could be read as saying that I "give no credence to theism". If that's what he means, he presumes too much. What I give no credence to are bad arguments for theism.

I agree with Alexander George: the argument is hopeless. As it happens, I came across the argument for the first time only recently: and -- when I'd stopped laughing -- I blogged about it, rather rudely. You can read what I said, and 33 comments(!) here .

What is it with the obsession of (much) contemporary organized religions with matters of sexuality? It really is pretty bizarre. And for sure, if some of the energy wasted on pruriently fussing about who gets to do what with whom and where were spent campaigning on issues of social justice, say, then the world would be a better place. But I digress ... You say that the proscription of homosexual acts is "backed it up with scriptures and revelation from God given to mycurrent church leaders". But the import of the few relevant scriptural passages is the subject of hot debate. And even if you think that the relevant passages should be taken seriously (Why? I'm sure you don't buy the more whacky or offensive proscriptions of Leviticus. Any grown-up believer picks and chooses), why accept your church leaders' interpretation as opposed to the readings of e.g. more liberal Christian sects? They may claim "special revelation from God", but then they would, wouldn't they? -- and no doubt so do some...

The short answer is: yes, you are right, a course on modal logic would be the one that probably will relate a little to a philosophy of religion course (it will help you understand e.g. modal ontological arguments). But I think it is worth saying a bit more. I'd be a little worried if one of my first-year students said "I'm primarily interested in the philosophy of X " for any X . After all, philosophy is a subject where topics don't compartmentalize easily but connect up in deep and unexpected ways. Beginners should be exploring widely, and leaving themselves open to being gripped by all kinds of problems -- what I like at this stage is a student who says "the philosophy of Y is really exciting: that's what I want to do " one week, and then comes back three weeks later and says "wow, this philosophy of Z course is amazing". And I'd be particularly worried if someone focussed too hard too early on a small area of applied philosophy like the philosophy of religion. This is a...

I posted a reply simultaneously with David's excellent one: it is perhaps just about worth leaving these two remarks here. (1) An atheist certainly need not "take a position on god's existence ahead of time and argue it dogmatically". Someone can reject theism because they come to think that we have no good reason to accept the theistic hypothesis, and very good reasons to reject it. In fact, that is a common enough intellectual trajectory for people brought up in some religion: their eventual atheism is (at least by their lights) the result of weighing up the arguments, pro and con. Such an atheist might be misguided in her assessment of the weight of the arguments, but is hardly being dogmatic. (Nor indeed need every theist count as dogmatic, either.) (2) "Must a philosopher, in order to maintain integrity, put every principle on the chopping block?" Well, certainly we should stand willing to revise cherished views, if that's where the preponderance of evidence and argument takes us....

You ask for multiple perspectives: so let me start the ball rolling. "Who are the top contemporary atheists working in philosophy today?" Maybe it's because I'm working in England which is a pretty irreligious country, but most of the good philosophers I know well enough to have any clue about their religious views are cheerful atheists for whom religion just doesn't feature in their lives (except when dingbat religious fundamentalists of one stripe or another cause public mayhem). And most of these philosophers aren't very interested in religion as a philosophical issue (they might casually wonder what it is about us which makes our minds prone to gripped by supernatural stories of one kind or another, but they don't think the supposed philosophical arguments for taking such stories to be true are worth wasting much time over). So most of the "top atheists working in philosophy today" round my neck of the woods aren't working in the philosophy of religion but are getting on with what they think...

We surely need to distinguish between (a) bad conduct that happens despite the professed beliefs of the sinner (well, we are all human and our actions too often fall short of our own ideals, whether religiously framed or more secular), and (b) bad deeds that result from someone following through the prescriptions of a loathsome form of religion. So when people behave vilely to homosexuals precisely because of some crabbed fundamentalist Christian beliefs, or think it is acceptable to kill apostates because caught up in some fundamentalist Islamic cult, then indeed we can rightly find the particular beliefs that lead them to appalling behaviour to be intolerable. By their fruits you shall know them.