Miguel wrote:

"In "Religion After Naturalism," Eric Steinhart thinks that philosophy of religion has gotten stuck because its conception of religion sets it against naturalism. As more and more people come to realize that naturalism is true, philosophy of religion is in danger of fading away much like theorizing about outdated scienc"

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

​Is the idea of a kind of crisis in philosophy of religion being pushed, basically, by philosophers committed to atheism and metaphysical naturalism? Because they feel that there are too many theists working in the field?

​As far as the fact that philosophy of religion coming from Western universities is slanted towards the Judeo-Christian tradition, this does not seem so surprising given the cultural background of many of their academics. It may change over time as the ethnic composition of many Western European countries changes. There should be more potential students from Islamic backgrounds for example. 

​I can't see though that emphasising metaphysical naturalism as a way of structuring the field would contribute to widening it to other religious traditions though. Some of these, as in China, Vietnam and other Communist/ex-Communist states, have probably been struggling with imposed atheistic worldviews in academic contexts anyway.  

  

mnels123 wrote:

The fact that he would suggest that naturalism is now regarded as true by most people is pretty ridiculous. In that Chalmers survey of nearly 1000 philosophers, less than 50% of them said they lean toward or accept metaphysical naturalism. 

Which section of the review are you thinking of?

Greg wrote:

FZM wrote:

​Is the idea of a kind of crisis in philosophy of religion being pushed, basically, by philosophers committed to atheism and metaphysical naturalism? Because they feel that there are too many theists working in the field?

I think it is more that there are some philosophers with either naturalism-compatible theisms or non-theistic (and naturalism-compatible) religions, who think their views deserve more of a hearing.

I agree that philosophy of religion pays relatively little attention to other concepts of the divine. Why should naturalism especially require attention beyond 'I likez Science!'. If anything it should be faulted for ignoring non-theistic accounts like Vedic Non-Dualism or Buddhism. 
 

​I dislike the claim that philosophy of religion in particular has gone wrong by ignoring Hinduism and Buddhism, since the same can be said about the entirety of Western philosophy. Advaita Vedanta is as relevant to philosophy of mind as it is to philosophy of religion, if not more so, and does anyone care? No.

Why should philosophy of religion be multi-cultural when the rest of Anglo philosophy has decided that other cultures' approaches are not worth taking seriously?

That said, I would like to see more dialogue between Western theism and Eastern nondualism. It'd be both more useful and more interesting for those of us agnostic non-naturalists out there. Classical theists like to say that nondualism is incoherent, but they're usually so focused on naturalism that they rarely go further than just asserting it.