Given how few people are raised as atheists, even if atheists were more attracted to philosophy careers than the average person, it seems unlikely they would be so wildly overrepresented among professional philosophers without many of them converting along the way. But I can't find any survey data one way or the other addressing this specific question, so I admit it's possible (if unlikely).
In any event, I think it's clear which way the overall directionality points. As you noted, many universities started out as institutions heavily influenced by religion, but have become more secular. You suggest it's possible the shift occurred because people became more knowledgeable, and I'd say that's exactly what happened. I don't know how many philosophical breakthroughs there have been since 1850, but there have been many scientific breakthroughs. And philosophy is certainly informed by science (and vice versa). Indeed, science is in some ways a specialization of philosophy, as the early scientists and philosophers were one and the same. The historical pattern we observe is one of various mysteries being attributed to God, and then science providing a naturalistic explanation for a given mystery, and so God retreats to more distant mysteries. By our present day, God has retreated so far that he is beyond the bounds of the universe, where he is safe from examination by science.
And yes, as you note, many smart people believing something doesn't make it true. But if many smart people who are experts in philosophical arguments find a particular philosophical argument unpersuasive, I would at least adjust my confidence level in that argument downward.
Along these lines, you say if the first cause argument didn't hold up, you would still believe in God. But would you lower your confidence in God's existence?
In terms of logically necessity, you say "Doesn't something that exists by its very nature have to be defined as something which we cannot logically imagine could possibly be different?" I don't follow that. Either X is eternal or Y is eternal. Why is it only logically possible to imagine X being eternal and not Y (or vice versa)?
It seems rather arbitrary to me to apply self-existence to God. The first cause argument says something had to be eternal, and so let's call that something God. Very well, but then you tack on a bunch of other attributes like a mind and a personality and goodness that are unjustified by the argument. Attributes that we don't know to exist anywhere except on Earth.
By contrast, the laws of physics are fundamental and exist everywhere and everywhen. And as I noted in my earlier post, "Of Philosophers and Cosmologists", physicists have equations and models that suggest the laws of physics (or at least quantum laws) exist completely outside space and time. Which is precisely the kind of thing we have been looking for. And unlike God, we don't need to graft on additional attributes...the laws themselves can remain fundamental and simple.
The Cartesian "I" is exactly what some philosophers are challenging as an illusion. As I said, I'm undecided on the issue. But let's assume there is an "I". A self-reflective observer. Do you think this is separate from a mind? Or is it an emergent property of a sufficiently complex mind? Is a mind with no thoughts, no language, capable of self-reflection? You say a computer is different, but I don't see why a sufficiently advanced computer couldn't have a conscious experience. AI seems to be heading down this road.
As for "simple and complex", I feel like we are just playing semantics here. The basic concept seems so intuitive and self-evident to me, that it's hard for me to imagine our intuitions diverge so much. Let me try again: Hydrogen Atom-->Amoeba-->Flower-->Turtle-->Chimp-->Human. I assume you recognize there is a clear scale of increasing capabilities here from "bond with some other atoms" to "design a jet engine." You seem to not want to call the capabilities "simple and complex", so how about "primitive and advanced"? As we move back in time, we see capabilities becoming more and more primitive. But once we get all the way back to the ultimate beginning, suddenly we jump to the most advanced capabilities of anything ever?
I believe in the concept of justice, I just don't think it's objective, any more than the rest of morality is. As for whether people "deserve" things, I would say that's an emotional reaction, based on an intuition of fairness. Now, I assume you would say that intuition comes from God, but I think it is explicable in terms of natural and societal selection. Fairness breeds trust, trust allows for cooperation, the more cooperative social groups outcompeted the less cooperative ones, and produced descendants with stronger intuitions of fairness. I don't think justice is a meaningful concept outside of societal interactions.
