A better question would be this :
Are academic philosophers taken seriously by Atheists / Pagans / Scientists / ... ?
Modern science makes Western philosophy obselete
In the West, philosophy as an academic discipline is largely rooted in Catholic tradition and has become obselete.
Today's Western philosophers have gotten stuck in pre-scientific models of physics and meta-physics - based on Christian dogma - that prevent them from realizing that their field has become obselete. As Jo Wehler explained here, they fail to build on empirical data and are unfamilar (or insufficiently familiar) with both the methods and modern science.
Modern scientists argue that...
- we can use science exclusively to determine the optimal conditions for both human and animal welfare
- a scientific insight into how to evolve towards those optimal conditions is all we need upon which to ground a solid Mythos / Weltanschauung
Every question that can be addressed by philosophy either is not answerable with any degree of certainty or can be answered by one or more of many scientific fields (From biology and physics to neuropsychology and sociology) in ways more reliable than philosophy ever could.
Science is basically a more reliable, more testable equivament of philosophy, effectively making traditional Western philosophy as an academic discipline obselete.
Atheists and Theists both embrace the Numinous
To quote the great Aldous Huxley :
How shall we define a god? Expressed in psychological terms (which are
primary-there is no getting behind them) a god is something that gives
us the peculiar kind of feeling which Professor Otto has called
“numinous”. Numinous feelings are the original god-stuff from which
the theory-making mind extracts the individualised gods of the
— Aldous Huxley
Even "the Hitch" acknowledged the Numinous :
I’m a materialist…yet there is something beyond the material, or not
entirely consistent with it, what you could call the Numinous, the
Transcendent, or at its best the Ecstatic. […] It’s in certain music,
landscape, certain creative work, without this we really would merely
be primates. It’s important to appreciate the finesse of that, and
religion has done a very good job of enshrining it in music and
— Christopher Hitchens
However, he also pointed out this :
I think everybody has had the experience at some point when they feel
that there’s more to life than just matter. But I think it’s very
important to keep that under control and not to hand it over to be
exploited by […] those who think that God has given them instructions.
— Christopher Hitchens
"Atheism vs Theism" is a false dichotomy
Both Theists and Atheists experience the Numinous more or less the same way, but Atheists look for explanations in science whereas Theists look for ancient texts they believe to be divine revelations. Yet, their perspectives aren't as distinct as most people realize. In fact, I'd argue that the gap between Theism and Atheism largely relies on purely semantic differences with respect to how both approach the Numinous. I elaborate on this in The Atheistic approach to God… or how to bridge the gap between Atheists and Theists.
Especially the Pantheistic / Animistic concept of "God" could be considered indistinguishable from the Atheistic / naturalistic concept of "nature" beyond the level of mere semantics, which happens to be the concept of "God" that corresponds with the esoteric "God" concept of most pre-Abrahamic pagan religions and even some forms of Abrahamic tradition (most in particular Kabbalism and Sufism). The early 20th century Traditionalist School (that influenced many traditionalist movements of the century that followed) was largely forcused on studying this common Pantheistic / Animistic core that most religions share.
Christianity is dying
I believe that the decline of Christianity in the West and the economic emancipation of both China and India as in the East will gradually allow Eastern philosophy to gain more hold on the West and will make it easier to dissolve the artificial dualism between Theism and Atheism that I believe to be largely caused by Christian tradition.
While the influence of Christianity on the West keeps declining, Atheism and various forms of non-Abrahamic traditions are replacing Christianity among Westerners. I will believe that Christianity will continue declining in the West until it's become entirely irrelevant, and that Atheism will eventually integrate with Animistic Pantheism, making the whole Theism versus Atheism debate moot.
My position can be summarized like this :
- Modern Western philosophy is largely rooted in Catholic tradition
- Modern Western philosophy is stuck in pre-scientific thought
- Science made Western philosophy obselete
- Christianity is declining and is unlikely to stop declining
- Atheism and various forms of non-Abrahamic traditions are replacing Christianity among Westerners
- Because Naturalistic Atheism is compatible with Animistic Pantheism and scientific knowledge, it's but a matter of time before Naturalistic Atheism will integrate with Animistic Pantheism
I guess my main point, here, is that whatever religious views are taken seriously by academic philosophers is rather irrelevant, because philosophy as an academic discipline is a vestige of pre-scientific Catholic tradition that has been made irrelevant by science... and that scientists lean towards Naturalistic Atheism or Animistic Pantheism... which (unlike Christianity) are both fully compatible with science and different from each other only at the most superficial (semantic) level.
Adding to that, I believe the term "neopagan" is much too vague a concept, as it can encompass anything from Wicca or other New Age religions to the revival of any pre-Abrahamic tradition. I would agree that Wicca and other New Age religions don't appear to have much influence anywhere, but I regard them as modern fabrications that are entirely distinct from genuine pre-Abrahamic pagan traditions and thus don't think the term "neopagan" captures the load very well.