system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Is there a particular stigma to being a philosopher and having strong religious views, even if one's philosophy is distinct from them? Is medieval philosophy not taken as seriously for this reason??

Admittedly, I've only had some graduate study, but my perception is that philosophers with strong religious views are somewhat sidelined.  I don't just mean in academia either; after reading Maimonides *Guide for the Perplexed* and looking for secondary literature, I was a bit disappointed that nearly everything published was in Jewish studies rather than philosophy.   This is despite the fact that it seemed to me you could accept a lot of Maimonides' metaphysics without being committed to any of his religious views (e.g. At the end of Book I, he talks a great deal about how being able to imagine something is not relevant to whether or not that thing actually exists [which apparently is something some theologians thought at the time?], and has some interesting thoughts about ontology as to how it relates to imagination and observation of empirical fact)

Based on the philosophical education that *I* received at least, we tended to talk a great deal about Plato and Aristotle, after which philosophy was apparently dead for the next 1500 years, whereupon Descartes appaears on the scene and philosophy rises from the grave.  I can't help but notice that most philosophers during this period tended to couch their philosophy in religious allegory (e.g. Avicenna, Maimonides, Scotus, etc) even if their religious views were only one part of a larger worldview.  The professors I know who specialize in history of philosophy don't seem to know a great deal about a period of between 1,000 and 1,500 years.  

So do religious philosophers get pooh-poohed?  And if so, is it justified? (e.g. I could see an argument that people who have rather strong biases should be taken rather less seriously than people who don't, but I think that might presuppose that their religious conclusions are informing their philosophy rather than the other way around)

Is there another reason that medieval philosophy is not studied nearly as much that I am just unaware of?

(I also know that Catholic philosophy and academia tends to be its own insular field of study, but I'm not sure if that's by choice)
gpt
Are you asking if contemporary philosophers take religious philosophers from the past seriously? The answer is an unambiguous yes, for instance Descartes, Plato and Aristotle are taken very much taken seriously, and these Philosophers religious beliefs were not at all unconnected from their Philosophy. 

I think your actual question is 'why isn't medieval philosophy very prominent?' but there is no way Avicenna is somehow 'more religious' than Kant.