The most startling thing to me is that anyone can place any importance on these results beyond a kind of trivial curiosity value.

Take for example: "Philosophy of religion: Specialists more likely to favor theism (72:19 vs 15:73).

Now what conclusions might we draw from this "finding"? 

That "theism" (whatever that is exactly - and no doubt there will be dozens of different definitions among respondents) is correct?

That "theism" is more likely to be correct?  (So we should all perhaps start worshipping a "theistic" god just in case - though which one could be a problem).

That "specialists" are more likely to be familiar with, and understand, arguments in favour of theism than those in favour of Buddhism or say the religion of the Aztecs - which they may know little or nothing about ?

That "specialists" are less likely to be able to experience a genuine, profound sense of the sacred, and the closest they can get to religion is the watered down, rationalised form called "theism"?

That the worst way to approach religion is to become a philosophical specialist in the subject - because one is likely to end up a theist?

That if you want to "specialize" in religion you'd better study theism because that's where the crowd is going.

No doubt there are other possibilities as well.

DA