Around the Web

Hi to all, and i have a question regarding studying the philosophy of religion. Currently, i am an undergraduate student in Business Marketing, however, about 2-3 years ago i became very interested in philosophy of religion and monotheistic religions. Last couple of months i thought about pursuing my graduate studies in philosophy of religion. Unfortunately, browsing through the internet i could not find any school in New Jersey or close to New York City which offer graduate studies in philosophy of religion. So i was wondering if some of you know some graduate schools in New Jersey or around New York city which offer philosophy of religion that would be recommandable.

Thanks,

Jole

A great school for philosophy in general, and which also has a number of faculty who are interested in the philosphy of religion, is Rutgers. However, not knowing the general ethos of the school, instead only knowing certain faculty, I can't say one way or the other if the department there would encourage (or even allow) someone to focus primarily in philosophy of religion. But looking closer at their department, including current student and faculty interests and former dissertations, might give you a better idea. However, also note that the Philosophical Gourmet has Rutgers listed at the second best department in the country, so getting in will not be easy (see http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/overall.htm).

For philosophy of religion in the NY area, Fordham would be an excellent choice. Fr. Brian Davies is there, among others. For example, John Greco has done some very interesting work in religious epistemology to go along with his work in, um, non-religious epistemology. Merold Westphal is also, I think, a very prominent philosopher of religion in the "continental" tradition.

Other graduate schools in the area that have programs in philosophy of religion are Villanova (just across the river from New Jersey) and Drew (actually a religious studies department). I do not know enough about either of these programs to be able to actually recommend them. Indeed, I feel fairly sure that your job prospects coming out of Drew would be quite dim--at least, if you want a job in a philosophy department. Perhaps if you got a solid concentration in some other area of religious studies in addition to the philosophy of religion specialization, you could find work in a religious studies department?

Two additional comments. First, philosophy of religion is a tiny specialization, and many of us who are interested in it actually write our dissertations in a different field. There just aren't very many jobs for philosophers of religion, but if you're an epistemologist or an ethicist (or whatever) with a strong secondary specialization in philosophy of religion, then your job prospects would be a bit brighter.

Second, it's probably a bad idea to choose a graduate school even partly on the basis of geography, if your longterm goals include getting a tenure track faculty position. If you're unwilling to leave the New York/New Jersey area, then you probably shouldn't go into academics. Even if you do widen your job prospects by specializing in a larger subfield like ethics, the jobs are still so scarce that unless you're a "star," you just have to take what you can get. You could wind up with just one job offer--in Montana. So, if you're willing to relocate for a job, you might as well be willing to relocate for graduate school, in which case you should widen your search for graduate programs. But if you're unwilling to relocate for a job, then you probably ought to reconsider going to graduate school at all. (Again, assuming you wish to get a tenure track teaching job.)

Assuming you do widen your search, there are plenty of good programs that offer great opportunities to study philosophy of religion, while also allowing you to specialize in a related field. Notre Dame is, IMHO, by far the strongest such program. But St. Louis, Oklahoma, Purdue and Georgetown also spring to mind as good places. I'm sure there are others that I'm not thinking of.

Best of luck to you.

Kevin and Patrick thank you very much for the recommendations and i appreciate your efforts. Patrick, i was carefully looking at Drew University and they seemed to have graduate studies in theology with a concentration in 'Philosophical Theology'
http://www.drew.edu/catalog/grad/courses/thphg/index.php,
which is similar to philosophy of religion and takes into account epistemology, metaphysics and ethics. So, i think that would be a great choice. Anyway, i was wondering what you meant when you said 'I feel fairly sure that your job prospects coming out of Drew would be quite dim--at least, if you want a job in a philosophy department'. Do you mean that theological departmanet at Drew Univ. is not reputable as others? Or ?

However, i was also looking at Hartford Theological Seminary in Hartford, Connecticut. Even though they do not offer graduate programs in philosophical studies in religion and theology, they do, however, offer studies in 'Islamic studies and Christian-Muslim Relations' http://www.hartsem.edu/academic/ma/requirements.htm
which i also have interest in, since i have a muslim background. So, is anybody familiar with this school or perhaps heard about it? Also, i was wondering is it possible to get 2 Master's degree from different schools, for example in this case, one from Hartford Theological Seminary and one from Drew Univ.? By the way, what is a 'tenure track faculty position'?

Again, thank you very much for the time and effort.

Good luck and best wishes,

Jole

In response to Patrick's list of additional schools at the end, I can't help but self-interestedly point out: Missouri is another choice and is ranked higher than any on his list except Georgetown.

Yes, sorry, I forgot about Missouri. I don't believe the Ph.D. program there was up and running yet when I was looking into graduate schools, so I never investigated that program.
Now, of course, it's an excellent choice.

In reply to Jole: I don't know whether Drew's religious studies department is well thought of. It may be. But even if it's a top _religious studies_ program, that won't impress a hiring committee for a philosophy job. The philosophers will almost certainly want you to have a degree from a philosophy department. That's why I think you'd have a rough time getting a job teaching philosophy if you went to Drew. (Again, if you're more interested in teaching religious studies, this isn't really a concern for you.)

It's possible to get two (or more) master's degrees from two (or more) schools, or from the same school. But if you want a job teaching at the college level, you'll need to get a Ph.D. (Possible exception: some community colleges hire folks with "only" an MA.)

I'd say that if you're serious about doing some graduate study, you should find a philosopher (or religious studies scholar) at your school and ask for some advice. There are lots of things to consider.

I'm not sure what "up and running" means for you, but the PhD program here has been around for more than a half century. What is true is that there was no one here doing philosophy of religion till I moved here in 2001, and little representation among graduate students of those interested in this subdiscipline. That has change dramatically now however, and anyone interested in philosophy of religion should investigate our program. Notre Dame is still the best place to go for work in the area, but I'm sure there are many more interested in it than Notre Dame will accept.

I want also to caution against some of the schools recommended here for anyone interested in academic positions in philosophy departments. For that, Leiter's report needs to be consulted and given very heavy weight in deciding where to go and what programs to consider.

jon,

Well, since it was considerably less than 50 years ago that I was looking into graduate school, my memory of why I didn't look into Missouri must have been faulty. I suppose the real explanation is more along the lines you suggested--that you (as well as certain other folks, like McGrath) weren't there at the time, and thus I didn't bother to seriously look into the program. Sorry for my confusion.

If I may reply to this: "I want also to caution against some of the schools recommended here for anyone interested in academic positions in philosophy departments. For that, Leiter's report needs to be consulted and given very heavy weight in deciding where to go and what programs to consider."

For my money, you overstate the case here. There are hundreds of philosophy departments that don't agree with the Gourmet Report. Further, it seems to me that even if a hiring committee at one of these schools were to overlook its distaste at seeing an applicant from Rutgers and take a fair look at the candidate, the type of training one would be likely to get Rutgers (and many other schools that do well on the Report) would not stand one in good stead at such a school.

To be more specific, I'd say that _most_ of the very many Catholic schools in this country have "continental" (or, at least, non-analytic) philosophy departments where the Gourmet Report is either off the radar screen entirely, or else is held in disrepute. The philosophers at these schools are not necessarily going to be impressed by people coming from Rutgers. But even if they are impressed by the person's philosophical ability, they still, largely, need to hire a good colleague rather than a star researcher. So they'll be looking for people with a broad range of teaching competencies, including, especially, ethics and human nature (at many Catholic colleges, these two courses are required for every student); they'll also be looking for competence in at least one, but preferably all the areas of the history of philosophy. It takes time to develop such a range of competencies. And time spent on competencies is time spent away from one's specialization. So it's possible that someone who isn't nearly as much a powerhouse in his AOS will still beat out the star from Rutgers because the Rutgers person is so focused on research that teaching competencies have been sacrificed.

For those of us who covet jobs at schools that do well on the Gourmet Report, it seems pretty obvious that we'd have to go to schools that do very well on the Report. For those of us who just want decent teaching jobs--in particular at certain kinds of schools, especially Catholic schools--then things are much more up in the air. It seems that a good person coming out of Fordham probably has a better shot at a job at most Catholic schools than a good person coming out of, say, UMass or Rutgers.

Patrick, the Leiter report contains information and advice on programs in any area of philosophy one might be interested in, including philosophy of religion and continental philosophy. And Fordham does get mentioned in some areas one might be interested in studying, including philosophy of religion. If one wants a job at a Catholic school, it might be good advice to send them to a Catholic school, but that's not obvious. It is worth remembering the degree to which upper administrators are impressed with credentials, and the predominant hiring of philosophers from Catholic schools might indicate the lack of candidates from more prestigious institutions (with the other features important at Catholic and other religious institutions) rather than a preference for candidates from Catholic institutions. The remark about attending to the Leiter report doesn't imply that no one should go to Fordham, which has some very good people in it to work with, though it has more negative implications for some of the other schools mentioned. No one should go to grad school without giving serious weight to the Leiter report, since it is a fairly accurate indicator of the sociology of the profession. In spite of squawks from a number of corners both about the methodology of the report and its bias toward what is (inaccurately) called analytic philosophy, the fact is that this approach is the dominant one in the U.S. and placement data tends to fall in line with the report, where better jobs tend to go to people from departments the report ranks highly. There are, of course, institutions with teaching loads of 4, 5, and 6 courses a semester where the hiring data doesn't fit the report, but I expect the best explanation of that fact is that most new PhD's prefer jobs that leave time to pursue their philosophical interest.

I'm more than willing to grant that you know a lot more about this stuff than I do, so it would obviously be a better idea for anyone to take your advice than mine.

Servetus view of Trinity is a result, really, of the erroneous views of Covenant Theologians. Calvin and the others in varying ways explained the trinity as being hierarchical, with the Father eternally begatting the Son, and the Holy Spirit issuing from both. But this all stems from a misuse of Psalm 2:7, which misinterprets the generation of Christ. Clearly the Apostles as final interpreters of divine revelation have revealed that the resurrection of Christ is the fulfillment of Psalm 2:7 as shown in Acts Ch 2, Acts 13:33 and Hebrews 1:4-5. Since there is no eternal generation, there is no subservience of the Son in eternity, only with regard to the salvation process. Since Christ is not subservient, the weakened arguments of His equality put forth by the Covenant Theologian would not have brought confusion, that, in my view resulted in the theories of Servetus, Jehovah's Witnesses,etc. I hold the Covenant Theologians responsible for this general error of a lesser Christ. I further then hold them responsible for the persecution of Servetus and his murder. The failure of the Covenant Theologians to establish a true New Covenant theology with the Apostles as the final arbiters of doctrine has lead to persecutions, false doctrine, sacral religion and all manner of evil.

I agree that Calvin is largely responsible for the burning of Servetus. However, I don't think that "Covenant Theologians" bear any special responsibility for the view of the Trinity developed by Servetus. Servetus would have rejected any Three-In-One view of God as being essential to Christianity. Two things to keep in mind are that Servetus was motivated by the fact that the doctrine of the Trinity was a stumbling block to both the Muslims and Jews of his native Spain, and Servetus could find no scriptural support that would commit one to the Trinity. Roland Bainton has a good chapter on Servetus in his book "The Travail of Religious Liberty."

While if it is true that servetus had political motives maybe nothing would have stopped his doctrinal leaning, however, it is certain that the covenant theologians had no answer to those who claimed they were teaching that Christ was subordinate to the Father. It is their misinterpretation of scripture that instigated the confusion. Of course this misinterpretation was with us from the early church fathers. In the final analysis I say a plague on both their houses, because they both could not see the real equality of Christ to the Father. I do believe that any merger of church state is certain to destroy the truth of the gospel.

I'm neither theologian, biblical scholar, nor church historian, so I cannot speak to whether or not covenant theologians had answers or not. However, if you'd like to make a philosophical argument for your position that is fine, but I'd ask that you not invoke plagues on other people's houses. Discussions of religion can get heated, but if you cannot play nice then you won't be able to play at all.

Oh yes, Matthew, my intention was not to distract from the reasoned discussion. No more plagues. I hope you understand my frustration regarding this subject, and the unnecessary misuse of government to settle these matters. The politics of Geneva appear to be far more strident than even those of Republicans and Democrats. And the stakes were higher, ones life!

I don't think Calvin would take very kindly to your misrepresentation of his position. He clearly thought of the Son as ontologically equal to the Father. It's just that the Son's role within the Trinity is one of submission. It's not about ontology. It's about role.

Paul thought the same thing, by the way. It's very hard to make sense of his statements in I Corinthians 15 in any other way. It also makes much more sense of Paul's statements about gender roles than any other view, given his clear statements of the equality of men and women but the role differences in marriage and in church leadership. He does indicate in I Corinthians 11 that he thinks the male-female relationship is in some ways parallel to the Father-Son relationship.

Hi Jeremy, unfortunately this view of Calvin is not correct. Eternal generation has only one outcome no matter how loud we scream "equality". For example, Calvin stated in the Institutes that as to His essence, Christ is eternal, but His person has its beginning in God. Astounding statement isn't it Jeremy. Of course all the CT's had different language it seems for making an eternally generated Christ equal. You can see where someone listening to Calvin say that Christ's person had a beginning would say he was created without too much of a stretch. My point of course is that it is logically impossible to believe in eternal generation of the Son, and equality of the Son at the same time. And it all stems from the misuse of Psalm 2:7!

You're conflating different uses of the word 'beginning'. One is a beginning in time, which Calvin denied when he said Christ had no beginning. When he says Christ is generated eternally from the Father, as Trinitarians have traditionally said and all the creeds affirm, it's obviously not a beginning in time. It's a statement about ground of being. Having the ground of one's being in an eternal God does not entail being created. By that logic, you'd have to claim that Aquinas took the laws of logic and the truths of morality to be created, given that he held that they were grounded in God's nature.

What you say at the end involves a conflation of two different senses of equality. One is equality in nature, which Trinitarians who accept the creeds affirm. The other is exactly what I meant when I spoke of equality in role above. The Father is in some sense prior, as Jesus' statements all through the gospel of John require, yet fully equal in another sense, as Jesus' statements all through the gospel of John require.

Your assumption is that metaphysical priority is inconsistent with metaphysical equality. The male-female case in Genesis is a helpful analogue. God created them in his image, male and female, and yet he created man first and woman out of man. This does not in any way require ontological inequality, because both are in the image of God. It does require differences in terms of priority, in this case both temporal and in terms of source, though the case of the Father and Son doesn't involve a temporal difference.

But Jeremy, then you are saying that Calvin is saying that Christ has a beginning as a person in eternity. I agree that is what he is saying, but I also must say that this is at odds logically with any true equality. Nothing has changed there. Metaphysical equality has to make sense to human reason. The fact that the generation of Son is based upon a false interpretation of scripture shows the bankrupcy of the whole project. If it is misguided in its assumptions and then, therefore it cannot become unmisguided in its conclusion. It is a foundation of Covenant Theology that is without merit. It is not the only foundation in CT without merit, but it is a major one. The 1646 London confession and writings deny this eternal generation, but unfortunately it was reformulated in the 1689 London confession which was adopted by the Americans, ie Southern Baptists, etc. I maintain that the 1646 confessors walked according to the truth in this matter.

I want to add Jeremy, that Jesus is subservient by his own volition regarding redemption. And the problem with CT is this, they are not talking about the work of redemption when arguing about dependency by generation. They are arguing that personally as to His very being Christ is dependent eternally on the Father. That simply is not true and there are no scriptures supporting it.

Reasserting an argument that I've shown to be fallacious doesn't make it any better. It relies on an equivocation. I'm not going to repeat my argument simply because you repeated your original assertion.

It seems to me that the kind of equality you want to insist on is nothing short of identity in first-order logic, which would make the very concept of the Trinity contradictory. It would require modalism. People can certainly hold such a view, but I got the impression you weren't going that way.

This is a philosophy of religion blog, so I'm not going to get into the scriptures. I do think Jesus' repeated statements in the gospel of John sound as if he's saying that he's metaphysically dependent on the Father. This probably isn't the place to debate interpretation of scripture, however.

Also, eternal submission does not entail lack of volution.

Volition, sorry.

Jeremy, why do you continue to support an argument that is made void by scriptural proof that eternal generation does not exist? And further, why would Christ, who is eternal, submit to something He had no need for? For Calvin to say that as to His essence He is eternal, but as to His person it has a beginning somewhere in eternity is like giberish. It means absolutely nothing. Christ is equal to the Father in every way. He is equal to the Spirit in every way. Their persons and essence were eternal without beginning, so that eternal generation makes no sense. It is imaginary and unarguable.