Reader Colleen Keating asked the following in a comment to another post:
I'm applying for a PhD in Religious Studies (with a soon to be completed MA in Philosophy). There are faculty at some of these programs who list "philosophy of religion" as part of their interests, and who have published in phenomenology, existentialism, metaphysics, etc. However, my hunch is that philosophy PhD programs look askance at religion PhD programs-- perhaps how English PhDs have tended to view Comp Lit PhDs.Does anyone have anything to add that justifies or disqualifies my hunch as to this divide in academia?
I'll offer a hunch based on some limited experience. Religious studies is a broad area that draws on history, sociology, and philosophy. I think that most philosophers would agree that there is some fine work being done in religious studies programs. For example I really like William Zellner's work on religious countercultures, John Kelsey's work in comparative ethics, and James Turner Johnson's work on just war. However, most philosophers would be concerned with the fact that religious studies programs are suffused with people taking postmodernist or continental approaches to their work, including work in philosophy of religion. The same goes for much of the philosophical work that is taking place in seminaries, which probably have a closer relation with religious studies than those of us in philosophy. For what it is worth I'd think that it is easier for those trained in philosophy programs to find work in religious studies departments than vice versa. Perhaps others will offer their own observation in the comments section.
Thanks for the response! I am hoping that my MA in philosophy will make me an attractive candidate in religious studies, and, when I complete my PhD studies, a more well-rounded writer/scholar.
I'd be interested to see other's thoughts. I enjoy John Caputo's work (continental, yes, but still a rigorous philosopher), but also Peter Berger (who is more along the lines of sociology).
I don't know if this adds to the discussion or not, but here goes. I was taught, so this qualifies it, that contemporary religious studies is broadly concerned with religious phenomena from many faith backgrounds, not so much with the truth claims that those faiths hold. On the other hand contemporary philosophy of religion in the analytic tradition is concerned with the truth claims that faith claim, particularly the work being done in Christian theism.
So, I agree specifically with Matt that the religious studies degree is seen more on par with sociology by those in philosophy. I think the idea is that religious studies is intended to be more descriptive in its pursuits, rather than sorting through and making judgments regarding the truth of the claims made in religion.
I wouldn't say that biblical studies is anything like sociology. It's much more like classics or even like history of philosophy, with some archeology and some history thrown in. Those who do actual theology are often doing philosophy outright. Historians of religion are basically doing history. Religious ethics is pretty much philosophy that accepts some undefended religious claims and then traces out their implications. Many in religion departments are doing something more like psychology or sociology, but I think the best way to think of religion departments is as interdisciplinary, including some philosophy and much psychology and sociology, but many other things are involved. I can't see John Caputo as anything but a philosopher, though. He's clearly not working in the analytic tradition, but he's doing philosophy of religion in a way that most people who care about Derrida are not.
Someone mentioned earlier that philosophy of religion in the analytic tradition deals mostly with Christianity, but I've read elsewhere that the Christian focus of the philosophy of religion is starting to change, does this apply to analytic philosophy, or mostly just to coninental philosophy?