Terminal M.A. Programs for Philosophy of Religion

I'm currently studying philosophy at Talbot. Have the person email me if he or she would like to discuss the program.

Western Michigan University was (to my surprise -- I went there to distant myself from phil of religion!) an institution where philosophy of religion was often discussed. With Tim McGrew and Quentin Smith in the faculty and a reasonable number of students interested in philosophy of religion, the department may be one of the best kept secret in philosophy of religion.

Matt,

This is a great question. Since I did the Talbot M.A. let me give my own assessment of the program.

First, the postive stuff. I think in general Talbot is one of the best (if not THE best) place to pursue a terminal MA in Philosophy of Religion. However, the degree title (Phil. Religion & Ethics)is a bit of a misnomer. The degree requires solid grounding in analytic metaphysics and epistemology, and students not particularly interested in studying philosphy of religion or ethics can pursue interests in these other areas in some depth. Also, you can't really go wrong with the faculty. They are great. I should also note that faculty members like David Horner and Doug Geivett, who are not as well known as, say, J.P. Moreland or Bill Craig, are VERY good philosophers. Students also have the opportunity to do classes with philosophy faculty outside the Talbot department such as David Hunt from Whittier College who regularly teaches seminars in action theory and allied topics in phil. religion, and Tom Crisp, who recenty moved to Biola's undergraduate program from Florida State. On a more general level, Biola is a warm and welcoming environment that provides opportunity for spiritual development as well. I found my education there to be very rewarding.

Now for the bad stuff. First, and most importnatly, the student to faculty ratio is HORRIBLE. There are officially 6 philosophy faculty, but one of them is often on sabattical, and Bill Craig only teaches one short (3 wk.) interterm class every year. However, at any given time there are 115-130 students in the program. This makes it difficult for the profs to give focussed attention to one's work. I think they would be willing; they just don't have the time. Now, this problem is offset somewhat by the fact that they sometimes bring in guest faculty (like David Hunt)and there are often quality graduate courses taught by the undergraduate faculty, but it's still bad. It's not uncommon to have seminars with 30+ students. Secondly, there is no logic class. Now, I had the benefit of having logic as an undergrad, and of taking a special summer graduate level logic course with Rob Koons from UT Austin, who came out and did an intensive summer course for the talbot students (it was a one time deal, I believe). But there is no regularly scheduled logic course, nor is there any sort of department requirement. A final fact to consider is finances. Talbot is extremely expensive, and in general they do not offer financial aid. Morever, the southern California area is not the cheapest place to live. For students who want to combine a seminary education with philosophy, and want to do it with great faculty such as Talbot has, it may well be worth the cost. But I strongly encourage people thinking about attending Talbot to weigh the cost of tuition and living in SoCal with the reality of the fact that philosohy is a competative discipline, jobs are hard to come by and don't always pay that well.

There are other things I could say both positive and negative about the program, but I think I've covered the biggies.

Unless something has changed in the past 3 years, it is also possible to get a terminal MA from SLU. Given its position in group 2 of the Gourmet Report, it is worth considering (though like other MA programs that also offer the PhD, I don't believe there is any funding for MA-only students).

Justin and Bradley,
I was just wondering how difficult it was to get into the terminal program in philosophy at Talbot? In other words, what kind of stats are they looking for?

- Corey

Corey,

I entered the program in 2003, and I think that since that time they have become more strict in their requirements partly because of the problems I mentioned about student/teacher ratios (though I don't think they've done nearly enough on that front). That said, I don't think it's terribly difficult to get in, not a difficult as the top M.A. or Ph.D. programs listed on the Gourmet Report. However, I have been out of the program for several years now, and though I'm still a part of the Biola community, I'm not up on their current policies. Perhaps Bradley could speak more to the specifics.

While I hesitate to post too much about Talbot in a public forum since I’m still attending and any negative comments might eventually hurt me, I’ll say a few things in response.

1) We now offer a logic class every summer taught by Tom Crisp. It’s not required, but it is strongly endorsed by those who take it (myself included). Plus, Tom’s brilliant.

2) Talbot is $407 per credit. A graduate grant of approximately $800 per student is offered. That is very low compared to private undergrad institutions (Biola undergrad costs $1,042 per credit), but considering most graduate philosophy programs are fully funded, it’s a lot to pay.

3)Student-faculty ratio is high. And some professors (JP and Bill) are nearly inaccessible due to everyone clamoring for their time (JP) or their living in Atlanta (Bill). However, when Bill is in town he eats lunch every day with as many students as would like, and JP does his best to fit everyone in. Additionally, I have never had a problem setting up a one-on-one meeting with any other professor there. And they care deeply about their students.

4)Make no mistake: Talbot is academically rigorous. In fact, I was just told by several professors at last weekend’s SCP meeting that their students from Talbot are consistently the best prepared to dive into discussions of metaphysics, epistemology, etc. JP may be a great guy with a soft heart, but his class will kick your butt. That goes for all of them.

5)I really can’t speak to admission requirements. I could tell you my stats coming in, but I want the guys on here to respect me. :) Seriously, email me and I’ll tell you.

6)Finally, the best part about Talbot is the community. There are some very, very good philosophers here studying all areas of philosophy, from ancient philosophy to cognitive science, metaphysics to metaethics. And we all genuinely want each other to succeed both academically and in life. There are always study groups, and the most knowledgeable students help the rest. I think you’ll find students and professors who are interested in your development as a philosopher and as a person.

Bottom line: if you can afford it, come visit and check it out. I (or someone else) will show you around, introduce you to some professors and take you to lunch and to as many classes as you want. Then you can figure out for yourself if it’s right for you.

(sheesh! sorry about the length. the above is also available in hardcover)

considering most graduate philosophy programs are fully funded

Most Ph.D. programs are fully funded. Almost no M.A. programs are fully funded, and most aren't even partially funded.

I've had the opportunity to talk at length with a Talbot grad, and I've heard little anecdotes from several others. The impression I get is that they're dishonest in listing Bill Craig as if he's one of their faculty and that you don't benefit much by being in his classes as compared with reading his books. He just reads his notes, often doesn't respond to students' questions but to what he would like them to be asking, and has a hard time understanding the level his students are capable of grasping. Moreland is the opposite. He's an absolutely excellent teacher, but he's got very high standards for submitted work. He's also a really nice guy.

I think the reputation of both tends to be exaggerated within circles that know Talbot well and don't know the outside philosophy world very well. Hardly anyone in my program would have heard of either except the evangelicals. But as masters programs go, you're not likely to find a lot of programs with a lot of people who are household philosopher names. And it may well be that some of the younger or less-known faculty at Talbot are actually underrated in comparison to their two "stars".

I've also heard of some real narrow-mindedness among some of the faculty and students. In particular, anyone even open to a materialist view of the human person is viewed almost as a heretic. The same goes for compatibilists and (as strange as it might sound, since this issue is irrelevant for Christianity) nominalists about universals. I imagine open theists would have an even harder time, but I haven't heard any stories of particular people on that issue.

There's also a narrowness of approach. I spent a weekend with a Talbot grad (one of their best, one who is considering going on to a Ph.D. somewhere in the near future). I talked about some of the standard metaphysical literature with him, and he seemed very unfamiliar with most of the important works. He said he'd never read any David Lewis, and I was completely shocked. How can you consider it a good education in metaphysics without even reading David Lewis, the premier metaphysician of the last few decades? Certain issues get lots of time, and others get short shrift. Genuinely (in metaphysics) these have to do with what issues Moreland cares about or thinks are apologetically important. Some of the most important metaphysical debates right now in the current scene are virtually unknown at Talbot. I imagine the same is true in other subjects, but since metaphysics is my discipline, it's what I noticed immediately in talking with this particular graduate of the program. The low faculty-student ratio is part of the problem here. A larger faculty might have more diverse interests. But I think part of the problem is also dealing with trying to prepare the best students for Ph.D. programs while also trying to cater to the lowest common denominator among the larger body of seminary students.

But despite its problems, the fact is that Talbot has a good record of placing some of their graduates in very good Ph.D. programs. That's partly because with so many students some of them are bound to be very good, but I think the faculty have had a hand in helping their best students get placed in excellent programs. It's true that it's expensive, has an awful student-faculty ratio, and is very narrow-minded in its approach in several ways, but it's also an effective way to get into a good Ph.D. program if you are smart, love philosophy, have a weak philosophy background, and want to pursue a Ph.D.

Just a minor corrective to some of the remarks above. It is true that funding is scarce for terminal MA students at PhD-granting departments. But one can be funded as a PhD student at such institutions even though one comes only for an MA. To do so, you apply, of course, to the PhD program and are funded through it. Many of the places mentioned here (Purdue, Arkansas, etc.) can be approached in this way. It may be that it is harder to get into the PhD program than in the Master's program at such institutions, though.

The other kind of program to note is departments with only a master's program. Biola is one such program, though to my mind, one of the weakest because of the student-faculty ratio problem. Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Western Michigan, Northern Illinois, and Texas Tech all take philosophy of religion very seriously. Texas A&M can be mentioned as well, even though they have a PhD program now. In each case, these departments fund MA students in the way PhD programs typically fund PhD students, so the cost burden isn't abnormally high.

I haven't checked to most recent Leiter report, but I know previous ones had a special section on MA-only programs, and one can check to website of each program to see whether any (productive!) faculty say they are interested in philosophy of religion.

To respond to Jeremy ~

In terms of narrow-mindedness, it's true that most of the professors believe the same things - substance dualism, Molinism, moral realism, etc. However, I have friends here who are materialists, I myself lean towards some sort of trope nominalism and at least semi-compatibilism, and several of us are at least flirting with the open view of God. So while perhaps the professors are alike in some ways, I think it's a mistake to say the students are. And we're not persecuted for our different beliefs (although I don't know what it would be like to be a B-Theorist in Bill's class!).

Tom's metaphysics texts are Nature of Necessity and On the Plurality of Worlds. Could you email me some recommendations for good follow-up to those? I'm thinking Hawthorne's "Metaphysical Essays" next, but I don't know where to go after that.

I may not have been clear in my original post, but I was mostly interested in advice for candidates who are not interested in going on to pursue the PhD in philosophy. For those interested in the PhD I think one of the primary considerations should be the M.A. program's success in placing its students into top PhD programs. I think Talbot is good for people interested in the M.A. alone, but for those who want to pursue the PhD I think there are better programs.

Johnny-Dee,

I'm embarrassed that I completely forgot about WMU. They seem to have a really good record of placing their students into top PhD programs.

Bradley & Justin,

Thanks for the insiders look at Talbot. I didn't realize they had so many students. It explains why I seem to run into a lot of Talbot alums.

Kevin,

Thanks. I simply took a cursory look at SLU's web page and didn't see that they offer an M.A. They've turned out a couple of good folks, and have some fine faculty. I'd put them at the top of the list with Purdue.

Jeremey,

I think you're right about the over billing of Craig. From what I've heard he won't write a letters of recommendation. Not even for his research assistants. That said, I still think Talbot a good choice for the individual seeking just the M.A. in philosophy of religion. Such people aren't likely to be interested in the wider debates in metaphysics that aren't seen as having much implication for PR. For what it's worth, my experience is that Talbot students are usually way ahead of their peers in other seminaries. Meaning they're generally fairly bright and analytically inclined.

John,

Thanks for the corrective. One worry though, wouldn't it be acting in bad faith to apply for a PhD program in order to get funding even though one has no intention of finishing the PhD?

Matt, no I don't think anyone at these programs would think it wrong to apply intending to complete only the MA. The criteria are meant to get good students in the program, and if one leaves after the MA, that doesn't undermine or negatively affect the program at all.

Some comments on what Jeremy said:

"they're dishonest in listing Bill Craig as if he's one of their faculty and that you don't benefit much by being in his classes as compared with reading his books.

This is correct.

"Moreland is the opposite. He's an absolutely excellent teacher, but he's got very high standards for submitted work. He's also a really nice guy."

This, too, is correct, though I didn't find his standards for submitted work THAT demanding...sorry J.P.

"anyone even open to a materialist view of the human person is viewed almost as a heretic. The same goes for compatibilists and (as strange as it might sound, since this issue is irrelevant for Christianity) nominalists about universals.

Right about the materialists and the open theists, but not, I think, about the compatibilists and nominalists. Though I think compatibilists probably should be persecuted (j/k), they are not, and they will find plenty of allies in their theology classes. I, too, lean towards nominalism, and though certainly not a majority position at Talbot, I never experienced any ill-treatment.

Finally,
"There's also a narrowness of approach. I spent a weekend with a Talbot grad (one of their best, one who is considering going on to a Ph.D. somewhere in the near future). I talked about some of the standard metaphysical literature with him, and he seemed very unfamiliar with most of the important works. He said he'd never read any David Lewis, and I was completely shocked."

This probably depends on the courses and teachers one has. In my metaphysics intro, we didn't read Lewis, though we read about him and his views via the Loux Metaphysics book. However, there are plenty of opportunities to read the likes of Lewis. Tom Crisp just did a class on Modality where students read Nature of Nec. and On the Plurality, and Bill Craig often has students reading Counterefactuals.

Thanks again for the post Matthew. I think this is a great discussion for those interested in the terminal MA at Talbot or elsewhere. And, I sure hope your right about Talbot students being some of the best =-)

Thanks John. I had the worry that someone could be doing their future self damage, e.g. needed recommendations, by entering the department under the auspices of getting the PhD but only finishing the MA.

Although the University of Oklahoma runs $555.15 per credit for graduate courses for out-of-state students, the cost of living is quite low and grad student housing is also reasonably cheap.

Although admission to the MA program does not come with a teaching assistantship, it is possible to get one if funds are available and you make good progress.

OU is also ranked for epistemology on the PGR, and I have no complaints regarding either the class size of the seminars or the attitudes of the faculty.

It seems to me people are being a bit too quick to criticize Talbot for its narrow mindedness. Talbot describes itself (in part) in this way: "Conservative Theology: Talbot is committed to conservative evangelical theology and the historic doctrines of the Christian church. All of our faculty and students are Protestant, evangelical Christians who agree with Talbot's doctrinal statement."

http://www.talbot.edu/about/commitments.cfm

Students should expect their classes to be in line with this statement. Since Open Theism is not a historical doctrine of the Christian Church, it should hardly come as a surprise to anyone that Open Theism is frowned upon at Talbot. The same is true of materialism about human persons. (Indeed, it seems to me that according to the conservative Evangelical theology that Talbot explicitly adheres to, both doctrines _are_ heretical.)

As a Catholic, I expect I have a rather different take on what counts as the historical teaching of the Christian Church than my friends at Talbot might have. For example, I notice that they don't offer even one single standing course on sacraments. (!!!) http://www.talbot.edu/academics/course%5Fdescriptions/systematictheo.cfm . But still, my point here is that people who elect to attend Talbot know the school's doctrinal positions, and should expect the professors to hold to them. It would be dishonest for the professors to do otherwise. To call acceptance of a clear doctrinal standard narrow mindedness seems to me very unfair.

Naturally, it is a good idea to warn students who are considering Talbot that they take their doctrinal statement very seriously, and the professors abide by it in the classroom (and out of it). So in a discussion like this, it's important to bring the matter up. But I don't see why the department's adherence to the school's doctrinal statement should be disparaged.

On a different matter, I'm inclined to disagree also with the contention that people outside of Evangelical circles, people don't know Moreland or Craig. Craig is widely known in philosophy of religion circles generally, and among Catholic philosophers. I also suspect that anyone working on the philosophy of time knows his work. I wouldn't say he's as prominent a philosopher overall as someone like Robert Adams or William Alston (just for example), but then how many people are? Moreland has done a fair amount of work on the theory of substance/properties, and although that topic isn't the hottest in metaphysics today, again, I'd suspect anyone working on those areas knows Moreland.

I conclude this extraordinarily long comment by saying that the Talbot grads and students I've known have been uniformly enthusiastic about the program (which, of course, is _not_ to say they think it has _no_ faults). To me, this is an excellent measure of a program's merit. (I do admit, however, that my sample size is quite small. Perhaps there is a huge group of disgruntled Talbot grads out there. But I doubt it.) This suggests to me that the students get out of the program what they hope to get out of it, even if Bill Craig doesn't write them letters of recommendation, or teach there very much.

For those who might be interested in picking up some more explicitly theological training on the way, Yale Divinity School has an MA concentration in philosophical theology as well. The good thing about this program for those interested in phil. religion is that you're free (and encouraged) to take the majority of classes 'downtown' w/ the philosophy dept. While the program was, no doubt, more attractive a few years back—before Nick Worlterstorff and Bob & Marilyn Adams left—you still have Keith DeRose and John Hare to work with, and Greg Gannsle is around as well.

YDS and New Haven are expensive, to be sure, though they do offer full funding and a small stipend ($8000 or so) to a few students each year. In addition, the recent placement record of YDS phil. religion students into PhD programs is pretty darned good. Over the past three years good friends of mine have gotten into UCONN and Rutgers, and I ended up at Toronto. And the good thing about getting a ‘seminary education’ is that it has the potential to open up doors in the church should the academic career fizzle.

One more thing: In terms of its general spiritual or doctrinal environment, YDS is at the opposite pole of the spectrum from Biola. If you’re of a more conservative bent, you can expect to have your faith and views challenged (no doctrine of inerrancy here!). For me this was a very good thing; I’m convinced that every Christian grad student should face up to some good old fashioned skeptical historical-criticism, or some “liberal theology,” at some point in his or her life. But no doubt some don’t feel the same.

Thanks for the reminder about Talbot p.toner.

To say one last thing (and then I'll shut up...I think), while it is true that talbot is comitted to solid evangelical theology, it is not clear to me that materialism or open theism (much less nominalism and compatibilism) fall outside the bounds of evangelical orthodoxy. They are not traditionally held views, to be sure, but I don't think there heretical. In fact, I know that the philosophy faculty do not think that open theism is heretical. They consider it, rather, heterodox.

One more thing to add: Talbot requires 24 credits of Bible and theology.

Bradley,

I could not find your email address on your site and I would be interested in your academic standing upon entering talbot.

thanks - Corey

Tagging onto Luke Gelinas's comment, I'd like to add that the student's purposes in studying philosophy of religion have to be taken into account when assessing what program might be best. An M.A. program in a divinity school or Religious Studies department might be best for some students (e.g. those interested in continental approaches or historically/contextually grounded philosophy of religion). Philosophy of religion is potentially an interdisciplinary area of study, but the Leiter report does not register this. Of course, such programs would, presumably, expect students to know more about sacred texts and the practices of particular religious traditions and perhaps less about logic. So, such a trade-off must be measured against the purposes (professional, intellectual, personal) of the student.

Incidentally, I did an M.A. at San Francisco State University where the tuition was very low and I was able to take courses on topics ranging from analytic philosophy of language, philosophy of mind, and epistemology to courses on continental philosophy of religion and virtue ethics. While I wouldn't recommend it as a philosophy of religion M.A., per se, it provided good intellectual resources for my own professional discernment. Since it is a terminal M.A. program, students had good access to the faculty.

Now, I am a Ph.D. candidate at Boston University in the Division of Religious and Theological Studies, but the program offers the M.A. as well as the Ph.D. Here, the academic culture is permissive of students collaborating with faculty from other departments; I expect this would be no less true for M.A. students than it is for Ph.D. students. This relatively open environment might well be present at other universities with attached Div Schools and might be of interest to some.

corey ~

bradley.j.rettler@biola.edu

One more thing to note about Talbot. When I applied in spring 06, they didn't even begin to look at applications until the 15th of April. This was rather inconvenient to those of us who were applying to other programs, as most, if not all, other programs require a commitment to attend by the 15th. So I would have been placing all of my proverbial eggs in one basket if I had opted to wait for Talbot's response. Hopefully they've changed this practice since then.

I'm currently an MA student at Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and I noticed that John mentioned that our school takes phil. religion seriously. While that may be the case, if your sole purpose is to study philosophy of religion, then I wouldn’t recommend coming here, as our faculty in that area (Wainwright, Khatchadourian, et al) have all retired.

For the record, Tom Crisp wasn't in the equation when the person I talked to was at Talbot. If he's introducing Lewis where Lewis was hardly present, then that's a good thing. It's the right work by Lewis too. Many top metaphysicians consider that the most important metaphysics book of the last 40 years.

It was Dean Zimmerman who told me that he thinks Talbot is doing so well at landing really good students in really good programs. I don't have access to the kind of information about such matters that he has, so I'm trusting him.

As for narrowmindedness, I don't think the Talbot statement of faith should rule out any of the views I listed except open theism. Certainly materialism is compatible with orthodox views on the afterlife, as long as you say some things that I consider implausible, and some Christian materialists do say those things (e.g. Trenton Merricks). The doctrinal issues are a problem in finding good faculty who can adhere to them (particularly to dispensationalism), but that's not my concern.

I don't know about properties people and Moreland, but I've talked to people in philosophy of time and philosophy of physics about Craig, and I was hoping for a more positive response than I got.

Justin, I've always thought 'heretical' and 'heterodox' to be synonyms.

Jeremy ~

Tom has definitely been a great addition, mostly because he's a young guy involved with a lot of the hotshots in metaphysics; he's bringing things that are on the cutting edge of the discipline.

As far as Craig, he's been studying philosophy of time for 27 years, so I trust that he knows what he's talking about. But the Lorentzian interpretation of SR is certainly a minority view, and I think that causes a lot of people not to take him as seriously.

It's encouraging to hear that Dean said that. Hopefully he'll keep that in mind when I apply next year. :)

It's probably the Lorentzian interpretation of SR along with presentism. I've met several philosophers of physics who think of presentists the way Daniel Dennett thinks of six-day creationists.

I'm sure some who know of his apologetical work also think that's what's driving everything he does, and some philosophers take that as a sign that he's not really interested in philosophy for its own sake, which I think is an unfortunate conclusion to draw from the fact that he wants to defend Christianity.

Jeremy,

You're definately right about the compatibility of those positions with the doctrinal statement. I'm even inclined to think that the open theists can find their spot.

Dean Z. is right about Talbot's placement history. I know people who I went through the program who are currently at ND, Rutgers, UT Austin, Univ. Virginia and more. Last I had heard Talbot has had students accepted at all of the top 10 to 20 schools except for two (I can't remember the exceptions off the top of my head).

Well, according to Dean Bill is not a presentist, since he allows for quantification over past entities. Regardless, I'm inclined to think it's his apologetics that get him in trouble. Tom's a presentist, but seems much more respected. Perhaps it's because he's younger, but I tend to think your second paragraph is right on.

Justin, it's interesting that that list includes only departments where there's at least someone who is a very committed Christian who is either an evangelical or very friendly with evangelicals.

I understand what Dean's getting at, but Craig thinks he's a presentist. What I said applies to any A-theorist anyway. I should note that this isn't a general view among metaphysicians, just philosophers of science. Metaphysicians tend to think A-theories are inconsistent with our best science, but they don't think a metaphysician must be scientifically backward to defend an A-theory.