Advice: Readings in the Philosophy of Religion and Philosophical Theology

[staplerinjello]

So, I'm headed off to the UK in the Fall for an MPhil in the Philosophy of Religion but I have about four-five months free from work before that and I want to get a head start. I've approached philosophical issues and topics through scattered reading in philosophy and through philosophical questions in other disciplines but I'd like a more systematic/coherent basic foundation in the philosophy of religion, and to a more limited extent the history of christian philosophical theology and if possible, Jewish "theology"/philosophy as well. I'm looking to begin with a survey texts, maybe read them in conjunction with readers with writings from different authors and then more higher order texts. But I'd like to get a good understanding of the kinds of questions that have conventionally been raised in the philosophy of religion, the different schools that have responded to them, accompanied by an understanding of how these debates have played out over time. So, recommendations? Also, if someone could suggest an intro text on logic and related debates about truth-claims. 

Edited April 11, 2014 by staplerinjello

[marXian]

Beginning with any "Companion" text is a good place to start (e.g. Blackwell's Companion to Philosophy of Religion)

 

One of the things you'll instantly see is that it's really going to be impossible for you (or anyone) to read everything--even to read the important texts from every tradition, period, etc. would be a significant undertaking. So I'm going to suggest some texts that I think are maybe some of the most important for contemporary Western philosophy of religion and/or philosophical theology. Other people here would probably add or subtract from this list, so it's by no means definitive.

 

"Classic" Philosophy of Religion:

 

Hume - Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion; Natural History of Religion

Kant - Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone

Hegel - Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion; On Art, Religion, and the History of Philosophy 

Schleiermacher - On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers

Feuerbach - The Essence of Religion

Marx and Engels - On Religion

Nietzsche - Beyond Good and Evil; On the Genealogy of Morals

Freud - The Future of an Illusion

Troeltsch - The Absoluteness of Christianity

Otto - The Idea of the Holy

 

Jewish (and secular-Jewish) philosophy of religion:

 

Maimonides - The Guide of the Perplexed

Spinoza - Tractatus Theologico-Politicus

Mendelssohn - Jerusalem: Or on Religious Power and Judaism

Cohen - Religion of Reason: Out of the Sources of Judaism

Rosenzweig - The Star of Redemption

Bloch - The Spirit of Utopia, The Principle of Hope

Benjamin - "The Critique of Violence;" "On the Concept of History;" "Capitalism as Religion"

Buber - I and Thou; On Judaism

 

I started writing a much longer list going into the 20th century, but it was getting out of control, so I'll leave it at this. There are some really significant strands that develop in the second half of the 20th century (existentialism (Heidegger, Sartre, Camus, etc.,) the linguistic turn (i.e. logical positivism, Wittgenstein's rejection of positivism, ordinary language philosophy, neopragmatism), death-of-God theology (sometimes called radical theology, e.g. Altizer, etc.), process philosophy/theology (Whitehead), continental thought broadly conceived (Derrida, Levinas, Lacan, Deleuze, etc.)) It also gets really difficult at that point because many texts utilized from these traditions in the philosophy of religion are not necessarily explicitly about religion. Wittgenstein, for example, doesn't really write anything explicitly about religion (he does, but it's not what philosophers/theologians typically draw upon.)

 

There's also everything that comes before the early modern period in the Christian tradition. I didn't include anything from the medieval or Patristic eras (or from the ancient world) because those are way outside my area. I'm sure someone else here could add some things from there if you needed them though.

 

Something you might find helpful in that regard is as podcast called "The History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps." On the website (historyofphilosophy.net) you can find the episodes that the host (Peter Adamson) has done on religion, God, etc. He's covered [almost] all of the philosophy of the ancient world (only the West), the Hellenistic period, and late antiquity to John Philoponus. He has a whole set of episodes on ancient Christianity from the Greek fathers to Boethius. Most recently, he has been working his way through the philosophy of the Islamic world, including philosophy in Andalusia (which includes medieval Jewish philosophy of that region, e.g. Maimonides.) All of that to say, you may find some helpful primers on very early "philosophy of religion" from a wider variety of traditions than what I've listed. There are also other podcasts (Philosophy Bytes, In Our Time) which quite often tackle issues or figures in philosophy of religion and their archives are extensive.

 

One last thing: I don't know that I would actually attempt Hegel, Schleiermacher, or Rosenzweig (or Whitehead for that matter) on my own particularly if you've never studied any of them with an expert. You may know that already, but it's worth saying: they're incredibly difficult.

[staplerinjello]

Thank you so much, this was really helpful.

 

Any secondary sources especially by a single author attempting to cover the sweep of the philosophy of religion, christian theology, the jewish intellectual tradition and philosophical theology? I find that reading a single author on a long history often yields powerful insights and a coherent narrative that one can build more easily upon. So for example, any interpretations of the breadth of classical philosophy of religion as you mention and jewish thought? Also any books that identify key Christian and Jewish theological and philosophical concepts that are recurring concepts in their respective traditions? 

 

I'm also wondering if there is good work on theological engagement with the social sciences and modern religious studies, whether at the level of its philosophical presuppositions, its method, etc. I know Cantwell Smith and Robert Bellah would probably be good candidates for this.

Edited April 12, 2014 by staplerinjello

[marXian]

I'm not sure I know of a text that attempts to cover philosophy of religion in general, theology, jewish philosophy, and philosophical theology in one cohesive narrative. There may be a text that satisfies what you're looking for, but that seems to be too broad a project for anyone to take on. You're probably better off tracking down "Companion" texts for each of those honestly. I read Reason & Religious Belief by William Peterson, et. al. when I took philosophy of religion in seminary. It's certainly more friendly to religion than other similar texts might be, but I think it gives a good overview of the central questions in the discipline. Maybe someone else has other or better suggestions.

 

The classic text in the relationship between theology and sociology is probably Max Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Ernst Troeltsch's lengthy The Social Teachings of the Christian Church is also important. Weber utilizes theology for sociological purposes and Troeltsch sociology for theological purposes. There is a quite contentious relationship between theology and religious studies (which can include some types of anthropology, sociology of religion, etc.) in the contemporary academy. Tomoko Masuzawa's 2005 text The Invention of the World's Religions is an argument for why the two should be kept separate and that religious studies still has a poisonous theological kernel that needs to be expelled. She is quite polemical against Troeltsch especially toward the end of her book. Tyler Roberts' Encountering Religion is a very recent text that argues for a renewed relationship between the two. Robert Orsi's Between Heaven and Earth is slightly different but emphasizes a focus on "lived religion" which includes an understanding of theological ideas as religious people/communities encounter and utilize them in their everyday practice. Be aware that there are some pretty bad texts in this vein as well. For example, though it's received a lot of praise, Tanya Luhrmann's When God Talks Back, from a theological point of view, is lacking quite a bit. It's painfully obvious Luhrmann, who is engaging not only practices but ideas about those practices, has never cracked a theological text to see what might be informing the ideas her interlocutors espouse.

 

Honestly, I still find Weber's work to be one of the best examples of how theology can be used to make claims about social facts. Though his account of Reformed theology is often refuted, it's clear he's no theological slouch. 

Edited April 12, 2014 by marXian

[staplerinjello]

Thanks again, all very helpful. I have a productive few months ahead of me I hope. I'm also getting the reading list from Cambridge for the previous year's MPhil so I can get cracking on it and begin to focus before i get there.

[staplerinjello]

I'm especially grateful for the reference to Roberts. This is the kind of work I want to transition into. And I agree with you on Weber. The Protestent Ethic was really something, and Kalberg's analysis of it and introduction to it is remarkable as well.

[marXian]

Glad I could help. Here's a bit of unsolicited advice to keep in mind as you're going through your program and begin to think about Ph.D programs (I'm assuming that's what you're goal is.)

 

A lot of people are interested in the sort of thing Roberts engages with (i.e. "radical theology" and/or the work of Zizek, Derrida, Deleuze and other continental thinkers as they apply to religion). As someone with a background in literary criticism (MA in English), it was exciting for me to read Roberts' book as well and to read it in contemporary theories and methods course in religious studies taught by a scholar who is primarily a historian (Orsi.) Theory seems to be experiencing a bit of a resurgence in religious studies (it was certainly around in the 80s and very contentious) and there are segments of theology where it is widely accepted (Chicago Divinity comes to mind as a place where theory is highly valued.) 

 

But the reality is that there are not too many theology or religious studies programs (in the states at least) where you'd be able to study theology/religion and 20th century continental thought as your primary focus. Chicago is one. UVA and Drew also come to mind for theology/phil of religion. Perhaps Marquette (D. Stephen Long is there.) Abroad, Nottingham is probably one of the best schools for that kind of work. But of that list, Chicago and UVA are the only schools I'd consider to be top 15 programs. There may be others as well, but it's a very limited pool.

 

There are other ways though to work on the sorts of things Roberts is doing in that book, especially in a religious studies program. "Theories and methods" is a research interest that you'll see on some RS profs' profiles as you look at programs (including Roberts'.) You'll notice that it's never their primary interest though. They are always specialists in something else (e.g. Southeast Asian religions, American religious history, etc.) So theory and method is something they do "on the side." It's something that anyone who works in the field can do, really. And, in my experience, "theory and method" is basically the wild west in religious studies. You have people doing work in "theories and methods" who emphasize cognitive science, ethnography, sociology, media studies, political science, and, as Roberts does, revisiting continental philosophy as providing the field with an array of theoretical tools. Roberts' book is about theory and method in religious studies--a quintessential religious studies text in my mind. My point is that you can be in a religious studies program, working on a dissertation in your specific field, and still be doing work in theories and methods that engage the continental stuff. 

 

To use myself as an example, I work on early 20th century theology and social thought. I've written papers for the theories and methods courses that have attempted to clarify the role and limits of theory in religious studies (which have engaged some combination of Derrida, Agamben, Foucault, Deleuze, and Adorno depending on the aim of the paper.) I'm in the critical theory program at Northwestern and engage with theory on a regular basis in reading groups, colloquia, etc. I'm presenting a paper at AAR in November that will discuss the relationship between Weber's thought and The Frankfurt School. But my area, officially, is early 20th century theology and social thought, which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with critical theory and continental philosophy of the late 20th century. It's just more marketable for jobs in theology/RS to have something historical as a primary field. I can justify some of my work on critical theory through my work on Weber, and the later stuff I just call my work on "theory and method in religious studies."

 

Anyway, it's certainly possible to work in those interests in other ways even as your primary area. Just throwing this out there since you mentioned your interest in what Roberts is doing in his book. Roberts, if I remember correctly, did his dissertation on Nietzsche and religion.

[staplerinjello]

The advice was most welcome. I'll keep it mind thank you

[Perique69]

I'd be sure to solidly understand Kant's first Critique (a monumental task) before tackling nearly any post-Kantian text.  Otherwise, you'll be spinning wheels.  Many jump right into the likes of Schleiermacher, Kierkegaard, Hegel, Nietzsche, Freud without first understanding Kant.  As a result, they grossly misread these later birds and have never even heard of the more critical post-Kantians (e.g., Hamann, Fichte, Jacobi, and especially Reinhold).  Avoid secondary sources, too.      

Edited April 18, 2014 by Perique69

[marXian]

I'd be sure to solidly understand Kant's first Critique (a monumental task) before tackling nearly any post-Kantian text.  Otherwise, you'll be spinning wheels.  Many jump right into the likes of Schleiermacher, Kierkegaard, Hegel, Nietzsche, Freud without first understanding Kant.  As a result, they grossly misread these later birds and have never even heard of the more critical post-Kantians (e.g., Hamann, Fichte, Jacobi, and especially Reinhold).  Avoid secondary sources, too.      

 

This is absolutely true. 

[Joseph45]

I'd be sure to solidly understand Kant's first Critique (a monumental task) before tackling nearly any post-Kantian text.  Otherwise, you'll be spinning wheels.  Many jump right into the likes of Schleiermacher, Kierkegaard, Hegel, Nietzsche, Freud without first understanding Kant.  As a result, they grossly misread these later birds and have never even heard of the more critical post-Kantians (e.g., Hamann, Fichte, Jacobi, and especially Reinhold).  Avoid secondary sources, too.      

I've got to admit, I think this is horrible advice for someone starting a masters program.

 

You'll never get to the 20th century under this model--which, if you do want to focus on German Protestants in the 18th and 19th centuries, is fine, but I recommend getting the lay of the land a bit before dedicating yourself to Kant. Read some secondary surveys, get some of the basics down, and get a feel for what really excites you, and dive into that literature. Beaware that there's always someone anterior that you need to be aware of, but also know that there's never an end to that game.

[Lux Lex Pax]

I've got to admit, I think this is horrible advice for someone starting a masters program.

 

You'll never get to the 20th century under this model--which, if you do want to focus on German Protestants in the 18th and 19th centuries, is fine, but I recommend getting the lay of the land a bit before dedicating yourself to Kant. Read some secondary surveys, get some of the basics down, and get a feel for what really excites you, and dive into that literature. Beaware that there's always someone anterior that you need to be aware of, but also know that there's never an end to that game.

This is good advice, but Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is crucial for anyone doing modern philosophy, theology, or ethics. Period. I'm not saying that one has to agree with Kant or that his system is the best, but everyone in the modern period who came after him is dealing with him and his legacy in one way or another. Modern philosophy and theology basically begin with him.

[Perique69]

I've got to admit, I think this is horrible advice for someone starting a masters program.

 

You'll never get to the 20th century under this model--which, if you do want to focus on German Protestants in the 18th and 19th centuries, is fine, but I recommend getting the lay of the land a bit before dedicating yourself to Kant. Read some secondary surveys, get some of the basics down, and get a feel for what really excites you, and dive into that literature. Beaware that there's always someone anterior that you need to be aware of, but also know that there's never an end to that game.

 

Horrible advice, eh?  Tell that to Robert Pippin at UChicago.  Sure, read a survey or two, but know you're reading little more than a superficial, oversimplified gloss.  Your advice is admittedly the norm, which is why many struggle to understand what on earth they think they're reading.  I'll state it again for the OP, know Kant's conception of reason inside and out, and any subsequent authors will make much more sense.  I'd rather know Kant and nothing whatsoever about 20th century figures because they pale in comparison.  Arriving to the 20th century without the proper foundation (Kant) is pointless.  

Edited April 19, 2014 by Perique69

[Perique69]

For the OP, check out F. Beiser's The Fate of Reason, which is a great general history of the period between Kant and Fichte.  The Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy series are well worth your time.  Be well acquainted with Augustine's Confessions and Descartes' Meditations as precursors to Kant's Critique.  (Hint: Confessions is NOT a spiritual autobiography.)    

[staplerinjello]

Thanks, this helps, kinda.... I'm wondering though, as a more general question now, how much should one reasonably expect oneself to achieve over the course of a masters and phd program. Is it that important to have everything figured out or to be well on on your way in a promising intellectual direction with a good foundation for it. Sometimes I feel that there is a tendency to associate a certain finality with the learning achieved at the postgraduate level with little consideration for this as a lifelong process. I look at some of the scholars I most respect, and a number of them were fairly young when they got done with the PhD and took years before they finally got stuff sorted in their head and started publishing really valuable stuff.

On a separate note, I'm considering working on Royce as a philosphical theologian balancing his theologians concerns and concepts with a particular metaphysical and logical commitment, so I'd like my preparation to lead to that. I also thought Bowie's introduction to German philosophy might be helpful. Nick Adams at Edinburgh also wrote a brief introduction to Kant for theologians that I am considering beginning with.

[Joseph45]

Thanks, this helps, kinda.... I'm wondering though, as a more general question now, how much should one reasonably expect oneself to achieve over the course of a masters and phd program. Is it that important to have everything figured out or to be well on on your way in a promising intellectual direction with a good foundation for it. Sometimes I feel that there is a tendency to associate a certain finality with the learning achieved at the postgraduate level with little consideration for this as a lifelong process. I look at some of the scholars I most respect, and a number of them were fairly young when they got done with the PhD and took years before they finally got stuff sorted in their head and started publishing really valuable stuff.

On a separate note, I'm considering working on Royce as a philosphical theologian balancing his theologians concerns and concepts with a particular metaphysical and logical commitment, so I'd like my preparation to lead to that. I also thought Bowie's introduction to German philosophy might be helpful. Nick Adams at Edinburgh also wrote a brief introduction to Kant for theologians that I am considering beginning with.

I'm not really sure if this is a helpful quesiton to ask yourself, because I don't know what it would mean to really answer it, but please know that nobody has everything figured out--and the few that think they do are particularly shallow intellectually.

 

And it's a tempting, but damning mistake to think your dissertation will be your magnum opus, or a significant contribution to the field. That's one major reason some people never finish their dissertation, because they're waiting for it to be great.

 

The more you know though, the better. Generally, you want to be able to converse widely in your subfield; you won't be an expert, but you want to understand what other people are doing and thinking. Simultaneously, you'll want to find a figure or two that you know inside and out, all while understanding how your figure fits into the larger, subfield-wide conversation.

[Joseph45]

Horrible advice, eh?  Tell that to Robert Pippin at UChicago.  Sure, read a survey or two, but know you're reading little more than a superficial, oversimplified gloss.  Your advice is admittedly the norm, which is why many struggle to understand what on earth they think they're reading.  I'll state it again for the OP, know Kant's conception of reason inside and out, and any subsequent authors will make much more sense.  I'd rather know Kant and nothing whatsoever about 20th century figures because they pale in comparison.  Arriving to the 20th century without the proper foundation (Kant) is pointless.  

 

I'm sure that for some people, just starting with Kant after college would work great. And I also understand that this would be the ideal way to go about things. Nevertheless, I still think the most paidagogically useful strategy is to combine scattered primary readings with some overviews and secondary conversations.

 

On the one hand, think this is just pretty obvious, you yourself have already asserted that he (now) needs to read and understand the Confessions and the Meditations--even while insisting that certain types of readings need to be given for those texts (or, at least the Confessions). (And, of course, soon somebody will come along and say that he needs to become versed in Neo-Platonism, etc. before he reads the Confessions). There is no end to this line of advice.

 

Again, maybe for some people a pure, ascetical experience of sequentially reading one seminal text after the other (before starting a masters program!)  would actually work. And I'm sure it would be fantastic if it did. But I think gaining some familiarity with what's at stake in reading Kant (for later thinkers as well as for today's conversations) would actually be very helpful when reading Kant. Again, I think you've already essentially admitted this point in principal by insisting that he must avoid (at least) one way of reading the Confessions. (And, of course, we haven't even gotten into language games--where people start declaring that you can't read Augustine unless you know Latin).

 

I also think the idea of reading these texts in such ways (as an individual mind meeting another mind, as insisting on understanding lines of influence) reflects problematic ideological positions produced by and in these texts themselves. But that's another conversation.

 

In the end, I guess I think reading this texts back and forth, and yes, even in conversation with secondary scholarship, is a very productive paedagogical strategy. By reading and not understanding, and, sure, even misunderstanding some later thinkers, his/her reading of Kant will be more productive, and then, so too, will his/her readings of later thinkers become better when s/he returns to them. And this is what everyone actually does. Maybe Pippen leads seminars at Chicago were nobody is allowed in who hasn't read and mastered all the relevant previous thinkers, where no mention of later thinkers or secondary scholarship is mentioned, where the texts are read in their original languages, and where no conversation is held about the text, because other minds only corrupt one's own pure, individual reading of the thinker, but I have my doubts.

 

It's maybe not ideal, and certainly not pure, but it's practical. It also doesn't get one stuck in one line of scholarship that ignores the Jewish thinking s/he has expressed an interest in.

[marXian]

Thanks, this helps, kinda.... I'm wondering though, as a more general question now, how much should one reasonably expect oneself to achieve over the course of a masters and phd program. Is it that important to have everything figured out or to be well on on your way in a promising intellectual direction with a good foundation for it. Sometimes I feel that there is a tendency to associate a certain finality with the learning achieved at the postgraduate level with little consideration for this as a lifelong process. I look at some of the scholars I most respect, and a number of them were fairly young when they got done with the PhD and took years before they finally got stuff sorted in their head and started publishing really valuable stuff.

On a separate note, I'm considering working on Royce as a philosphical theologian balancing his theologians concerns and concepts with a particular metaphysical and logical commitment, so I'd like my preparation to lead to that. I also thought Bowie's introduction to German philosophy might be helpful. Nick Adams at Edinburgh also wrote a brief introduction to Kant for theologians that I am considering beginning with.

 

I'll echo Joseph45's point: your dissertation is the first real step of your intellectual career, not the last. The better it is, the easier it can be adapted into a book (which is important to keep in mind) but that doesn't mean that you are making sure it represents your "mature thought." It couldn't possibly.

 

When I was getting my first MA and writing my first thesis, a professor in the program said to me that she could tell the difference between a good thesis that read the text well (it was a degree in English lit.) and an excellent thesis that not only read the text well but "had a lot of reading behind it." What she meant was that an excellent thesis showed implicitly that the student had a really good grasp on the secondary conversations about the text as well as the theoretical literature being utilized. Whether text/concepts/etc. were cited or even footnoted--didn't matter it was clear that a considerable amount of reading had been done (was "behind" the paper.)

 

That has to be balanced though with the reality that you just can't read everything. No one can or has (since maybe John Milton.) There is a lot that you will have to read and be familiar with once you go on to a Ph.D program (assuming it's in the U.S.) but that's still not everything. Don't become overwhelmed before you begin (sorry if I contributed to that with my first post!) Everything you read (whether primary or secondary) is going to reveal rabbit trails to other things with which you're not yet familiar (ad infinitum as Joseph45 has pointed out.) You have to sort out which of those trails are going to be helpful to go down and which you have to abandon.

 

Again, maybe for some people a pure, ascetical experience of sequentially reading one seminal text after the other (before starting a masters program!)  would actually work. And I'm sure it would be fantastic if it did. But I think gaining some familiarity with what's at stake in reading Kant (for later thinkers as well as for today's conversations) would actually be very helpful when reading Kant. Again, I think you've already essentially admitted this point in principal by insisting that he must avoid (at least) one way of reading the Confessions. (And, of course, we haven't even gotten into language games--where people start declaring that you can't read Augustine unless you know Latin).

 

Yes, I think (or I thought) Perique's point was just broadly that Kant is really important for understanding later people. I could be wrong, but I took his comment to avoid the secondary literature as a comment on the First Critique only since the secondary literature on the First Critique would very quickly bog down a new reader in some very specific philosophical debates that are not necessarily helpful to understanding the First Critique as a whole (e.g. the "two-aspect" theory v. "two-object" theory of noumenal objects.) The problem is that the secondary literature dealing with what is at stake in Kant for later thinkers or philosophy of religion more broadly is going to presuppose a certain level of familiarity with Kant. So while I agree that one does absolutely need to know what conversations are taking place in the field re: Kant, many of those conversations become fully "unlocked" once one has a decent grasp on the First (and Second) Critique(s). This is obviously arguably true of any figure in philosophy, but I think it's especially true of Kant in philosophy of religion and theology. He's just that pervasive.

 

In any case, the expectation for the OP should not be that he/she read and try to get a good grasp on Kant prior to beginning the master's program. But I think it's important that he/she know that Kant is absolutely vital for the work that he/she is interested in and eventually taking a seminar or two on Kant, especially one that just works through the First Critique, will be really helpful later on.

[Perique69]

MarXian, yes, you're right about my broad point that Kant is really important for understanding later figures, and even earlier figures to a degree.  He is that pervasive.  End of story.  

 

Joseph is miles down a rabbit trail regarding my posts.  That's about all I can say.    

  

Besides, isn't an MPhil a one year advanced degree that presupposes at least 2 years of higher level coursework in philosophy?  I know this is the case at Cambridge.  I'm not sure why the OP seems to want a very basic intro to philosophical theology.  

Edited April 19, 2014 by Perique69

[Joseph45]

Well, looks like we've done a great job advising you. Welcome to academic disfunction.

[staplerinjello]

hahahaaha i've already had a taste before during my MA. i do agree with your earlier post on reading practices though which i asked for the advice on secondary lit again.