Humanist chances - Harvard MDiv?

[drewball_s]

Hello! I keep going back and forth about the strength of my application and some insight would really help me out now. Just need some encouragement. You know how it goes. 

-B.A. Philosophy (minor psychology) from a mid-level state university. GPA 3.73
-M.A. Philosophy from a higher-ranked state school. GPA 3.928

-Taught logic two years during grad school (and won two teaching awards) and then two years of ethics and logic back at my undergraduate institution. 

-GRE: I've taken it three times in the past 5 or 6 years. My highest scores are verbal 161, quant 155, writing 5.0, though I bombed the quant section the second time I took it. 

-Two of my letter writers went to Harvard, though not the Div school. And I'm a humanist. I'm hoping that will make me stick out compared to other applicants. 

-Also, my SOP is pretty solid. 

 

A concern of mine is that I don't have enough volunteer experiences or time spent in a religious setting. I'm hoping that everything else will make up for it. Harvard's Mdiv is one of the only (if not the only) program I've found that accepts humanists or unaffiliated students. At least, they seem to be particularly open to having such students involved in their program and that has a big appeal for me.  

 

I would appreciate any words of encouragement! Thanks you!

[mdiv2014]

absolutely,

a humanist chaplain is already in mdiv program

another in joint mts and kennedy school programs

 

it's all in your application

[xypathos]

Vandy has several humanist, atheist, and agnostic students among its MTS, MDiv, and PhD program. That said, the school is deeply rooted in the German-Protestant tradition and so you'll be in the minority here but really, that's likely anywhere.

 

I could put you in touch with some of these students and let you ascertain if you should bother applying. That said, Harvard is an absolute for applying to.

[drewball_s]

Thanks! I've looked into Vanderbilt but don't think it's a great fit for me. I feel like Harvard's program is right up my alley. 

[sacklunch]

You will be a minority almost anywhere you go, I think, including HDS. I, too, identify in similar terms, and for that my time spent at several ('divinity') schools in Boston was well spent, if not somewhat awkward. I've been to Vandy (visiting students), but don't have a ton of experience with the school.

 

As far as 'div' schools go, I imagine HDS and Chicago will be the best places for you. It also depends on what you want out of such a program. If the degree is to prepare you for some sort of counseling/pastoral work then I imagine even a somewhat awkward/combative environment may improve your capacity to work with your prospective clientele and around/with the majority (Christians). But, if you are interested in progressing your 'secular' research/scholarship (many many people apply to MDiv programs simply because a. they offer more funding and b. they offer more time to prepare for doctoral work), I don't think schools like Vandy, Duke, and so on, are the best places to study. From my experience, you will spend too much time inside and outside of class justifying yourself and less time studying. Again, if such interactions would improve your abilities in a hopeful area of work/research, disregard my comments. To be quite honest, many of the well-known div schools are working with a different set of methodological assumptions, ones that appear quite foreign--and even antagonistic--to many graduate students working in related fields such as history.

/rant

[HNV721]

Guess it depends on what you mean by humanist ... would you be pursuing it purely for secular academic purposes? If so, why do MDiv instead of MTS? If some type of Christian ministry or ordination is undesired, I think you would just be willingly abusing yourself.

[mdiv2014]

'service' takes on many forms in the hds mdiv program - 20% are buddhist (with only one lama that i know of) and a sizable chunk of the class are social justice, ngo/non profit oriented. OP would have to do 2 field education units but that can be way outside the parish setting (to include teaching)......my last post had a typo, the mts humanist i know is also seeking a joint degree at the kennedy school of govt and the humanist chaplain is in the mdiv program ----- i know there are others, depending on OP's goals and SOP, he has a good shot

Edited February 1, 2015 by mdiv2014

[dr. t]

Guess it depends on what you mean by humanist ... would you be pursuing it purely for secular academic purposes? If so, why do MDiv instead of MTS? If some type of Christian ministry or ordination is undesired, I think you would just be willingly abusing yourself.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

 

http://harvardhumanist.org/

[HNV721]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

 

http://harvardhumanist.org/

 

If that is the definition of Humanism OP adheres to, why get a MDiv? Honest question. Not saying everyone that goes to HDS should be Christian - or even religious - but if s/he fits the wiki definition of a Humanist I kinda don't get the point of going into the MDiv when the MTS is right there (unless there is some financial or time advantage to the MDiv, which then would make plenty of practical sense).

Edited February 2, 2015 by HNV721

[dr. t]

If that is the definition of Humanism OP adheres to, why get a MDiv? Honest question. Not saying everyone that goes to HDS should be Christian - or even religious - but if s/he fits the wiki definition of a Humanist I kinda don't get the point of going into the MDiv when the MTS is right there (unless there is some financial or time advantage to the MDiv, which then would make plenty of practical sense).

 

Because, as the second link shows, there are people who practice as humanist ministers?

[HNV721]

Because, as the second link shows, there are people who practice as humanist ministers?

 

How does a nonreligious person benefit in their nonreligious practice by earning a degree geared toward spiritual formation and interreligious education?

Edited February 2, 2015 by HNV721

[HNV721]

And again, the above question is only directed toward a secular Humanist, or, as the provided info stated, someone who "lives by" a naturalistic, non-supernatural view (which I realize can not blanket the entirety of humanism).

[mdiv2014]

HNV721, I guess you're saying a humanist shouldn't/couldn't spiritually serve others? Or wouldn't 'benefit' (your word) in serving others spiritually? 

So your basic premise is that one has to have a spirituality and/or faith tradition to serve spiritually?

Really?!

 

And the MDiv is as much about serving and preparing to serve as " spiritual formation and interreligious education" (your words)

 

OY

[sacklunch]

How does a nonreligious person benefit in their nonreligious practice by earning a degree geared toward spiritual formation and interreligious education?

 

I'll bite. If we assume (as you have) that the purpose of being trained for one's 'nonreligious practice' is decidedly not 'spiritual'--and as you suggest, 'naturalistic'--then, yeah, it all seems a bit bizarre. This is, in my opinion, a false dichotomy, though one many people buy into, secular folks included. I imagine if you were in a class/setting somewhere like HDS that offers humanist training that, unless such a person happened to be commenting upon a specific theological issue marking them as an 'outsider', you would be none the wiser as to their (a)theological persuasions. This is not the forum to discuss the 'real' meaning of these terms, but in brief I will just say that we might distinguish 'humanism' from 'naturalism.' Many secular people simply use the term humanist to denote their care for humans, the world, and living creatures; but the term has also served to distance its representatives from (seemingly) negative labels that suggest unethical traits such as 'atheism'. Because naturalism is often conflated with a more 'militant' form of atheism (some might think this is the only form of atheism), it has also begun to carry similar associations. My point is that humanists share more (much more, in fact) in common with the other training MDiv students than not. Groups use words in different ways, ones that are deeply tied to the majority group in this country (Christians). That such programs have gained steam alongside of more traditional MDiv programs attests more to our similarities, not our differences, as humans. We are all humanists, I think. We all (?) feel that deep need to improve our communities and the same training offered to more traditional pastors is integral to the health and sustainability of these fragile communities. 

[HNV721]

HNV721, I guess you're saying a humanist shouldn't/couldn't spiritually serve others? Or wouldn't 'benefit' (your word) in serving others spiritually? 

So your basic premise is that one has to have a spirituality and/or faith tradition to serve spiritually?

Really?!

 

And the MDiv is as much about serving and preparing to serve as " spiritual formation and interreligious education" (your words)

 

OY

 

Definitely not. I would say that service to others seems to be a very big trait of Humanism. And I think anybody - religious or otherwise - "benefit" from serving others. That is OK. But, on the other end, I do not see how a humanist could serve in a spiritual context. That would appear contradictory.

 

Moving on, I have questions. And these are not rhetorical come-backs. Actual questions. What about secular humanism is "spiritual"? If, in general, Humanism promotes understanding nature, "good," and purpose via human existence, how can a humanist be spiritual or believe in spiritual ministry? If a "spirit" or "spirituality" is not derived from a religion or god (which it normally is, obviously), does it not at least suggest some type of transcendence or "higher" sense of being/value than our natural human state can attain on its own? If so, then, how would that person be Humanist (in a general sense) if they are seemingly violating the main tenet of excluding supernaturalism in their understanding of the universe?

 

And just as a side question to you, what does "serve spiritually" mean? Particularly if the one serving does not claim a particular faith or spiritual faith? What does that look like?

Edited February 2, 2015 by HNV721

[HNV721]

I'll bite. If we assume (as you have) that the purpose of being trained for one's 'nonreligious practice' is decidedly not 'spiritual'--and as you suggest, 'naturalistic'--then, yeah, it all seems a bit bizarre. This is, in my opinion, a false dichotomy, though one many people buy into, secular folks included. I imagine if you were in a class/setting somewhere like HDS that offers humanist training that, unless such a person happened to be commenting upon a specific theological issue marking them as an 'outsider', you would be none the wiser as to their (a)theological persuasions. This is not the forum to discuss the 'real' meaning of these terms, but in brief I will just say that we might distinguish 'humanism' from 'naturalism.' Many secular people simply use the term humanist to denote their care for humans, the world, and living creatures; but the term has also served to distance its representatives from (seemingly) negative labels that suggest unethical traits such as 'atheism'. Because naturalism is often conflated with a more 'militant' form of atheism (some might think this is the only form of atheism), it has also begun to carry similar associations. My point is that humanists share more (much more, in fact) in common with the other training MDiv students than not. Groups use words in different ways, ones that are deeply tied to the majority group in this country (Christians). That such programs have gained steam alongside of more traditional MDiv programs attests more to our similarities, not our differences, as humans. We are all humanists, I think. We all (?) feel that deep need to improve our communities and the same training offered to more traditional pastors is integral to the health and sustainability of these fragile communities.

 

I really like what you said in the bold section above. I agree to an extent. 

 

At a brief glance, a lot of humanistic values are similar to liberal protestant thought - i.e., faith (in a christian sense)/understanding (in a humanistic sense) via reason, focus big time on doing good for others (or, in a Christian sense installing kingdom of God on earth/social gospel - Adolf von Harnack and NT Wright) instead of always looking for the supernatural as THE ... "proof" or foundational context for our existence, I guess. And, for the record, I really think that mindset is good for religious or nonreligious.

 

With that being said, though, I still find issue with combining "humanism" with "spirit(uality)." That does not mean - at all - that I think a humanist "minister" cannot do good just like a traditional pastor, or otherwise. But what are we saying when we claim to not believe in a god, but that we are spiritual? To me, that inevitably leads to a road of relativism where everything means nothing and vice versa. Then, why would that person go to a divinity school? That in and of itself is bluntly ironic.

Edited February 2, 2015 by HNV721

[HNV721]

I'll bite. If we assume (as you have) that the purpose of being trained for one's 'nonreligious practice' is decidedly not 'spiritual'--and as you suggest, 'naturalistic'-

 

Also, to be clear, I did not suggest or pick "naturalist" as my term to describe humanism ... that was what the links above utilized, FWIW

[queer chaos]

As someone who did their MDiv at Harvard, I think you stand a great chance of being admitted and I've known plenty of humanists who thrived at the Div school. I think just make it clear in your application of why you're applying to HDS and what you hope to get out of it. 

 

Best of luck and PM me if you have any questions. 

[dr. t]

With that being said, though, I still find issue with combining "humanism" with "spirit(uality)." That does not mean - at all - that I think a humanist "minister" cannot do good just like a traditional pastor, or otherwise. But what are we saying when we claim to not believe in a god, but that we are spiritual? To me, that inevitably leads to a road of relativism where everything means nothing and vice versa. Then, why would that person go to a divinity school? That in and of itself is bluntly ironic.

 

I'm not really interested in defending humanism's right to exist in the manner it does on an internet forum. Humanists can and do go to HDS for ministry degrees, and they can and do engage in ministry work after graduation. Clearly, those who have done so and those who seek them out for council and support find it beneficial.

[mdiv2014]

ditto - the guy is either a troll or clueless

Edited February 2, 2015 by mdiv2014

[sacklunch]

I really like what you said in the bold section above. I agree to an extent. 

 

At a brief glance, a lot of humanistic values are similar to liberal protestant thought - i.e., faith (in a christian sense)/understanding (in a humanistic sense) via reason, focus big time on doing good for others (or, in a Christian sense installing kingdom of God on earth/social gospel - Adolf von Harnack and NT Wright) instead of always looking for the supernatural as THE ... "proof" or foundational context for our existence, I guess. And, for the record, I really think that mindset is good for religious or nonreligious.

 

With that being said, though, I still find issue with combining "humanism" with "spirit(uality)." That does not mean - at all - that I think a humanist "minister" cannot do good just like a traditional pastor, or otherwise. But what are we saying when we claim to not believe in a god, but that we are spiritual? To me, that inevitably leads to a road of relativism where everything means nothing and vice versa. Then, why would that person go to a divinity school? That in and of itself is bluntly ironic.

 

 

I don't think you're trolling. I think I understand what you mean (as much as anyone can on the internet...).

 

Again, how we understand these terms may be leading us to just speak past one another: spirituality (like naturalism) is used widely. It is not uncommon for people to say "I'm not religious, I'm spiritual." This may in fact tell you nothing of their belief in god(s). What does it mean, then? In popular discourse it may simply be a way to express that you 'feel something' beyond yourself, something that cannot be reduced/explained by empirical methods. 

 

I sympathize with your statement about certain worldviews being relative and thus you do raise a legitimate question. It's something that (secular) philosophers will have to work out for the rest of us, I guess. At the barest level, many humanists are taking that same 'leap of faith' that the theists are. Humanists/we have no absolute rule book; not even empiricism offers us this. We must live in a sort of fiction to escape our relativist positions in order to assert that anything is 'good' or 'bad'. So, yes, I think you are in a way right. We all must face the outcomes of our worldviews and attempt to overcome them (or abandon our initial position). Theists have the problem of suffering; we have the problem of proving why suffering is bad at all. 

[drewball_s]

Thanks for all the input, by the way!