Patricia Johnson is Professor Emerita and Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Dayton. We invited her to answer the question “What does philosophy of religion offer to the modern university?” as part of our “Philosophers of Religion on Philosophy of Religion” series.

The question posed calls for some reflection on what it means to offer.  The term contains religious connotations, with historical usages that relate to both sacrifice and worship.  But it is also used in a more general sense of presenting something for acceptance, to be ready or willing to do something if there is acceptance on the part of the receiving person or group.  As philosophers of religion, the question asks us to consider what we can put forward to our universities as something important that we are willing to do.

We live in a time of conflict that is heightened by religious differences.  For example, in the United States, Muslim communities are often treated with suspicion. Communities refuse to allow them burial grounds. In India, the eating of beef by members of religious groups such as Muslims and Christians has resulted in violent response from Hindu religious and political groups.  The list of examples could take all of the space allotted here. What we know is, we live in a time that calls for dialogue in order to reduce violence that is caused, at least in part, by religious exclusivism and intolerance.

Those engaged in inter-religious dialogue have suggested that this dialogue can take place at many levels.  That is, there are many types of dialogue. People simply living together can come to respect the religious practices of others because they respect other individuals.  People from different religious traditions working on a common project can learn about each other’s traditions while focused on something that both hold as a common good.  People can share in religious practices of their own traditions and those of others. Finally, theological discussions, or discussions about fundamental claims that arise from the religious experiences of different traditions can be explored.  This may require intra-religious dialogue where individuals and groups question themselves and ask themselves to be open to a range of what may be understood as religious experiences.

Philosophy has the most to contribute to these last two types of dialogue.  Before exploring this in a bit more detail, I want to suggest that in the university, philosophy needs to work with other disciplines in order to contribute to inter-religious dialogue.  Students and faculty need the experiences of participating in a range of religious practices.  They need to know about history and the roles that religions have played over time in the development and destruction of human communities and human well-being. They need to read the literature that is part of various religious traditions.  So, philosophy needs to offer to work with other disciplines to develop robust and informed dialogue.  This offering is a willingness to learn from others.

But philosophy also can make significant contributions to inter-religious dialogue.  Philosophy can model for students and others in the universities how to discuss these difficult issues in a context of openness that seeks truth and common good. Philosophy has a long tradition of developing dialogue and so brings an understanding of what dialogue can be and how to go about engaging in productive dialogue.  Philosophy also has a long tradition of exploring meaning both in practices and in our use of language.

Philosophical hermeneutics, as developed by Hans-Georg Gadamer, understands philosophy as authentic conversation.  Gadamer maintains that all philosophy must be based in fundamental experiences of human existence and must be carried out calling on the conceptual and intuitive powers of the languages in which we live.  Influenced heavily by Plato, Gadamer sees dialogue, or conversation, as an art which shows us our own ignorance and so serves as an antidote to illusions of superiority that we may have.  The art of dialogue requires that we ask questions together that are important for understanding our human experiences and that enable us to take directions where we are open to being changed.  Gadamer maintains that such conversations enable communities and individuals to live more justly.  Together, in conversation, we can determine ways to live well together.  Such conversations require attentiveness to the words of others and require each participant to listen and to remember the importance of quiet words.  These words seek to advance the conversation rather than claim victory over another.

In addition to modeling dialogue as authentic conversation, philosophy can bring rich traditions of thinking about the meaning of language used to give expression to religious experience.  Western philosophy is not alone in probing questions of meaning. Philosophy of religion needs to engage in dialogue across the philosophical traditions that arise in the context of a wide range of religions.  In order to do this, philosophy departments at our universities need to develop ways of engaging scholars from these diverse religious backgrounds.  This can, and should, be done through hiring processes.  But it can also be done through providing opportunities for scholarly exchanges that make time for opportunities to allow for quiet conversations.

Finally, philosophy can make important contributions to intra-religious dialogue both on the individual and institutional levels.  At the institutional level, these contributions are probably best carried out at institutions that still retain religious affiliation.  Here philosophy can ask more probing and difficult questions.  How does the institution understand the implications of the practices and beliefs of the tradition to which it ascribes?  What are the moral implications for the institution of its grounding in such religious traditions?  At the individual level, philosophy can provide students with the opportunity to explore religious commitment which they hold or reject.  It can enable students to explore their own religious identities without the pressure of needing to ascribe to particular practices or beliefs.

Philosophy of religion can offer to learn from other disciplines, to advance dialogues across religious traditions, and to facilitate individual and communal understanding of religious experiences and practices.  This may, or may not, result in a more unified understanding of religious experience such as John Hick proposed.  This seems important work for the modern university.  Whether or not our universities will accept the offer remains to be determined.

Jennifer Hockenbery is Professor of Philosophy at Mount Mary University. We invited her to answer the question “What does philosophy of religion offer to the modern university?” as part of our “Philosophers of Religion on Philosophy of Religion” series.

In order to advocate for philosophy of religion at a modern university, one must first decipher what is the vocation of the modern university. While different institutions have different areas of specialization and different mission statements, one common goal is that a university is a community that centers itself on the investigation of common questions of human experience: What is Happiness? What is Virtue? What are the possibilities for human knowledge? How can we best form a social community that benefits individuals? Such questions certainly pertain to the empirical and social sciences, the arts, and professional degree programs, but the discipline that continually reminds all the other disciplines of the central questions is philosophy: the nagging mother of all disciplines. As such philosophical questioning and thinking must be integrated into every division and department in a University.

The philosophy of religion, as a sub-discipline of philosophy, serves its role in the university by asking questions about religious experiences. Unlike anthropology, philosophy of religion does not ask for a description of religious practices but asks philosophical questions about the metaphysics, the axiology, and the ethics of specific religions. While philosophy of religion began in the European Enlightenment as a method of using philosophy to prove or disprove certain philosophical claims, the discipline is more broadly construed in contemporary academia. For example, a philosopher of religion might discuss the truth value of a specific religious claim by using logic and/or empiricism. But a philosopher of religion might also simply question what a specific religious faith declares ontologically or axiologically—what a specific faith suggests is most real or has most value. A philosopher of religion might also consider the topic of religion generally asking questions about the difference between faith and reason, discussing the role of religious experience in psychological well-being, and considering the role of gender as part of religious experience. Finally, a philosopher of religion might consider how a religion has influenced philosophical thinking throughout history.

In my own work I see myself doing three types of philosophy of religion. First, I am interested in the philosophical systems inherent in Christian thought. I teach classes and write articles on Christian Philosophy in which I explore what Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, Hildegard of Bingen, Edith Stein and other Christians said philosophically about the role of philosophy, reason, and faith in pursuing Truth as well as what they said about the nature of the self and the role of the mind and body in the individual. Second, I am interested in the question of religion and faith generally as a valid or invalid way of truth seeking. In my course, Philosophy of Religion: Reason and Faith, students read Hume, Kierkegaard, Freud, James, Nietzsche, Daly, and Beauvoir in order to think deeply about the role of faith in science, ethics, psychology, and gender roles. Third, I am interested in the way the religions of different philosophers influenced their writing, even and especially their secular writing. For example, discussing Kant, Hegel, Feuerbach, and Nietzsche’s Lutheran roots opens up important ways of understanding these thinkers insights. Understanding Judith Butler’s Judaism and Simone de Beauvoir and Donna Haraway’s Catholicism deepens a reader’s understanding of these thinker’s place in intellectual history.

As the contemporary academy continues to seek a deeper understanding of central human questions, the role of philosophy and philosophy of religion continues to be central. Philosophers of religion require that we apply philosophical thinking in the study of religion and also that we consider the ways religious commitments might properly limit philosophical thinking. As such philosophers must critically examine their own disciplines as much as they examine others.

Morgan Luck is Professor of Philosophy at Charles Sturt University. We invited him to answer the question “What does philosophy of religion offer to the modern university?” as part of our “Philosophers of Religion on Philosophy of Religion” series.

Analytical philosophy offers, in general, a way to think clearly about lots of stuff. So, analytical philosophy of religion offers, in general, a way to think clearly about lots of religious stuff. We would not want to restrict this general offer if made to the modern university. So, analytical philosophy of religion offers the modern university a way to think clearly about lots of religious stuff. If the value this offer needs to be made more apparent to the modern university, this may say more about the modern university than it does about analytical philosophy of religion.

Mariana Alessandri is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley. We invited her to answer the question “What does philosophy of religion offer to the modern university?” as part of our “Philosophers of Religion on Philosophy of Religion” series.

A letter to my 14-year old niece, Hannah, who still knows that stories can be true—

Dear Hannah,

In my last letter I suggested that humans would be nothing without stories, and that philosophy’s job is to rummage through the different parts of a story to see if and how they fit together with other stories. The philosophy of religion seems paradoxical to people who think that religion means believing and philosophy means not believing, but philosophers and religious people alike believe in certain things and not in others. We all believe in something, but the philosophy of religion helps us to become cognizant of the fact that there exists a world of mixed-up stuff to rifle through and reflect upon before we go on believing in it.

Ludwig Feuerbach wrote that religion belongs to the realm of emotion rather than reason. If he is right, then we must use our reason to judge the emotions, to make sure that they are sympathetic toward the right things—the things that bring us closer to honesty, goodness, truth, virtue, thinking—rather than the wrong things—the things that take us away from the right things or that want us to worship money, possessions, reputation, etc. This is where the modern University comes in.

In four years you will go to college. In a way, I am sorry for you, because when I went to college I felt completely free to study what I found interesting. I was not concerned with how I would make a living. I fell in love with philosophy and the philosophy of religion and thought about them for four solid years. Later, I went back to school because I wanted to think some more. And again to do more thinking. But today, it seems that the modern university (perhaps what makes it modern) believes that every course you take should be in some way contributing to your future job. I am sure it was also like this in the past for some people, and in some institutions. In any case, it is important to choose a school that still values thinking in the context of the humanities and the liberal arts. One way to know if a school values thinking is to look at its Philosophy and Religious Studies departments. Are students encouraged to major or minor in humanities or the creative arts as well as business, engineering, biology, etc.? If so, it means that the college or university values thinking for its own sake and isn’t just pushing you into getting job-training. If not, be careful. Read more about the university. How does it try to “sell” itself to students? What words does it use to characterize itself? Does it sound like its mission is to get everyone a job as quickly as possible? Always be critical of anyone trying to sell you a degree rather than an education.

I believe that college should be a time of self-reflection, critical analysis, questioning your beliefs, and strengthening those that need strengthening. This is what the philosophy of religion does for the modern university. It allows us to step into the world of our most profound beliefs and doubts. It gives us the time and space we need to think about thinking and believing, and to make sure we are thinking about the things that are most important. Socrates said that he was sent by god to tell people that they were living wrongly—that they were too concerned with how they looked and what they wore and who thought what of them. He admonished them for being focused on their bodies and not their souls. In the philosophy of religion you will get to analyze not only the religious beliefs of the world but also your own soul. And the truth is that many of your other classes will feel like a race to the end, full of lots of projects and busy-work about subjects that you might not care about. I would love it if every class made you think about yourself and your beliefs in relation to the rest of the world, but that is just not the way it works. Talk to other students about which teachers make you inspect yourself and which are just there to collect your work. Gravitate toward the schools with the best reputation for teaching, for small classrooms, that have healthy humanities and creative arts departments, like Religious Studies, Philosophy, English, History, Music, Art, and Dance. These are topics you will enjoy because thinking and creating are enjoyable!

But of course thinking is also challenging. Especially thinking about your religious beliefs. If you don’t, though, they will never grow; if you never have to inspect them then you never get to choose them, to own them, to stand up to them and say yes (or no) to them. This is what the philosophy of religion offers to the modern university: it gives us a chance to study the wider world of religious beliefs in order to decide what we are going to believe in and what we are not going to believe in, as opposed to just going through life without examining our beliefs. It also gives us a chance for different faiths to talk to one another. In my first letter I said that a great philosopher of religion approaches religious stories generously, with reverence, and now I will add, sympathetically. We need philosophy of religion inside and outside of the University in order to act as mediator between faiths that otherwise don’t know how to communicate with one another. Kierkegaard said that having faith means running the risk of not being intelligible to anyone except God, and philosophers of religion go out of their way to try to understand the actions of religious people that are often dismissed by people who are not sensitive to this fact. The Philosophy of Religion should be a subject offered in every university, because it gives young people like you time and space to decide what you believe, as well as the ability to communicate with people who believe different things from you.

Donald Blakeley is emeritus professor of philosophy at California State University, Fresno and adjunct lecturer in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. We invited him to answer the question “What does philosophy of religion offer to the modern university?” as part of our “Philosophers of Religion on Philosophy of Religion” series.

Religions make claims about the most important things. They aim to provide guidance on the basis of their assumed truths and values. People learn the importance of religious beliefs and values in their particular family, social, geographical and historical settings. Few have the opportunity to learn about other religions. Individual religions have no incentive to encourage the learning of other religions. As a result, people generally are ill equipped to make informed judgments not only about their own religious beliefs but also about the beliefs and practices of other religious and non-religious worldviews.

The modern university can help address this important deficit condition by providing instruction that focuses on religion as a subject matter deserving serious multi-disciplinary attention. Typically, departments of anthropology, sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, and others offer such classes. Sometimes these disciplines are included in a religious studies department.

The availability of such educational instruction by experts in their various fields is important in order to develop a well-informed appreciation of the enormous and varied contributions that have been made by religions. Learning to be religious is not part of the agenda of academic teaching. But learning about what it means to be religious, becoming informed about beliefs, values, and practices of major religions, is an important aspect of learning how life can be understood and lived.

Since religions involve the most basic and intimate aspects of personal and social life, care in learning how to reflect upon, compare, and assess such life options would seem to be of utmost importance to everyone. Additionally, as beneficial as religions may be, they can also be dangerous. Dogmatic single-mindedness can find sanctification in special experiences or scriptural resources and assume exclusive certitude. In extreme cases, this can result in destructive campaigns and horrifying atrocities that have and continue to wreak havoc on this planet. Familiarity with other religions can help to reduce misunderstandings that lead to suffering and disruption in personal, social, and international affairs.

What such university-based educational opportunities provide is a safe, disciplined, and informed environment that encourages independent thinking. Discussions can explore the meanings, ways of reasoning, and values of different religions and advance skills in disciplined clarification of agreements and disagreements. Religious beliefs are deserving of cautious and critical examination of the most rigorous and well-informed sort. Considering the value of a knowledgeable populace, it is surprising that the societal settings which encourage the development of competence in the analysis and communication of religious ideas are so rare.

Religion(s) will face unprecedented challenges in the future. Forms of on-line access to information about religions certainly increase the opportunity for learning which is not restricted to local sources. Other prominent challenges include advances in the comparative study of belief systems, scientific cosmology, neuroscience, artificial intelligence, robotics, medicine, and environmental studies. Religions can hardly escape the consequences of these contributions. Transformations will surely result. Students need to be provided adequate information about such matters generally and as these have an impact on religion.

Because anyone can all-too-easily become a duped adherent of some way of understanding things, educational institutions should function as a resource to strengthen and equip people with tools to help protect them from their own vulnerabilities. A good and responsible society, with its educational institutions, cannot afford to ignore ignorance and inadequately informed beliefs even as it affirms the right of everyone to exercise freedom of religion (thought, belief, conscience). As the saying might go: A well-informed citizenry requires the development of a robust disposition to encounter and reflect on religious belief claims in adept and respectful ways. Social discourse and social media should be supportive of occasions where informed interchanges on such matters can take place. In ideal conditions, this project of “religious education” should begin in early childhood and be a widely held social-political commitment. The modern university should exemplify this mission at advanced levels of instruction.

‘Philosophy of religion’ can be understood in various ways. (#1) Every religion expresses itself in a set of convictions. Whatever forms these may take, that assemblage of information functions as its way of thinking about things, i.e., its philosophy.

(#2) Religious beliefs can be formulated on the basis of different philosophical perspectives on religion such as realist (foundationalist), phenomenological, pragmatic, existential, symbolic, mystical, or fideist.

(#3) ‘Philosophy of religion’ might come in forms such as Gandhi’s, the Dalai Lama’s, or al Ghazali’s philosophy of religion. These would be constructive philosophical interpretations of religion or interpretations of the philosophical significance of religion. Bits and pieces of such perspectives can show up pretty much anywhere, e.g., from novels, poems, films, editorials, to cartoons and jokes.

(#4) In an educational setting, these approaches are part of the content to be examined by the discipline of philosophy. It proceeds without depending on commitments to any religion. It takes an etic or outside approach to its subject matter.

Philosophy of religion (in sense #4) focuses on religious worldviews/belief systems and their distinctive ideas in order to understand and evaluate what is being maintained. Exposition and critical assessment rely on empirical and formal (conceptual, logical, rational) considerations. Major concepts (e.g., God, Brahman, Dao, Buddha Nature, Spirit Power) are interlinked with numerous epistemic (knowledge, belief, faith), linguistic (meaning, reference), existential and moral (life, death, love, freedom, justice) issues. Anything goes, as a starter, but everything is subject to a variety of standards (verification, consistency, coherency, comprehensiveness), with such standards themselves requiring justification.

The general aim of philosophy of religion is to engage in a skillful, transparent, fair, welcoming, cooperative examination of religious beliefs and values. Because religion has been and continues to be important worldwide, a resourceful and judicious handling of these matters is imperative.

The goal of producing an educated person who is able to function resourcefully in the world composed of very diverse peoples and cultures requires the capacity to reflect perceptively and knowledgeably when encountering religious beliefs and practices.

The modern university, tending as it should to the best interests of its students, has much at stake in its support (or lack thereof) of programs that address religion in educationally responsible ways.

Peter Forrest is Professor of Philosophy at The University of New England, Australia. We invited him to answer the question “What does philosophy of religion offer to the modern university?” as part of our “Philosophers of Religion on Philosophy of Religion” series.

Philosophy is dangerous, philosophy of religion especially so. But it also has much to offer if done the right way.

The danger of philosophy is illustrated by the charge against Socrates, corrupting youth. I imagine he corrupted by confusing, which is better than the indoctrination that can pass for academic philosophy. The undermining of young people’s beliefs on politics, ethics, or religion is a serious matter, whether it is achieved by snide remarks, laughter at naivety or, in Socrates’s case, bullying into confusion. Students who believe in guardian angels, possible reincarnation as a non-human animal or that the universe was created by God less than 10,000 years ago are mistaken, but if these are cherished beliefs they deserve gentle treatment. I recall the story of a philosopher, whom I otherwise respect, asking a student why she believed in God and on receiving the reply that she had faith, described that response as ‘wanking’. Not the right approach. But what is the right approach? In the university where I used to teach, the topic was treated by asking students to read William Clifford’s  ‘The Ethics of Belief’, and William James’ ‘The Will to Believe’ and then discuss these papers in a tutorial. Robust opposition from fellow students does not do violence the way derision from a tutor would.

This example suggests how we should teach philosophy especially when philosophical reflection impacts immensely important beliefs. Maybe selection of possible topics would be suggested with the students and it may be made plain just how many need to be studied, and a selection of readings provided. Then the tutor should aim to moderate discussion as well as promoting intellectual rigor. I expect the tutor to make her or his own position clear, but not seek to convert or de-convert.

Even given this sort of cautious approach there is still the problem of not providing the readings that exhibit the strongest arguments. And there is the further problem that the pursuit of fairness so qualifies assertions, so explores every corner of the debate, that the students become disillusioned with philosophy, judging it a degenerate intellectual exercise. Being a fair-minded conscientious but effective teacher of philosophy of religion is the hardest job in academia.

Why, then, teach philosophy of religion in universities? Because of the dangers, the university is a good place to engage in philosophy. For it conserves a threatened tradition of high academic standards. These are required in the humanities generally and philosophy in particular because of the risk of doing things wrong. So if taught at all, philosophy of religion must be taught in universities.

The justification for philosophy, especially on the more sensitive topics such as religion, is that, for whatever reason people often do ask themselves, “Well, what is the truth about religion?’ We should not force the young to ask that question by quoting the Socratic bullshit about t­he unexamined life not being worth living. (The unexamined degree is not worth giving but that is another matter). But often the young ask these questions and often older people enroll in university courses precisely because they have come to ask these questions. And in this context the university setting is of great value for two reasons. The first is that it locates the discussion in a tradition in which we can converse not merely with our peers but within a community of thinkers both present and past. The second is that many of those thinkers are somewhat obscure and help is required to understand the relevance of what they have to say.

In summary philosophy of religion deserves a place in the University curriculum because of the role it plays once students start to question their cherished beliefs, religious or anti-religious, but it should come with warnings: adult material; some participants may find this threatening; intellectual nudity.

Douglas Allen is Professor of Philosophy at The University of Maine. We invited him to answer the question “What does philosophy of religion offer to the modern university?” as part of our “Philosophers of Religion on Philosophy of Religion” series.

In answering the question of what the philosophy of religion offers to the modern university, it seems to me that one must engage in the difficult preliminary work of clarifying at least three key, confusing terms: the philosophy of religion, religion, and the modern university.

First, what is this “philosophy of religion” that may have something to offer the modern university? At an earlier time in what dominated the history of philosophy in the West, it seemed easier to define the traditional discipline and approach of philosophy of religion. Especially in the twentieth century, such dominant agreement and clarity have been shattered. Influential philosophers not only maintain that traditional proofs for the existence of God or solutions to the Problem of Evil are inadequate, but, more radically, that the traditional normative concerns of the philosophy of religion are based on linguistic confusion, category mistakes, and are meaningless. In my own work, I explore whether a more phenomenological approach in philosophy, in formulating the phenomenology of religion, could allow us to suspend those normative metaphysical and theological judgments and provide a more adequate basis for a philosophy of religion.

In addition, with greater exposure to and appreciation of the significance of the religious and spiritual phenomena of Asia, of indigenous peoples, and of other nonwestern cultures, one’s philosophy of religion increasingly expresses a recognition of pluralism and diversity, of hidden and camouflaged meanings, of complexity and contradiction. Therefore, it is a legitimate question as to whether there is even such a thing as “the philosophy of religion,” or whether we are examining complex, open-ended, diverse philosophies of religion.

Second, what is the subject matter, religion, of philosophy of religion? Once again, at an earlier time, it seemed easier to define religion in the dominant philosophy of religion in the West. Scholars typically assumed an essentialized concept of religion, usually formulated in Abrahamic, monotheistic terms of Judaism, usually Christianity (Judaeo-Christian usually versions of Christian), and occasionally Islam. Today, not only do we recognize that the terms religion and religions are much vaguer and more pluralistic and diverse, but we struggle with anti-essentialist and anti-universalizing challenges of relativism and of postmodernism, gender and ethnic and postcolonial studies, and other developments in recent decades.

Is there such a thing as “religion”? Does the philosophy of religion study religion as something that has defining characteristics, which allow us to distinguish religious from nonreligious phenomena and that have some objective and universal meaning? Or does the philosophy of religion study religion as a more dynamic, open-ended process of diverse subject matters without clearly defined structures and meanings?

Third, what is the modern university for which philosophy of religion may offer something? There was a post-Enlightenment view in the West that dominated conceptions of the modern university. The liberal arts and humanities, including my discipline of philosophy, were central to conceptions of the nature and function of the modern university. The study of religion at the modern nonreligious university was often regarded with suspicion, as if this were something premodern that lacked the rigor and objectivity of modern disciplines,

What is the situation today? As is well documented, the liberal arts and humanities, which usually include philosophy of religion, are increasingly under attack, underfunded, marginalized, with drastic cuts in faculty and programs, and often regarded as largely irrelevant to the modern university. That modern university is increasingly a corporatized university, which, using the post-Eisenhower conception of Senator Fulbright, is an integral part of the military-industrial-academic complex. Those with economic, political, and military power define the ends, and universities demonstrate that they can provide the means and are good investments.

Does this mean that the future of philosophy of religion in the modern corporatized university rests on convincing huge corporations that it can provide analyses of other religions and cultures necessary for penetrating and controlling foreign markets and maximizing profits from foreign investments? Does this mean that the future of philosophy of religion rests on convincing the C.I.A., the N.S.A., and others with political and military power that it can provide an understanding invaluable for dominant views of national security and the winning of wars? Or, as I believe, can a different view of the nature and function of philosophy of religion provide understanding that involves resistance to such developments in the modern university?

What we find today is multiple philosophies of religion or religious phenomena, highly diverse, situated, in need of contextualization, with both overlapping shared characteristics but also specific irreducible features. Some philosophers of religion in the modern university will do specialized research on specific religious perspectives. Others will bring multiple perspectives into complex dynamic relations, emphasizing encounter and dialogue and how our understanding of the other can serve as a catalyst for broadening and deepening our own understanding.

In assessing what philosophy of religion may offer the modern university, we can appreciate that the key terms of “philosophy of religion,” “religion,” and “modern university” resist closure and are open to creative contestation and development. The critical study of religion in the modern world remains important and exceedingly practical, as, for example, when we try to understand why the fastest growing religions seem to embrace a radical rejection of much of modernity and the modern university or why there is so much religious violence in the contemporary world. And philosophy of religion remains important and exceedingly practical for the modern university because philosophical reflection, on religious and other phenomena, is essential for critical examination and reasoning, for formulating general structures and relations, and for arriving at evaluations and judgments that are an integral part of any understanding.

Clayton Crockett is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Central Arkansas. We invited him to answer the question “What does philosophy of religion offer to the modern university?” as part of our “Philosophers of Religion on Philosophy of Religion” series.

In many respects, Immanuel Kant defines the theoretical situation for knowledge in the modern university. In his three Critiques, Kant accomplishes a critique of science or philosophy (pure reason), a critique of morality (pure practical reason), and a critique of art (aesthetics) that sets up an idealized model for modern knowledge. This model is institutionally implemented in neo-Kantian terms, as these sciences are divided into disciplines that are then positivized and historicized. In The Conflict of the Faculties, Kant defends the lower faculty of philosophy, which represents what becomes known as the liberal arts, against the claims of the higher faculties of theology, medicine and law. The higher faculties are the professional schools, that threaten to subsume philosophy, humanities and the liberal arts.

As the contemporary university becomes increasingly corporatized, disciplines and areas of knowledge that are less directly profitable get marginalized. The humanities, liberal arts, and what is sometimes called general education are downsized as administrators, politicians, parents and even students emphasize the value of college as a vocational training program. Students matriculate into degree programs that presumably prepare them for jobs in a precarious global economy. Philosophy and religious studies are not popular areas of study in this context, not to mention philosophy of religion.

It is significant that Kant was unable to develop a critique of religion; he viewed religion as a subset of morality, as a form of practical reason. Modern religion should function within “the limits of reason alone.” It is Hegel who articulated a modern philosophy of religion, because for Hegel religion dialectically leads to philosophy. Religion is a kind of picture-thinking, a representation that shows the true but must give way to the pure reason of the Concept (Begriff). Hegel’s teleology is problematic, but he helps historicize reason and philosophy even as he does so from a Eurocentric perspective. Adopting Freud’s idea of the return of the repressed, we could say that religion consistently returns throughout modernity to haunt reason’s desire to repress it.

A quote I often mention to my classes is one that was given by Secretary of State John Kerry in 2013. He stated: “In fact, if I went back to college today, I think I would probably major in comparative religion, because that’s how integrated it is in everything that we are working on and deciding and thinking about in life today.” Despite the pressures to study something that appears more directly useful for a career, understanding the nature and role of religion in the world today is incredibly important and valuable. And this recognition of the value of studying religion occurs within a context where more and more potential employers are recommending that students study the humanities rather than business or STEM-related topics. Recent studies show that many entrepreneurs and CEOs of thriving corporations want students to study and major in humanities subjects.

In the humanities, or more specifically the academic study of religion, philosophy of religion has a crucial role to play. Unfortunately, due to the history of academic religious studies in the United States, philosophy of religion has been devalued in religious studies programs. Kerry affirms the importance of studying comparative religion. The predominant academic model of religious studies in the US today is the comparative world religions curriculum, which replaces the Protestant seminary model for the study of religion. During much of the twentieth century, the study of religion took place under the guise of the Protestant seminary model, and this curriculum continues to influence the field because most of the major US universities have seminaries attached or connected to them. According to a seminary model, religious studies is primarily Christian, and consists of categories like scripture, ethics, church history, and theology. The secular comparative world religions model replaces and updates the Protestant seminary model.

The ascendance of a comparative world religions curriculum for religious studies is mostly a good thing, because it transcends Christian parochialism, but there is one major downside. The world religions model adopts social scientific methodologies from the social sciences. These methodologies are crucial to the academic study of religion, but they leave out any explicitly philosophical approach. Most of the time, philosophy is associated, explicitly or implicitly, with theology. And theology is what the comparative world religions model explicitly opposes. Many scholars of religion demand the expulsion of theology in order for religious studies to be a viable academic discipline. At the same time, the construction of what we call world religions is not neutral, and has a complex history that Tomoko Masuzawa explores in her important book The Invention of World Religions.

Today we can see the breakdown of a certain kind of modern secularism, defined as the delimitation of religion to a private sphere. The return of religion in political terms indicates what José Casanova calls a deprivatization of religion. The strict opposition between reason and religion, faith and knowledge, deconstructs. This is a crucial task for philosophical understanding, to make sense of what is sometimes called a postsecular world.

My contention is that whatever one thinks about theology and the postsecular, the elimination of philosophy from the academic study of religion is a huge loss. Philosophy of religion is vital to the study of religion, not just a subset of philosophical inquiry. We need an explicitly philosophical commitment to exploring the persistent phenomenon of religion, a word that Jacques Derrida calls “the clearest and the most obscure” in his essay on “Faith and Knowledge.” Philosophy of religion studies the word, the meaning, the history, and the situation of religion as it expresses itself in the world today, which is integrated with everything that one works with, decides upon, and thinks about in life today, as Kerry affirms. The modern and contemporary university does not know how to properly value this form of thinking and understanding. But it is blind without it.

Stephen T. Davis is the Russell K. Pitzer Professor of Philosophy at Claremont McKenna College. We invited him to answer the question “What does philosophy of religion offer to the modern university?” as part of our “Philosophers of Religion on Philosophy of Religion” series.

There are of course Catholic and Protestant institutions of higher learning, but when I speak of “the modern University,” I mean secular academia as it presently exists in North America and Europe. And the fact is that religion seems to come in for little good press in those circles these days. There are doubtless many reasons for this phenomenon. Let me mention two.

First, religious people are criticized. Although lip service is usually paid to the fact that not all religious people are bad, nevertheless we live in a time when Muslims are tarred with the brush of Islamic terrorism, Jews are associated with (what are considered by some to be) those imperialistic war-mongers the Israelis, and Christians (and especially conservative Catholics and Evangelical Protestants) are dismissed as narrow-minded, dogmatic, and homophobic deniers of science. These are the kinds of things that religion can do—so the University implies.

Second, religion conflicts with the dominant world-view of the University; we can call it Naturalism. This theory says: (1) the physical universe exhausts reality (everything that exists is atoms in motion); there are no souls, spirits, gods, or God; (2) no true natural laws can ever be violated; and accordingly (3) everything that occurs can in principle be explained by methods similar to those used in the natural sciences. Naturalists admit that there are things we cannot now explain, but that is because we do not know enough. The point is that there are no intractable mysteries, permanent anomalies, or divine miracles. In short, there is no room for God or (supernatural) religion in naturalism.

For these and doubtless other reasons, religion is a voice that seems to be unwelcome as part of the conversation in today’s University. It is largely ignored or deemphasized. We even see historians writing religion out of the past as much as possible—e.g., trying to explain the Civil Rights movement or even the Protestant Reformation in largely non-religious terms. Of course philosophy of religion cannot by itself reverse these trends, but I think it can do something.

But what exactly is the philosophy of religion? I understand it to be in large part the careful philosophical examination of religious claims. (Of course religion is not limited to religious beliefs or claims—there are religious practices, laws, attitudes, holidays, buildings, forms of government, etc., but the philosophy of religion, like all of philosophy, is greatly concerned with beliefs.) Its practitioners ask questions like:

• Does God exist?
• If God exists, why is there so much evil and suffering?
• Is reincarnation true?
• Is it ever rational to believe in something you cannot see or touch or prove?
• Is one religion superior to others?
• Does life have any transcendent meaning?

Although philosophers of religion usually take sides in such debates, the discipline of philosophy of religion is neither a philosophical defense of religious claims nor a philosophical attack on them.

What then can this discipline do in the current situation? I will mention two things. First, it can serve as an excellent way to introduce students to the larger discipline of which it is a part, philosophy. This is because the questions it deals with significantly overlap with traditional questions that are raised in the central branches in philosophy (metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, logic, philosophy of mind, etc.). Moreover, many themes in the philosophy of religion can be found in the works of almost every great historical philosopher.

Second, and more importantly, it can show the contemporary University that there exists rational, rigorous, and painstaking examination of various important and fascinating religious claims and that there are highly intelligent people on both sides of such debates. Given not just its past but its present influence on human behavior in today’s world, religion ought to be a deep concern in academia. Religion isn’t just obscurantist fundamentalists pontificating and fighting over nonsense. In religion, people try to make sense of their lives. That is something the University ought to be deeply interested in.