Theo Todman's Web Page - Notes Pages
Supervisions
McDade_100729
(Text as at 04/08/2010 07:10:34)
I think it’s worthwhile jotting down a few notes about my recent interview with Dr. John McDade, Principal of Heythrop College, London University, before the thoughts get lost. The interview was on Thursday 29th July 2010 and the purpose was to assess my suitability for the MA in Philosophy and Religion. These thoughts are being written up the following day, and while intended to reflect what actually went on, or at least the interesting bits, may reflect a selective memory and frequent misunderstanding on my part. This is a risk, but if I write nothing, the chance for reflection will go and soon so will much recollection, distorted or otherwise. As in all dynamic discussions, this one wandered off on tangents, left some points hanging and had others inadequately presented, certainly from my side. In what follows, I’ve omitted my own presentation, except where it’s relevant to understanding Dr. McDade’s advice. The interview started early, but lasted a full hour, partly because I do a lot of talking.
I didn’t ask Dr. McDade why he’d chosen to interview me himself – there must be hundreds of prospective graduate students applying to Heythrop, but I assume there was something in my personal statement1 that interested him. It would be intriguing to know whether there’s some process whereby potentially interesting candidates are routed to the Principal for consideration. In my case, the “interest” naturally lies – apart from my academic achievements in philosophy, such as they are – in my unusual spiritual wanderings from potential Carthusian to fundamentalist evangelical protestant to my state for much of the last 20 years of agnosticism. It seems I had an unusually supportive reference from my former Birkbeck PhD supervisor, Prof. Jen Hornsby2, but this would have arrived after the appointment for my interview took place, so cannot have been its cause3.
We didn’t actually plod through my personal statement. His main interest – after the formalities of reviewing my philosophical training were out of the way – was in where I was currently at, spiritually speaking, how I got to my current situation4 and how I thought the Heythrop course might help. His main concern was that the MA in Philosophy and Religion would be too elementary, and that I’d find it unhelpful. My view is that the questions are always the same – it’s the answers that are difficult – though we both recognised that asking the right questions is critical – and that the questions can be addressed at any level. Having to address them in a formal (rather than cursory) manner with feedback will be helpful, I think.
Dr. McDade wanted to know whether I’d read much theology – which I had to admit I hadn’t, because my background led me to distrust theology in favour of Biblical studies. He thought a serious course of theology would be good for me – particularly the study of Aquinas, properly interpreted – but didn’t make a concrete recommendation. I mentioned the issue of Aquinas in my departure from Parkminster, and thought that this would be a step too far at the moment until (or if) I got a taste for the subject.
Somewhere in our discussion, Dr. McDade mentioned the importance of the avoidance of Fideism, which compartmentalises the spiritual side of life as not open to rational evaluation, and the need for a fully integrated world-view, which he thought was very rarely achieved. We were at one on that score.
We discussed the Bible – the key point for Dr. McDade was how it is interpreted. I agree with this, though I suspect our methods would differ. He’d been reading a book on God in Old Testament Judaism – and pointed out the importance of understanding the cultures in which the Biblical writings arose. I don’t think we had any great differences there - I mentioned that I’d started a course at London Bible College and had looked at some writings by Roland DeVaux5.
Dr. McDade suggested that the Bible had been substituted for the “Blessed Sacrament” in the Protestant mind – as the proximate image of God (not the exact words, and maybe not the thought at all, but something along these lines). I mentioned that I found some of the more “Catholic” presuppositions in his arguments uncomfortable – in particular the use of sacramental terminology. I got the impression that Dr. McDade’s view was that whatever the “real presence” might be, a crude transubstantiational account was not correct, and that the sacrament pointed to something less local.
We discussed the reasons why my faith had fallen apart, and I selected the topic of resurrection, stating that my concerns were not so much with Christ’s resurrection – because there was bodily continuity – but with our resurrection – where (in the absence of substance dualism) there is no continuity. What makes our resurrection bodies “our” bodies in the absence of any physical continuity?
Books – I was recommended to read the following:-
- "MacIntyre (Alasdair) - After Virtue"
- "Kerr (Fergus) - Theology After Wittgenstein"
- "Kerr (Fergus) - After Aquinas: Versions of Thomism"
- "McCabe (Herbert) - On Aquinas"
- "Kerr (Fergus) - Immortal Longings: Versions of Transcending Humanity"
- "Burrell (David) - Aquinas: God and Action"
… though the book by McCabe wasn’t strictly recommended – McCabe was mentioned, and a quick look on Amazon revealed this as a likely candidate.
I mentioned that I’d had (a rather disappointing) dinner with Alasdair MacIntyre. Dr. McDade quipped - “in his pre-resurrection body”, which I didn’t understand and didn’t pursue as it led me to think he might have recently died (and that I might theeby be culpably ignorant) – but a subsequent internet trawl doesn’t support this hypothesis. Apparently MacIntyre was asked by a German academic – “where do you start from?”. According to Dr. McDade, we start from where we are – somewhere in the middle. We had a brief discussion on foundationalism versus coherentism – Dr. McDade would favour coherentism.
The question of the grammar of our utterances came up. Dr. McDade presented me with a print-out6 of some thoughts of Newman not originally intended for publication. I mentioned I’d read "Newman (John Henry) & Ker (Ian) - An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine", and while development might be consistent after a certain stage, this was no guarantee that there hadn’t been a primitive derailment that invalidated subsequent developments. The point of the extract, related to a BA Theology question, was the tension in theological language between what can and cannot be said.
While agreeing that you can’t expect human language to be adequate for fully expressing truths about the deity, I worry that we may end up talking nonsense. I feel uncomfortable when we move from trying to make clear statements and clarify muddles – as in analytic philosophy – to attempting to say the unsayable – as in theology or continental philosophy (not that I know much about either) – but there is the feeling that the methodologies between the two philosophies are so different that they are two different subjects or areas of discourse. It would probably be useful for me to have some exposure to different ways of thinking.
Dr. McDade saw a pattern connecting the three enclosed systems to which I’ve been attracted – the Carthusians, protestant fundamentalism7 and analytic philosophy. I’m not sure about the Carthusians (with their mystical approach, albeit within a physical enclosure8), but there is some similarity of approach for the other two. There’s an assumption that you can analyse your way to truth, and sort everything out tidily – and that if you can’t do this, you should keep quiet. I can’t see how to proceed, otherwise, so again some exposure to other methods would be useful – though I cannot at the moment envisage being able to stomach much continental philosophy.
Where to from here? I argued that studying theology would be too much of a change of direction for me at the moment – I would most likely not be able to maintain motivation – but it might be something that I’d want to do in the future, after a few bridges had been built. We discussed briefly the possible course modules – there’s one on Islam, for instance. I said I’d made a couple of attempts to read the Koran, and thought it important to have some unprejudiced exposure to a system that many clever people had managed to find a home in. But, while acknowledging that a superficial reading is unfair – as evidenced by the casual rejection of the Bible by militant atheists – it really did look as though Islam was a step backwards.
I said I was looking forward to the Ethics pathway – I’d not been happy with how ethics was dealt with at Birkbeck – in that while various ethical systems were presented, they were not tested by exposure to real ethical dilemmas and issues.
It seems that Dr. Vardy9 will be presenting the core module of Philosophy of Religion, and that Dr. McDade himself will be lecturing on Contemporary Christian Thought. It might be possible for me to take an optional module10 from another course, should I wish to.
So, Dr. McDade approved my application and the paperwork for formal registration will follow in due course.
In-Page Footnotes:
Footnote 2: I had written to Jen as follows:-
- I hope you don't mind me contacting you. I rather wasted the opportunity of being supervised by you, so I would understand it if you should be less than enthusiastic about writing a reference for me.
- I’ve been somewhat unfocused over the last year, but have recently recovered enthusiasm for my research topic. My current plans are to spend a couple of years proving (or getting out of my system) the ideas I had about using web technology for philosophy, in the light of my research topic, and then re-applying to Birkbeck (or applying elsewhere if Birkbeck has had enough of me) to do an MPhil / PhD in the traditional manner. In the interim there’s something else I want to get out of my system, and that will involve doing an MA in “Philosophy and Religion” at Heythrop, for which I need a couple of referees. I doubt you’ve any more sympathy for this than for my other eccentric endeavours, and explaining it all would take a long time, so I’ll be very brief.
- There are a number of approaches to religion, but the extremes are the mystical (which is empty of content) and the fundamentalist (which is full of content, but most of the foundational propositions are false). It seems to me that those who haven’t been on the inside – and who think of religion as a blight – tend to get rather exasperated about these things, and don’t take the arguments seriously enough, making their own arguments rather feeble bluster. I’ve been on the inside at both extremes, albeit far from the main line, so am better placed than most to evaluate the arguments. I had a bash back in 1990 when I “lost my religion”, and wrote a long screed (sent to Paul Helm, John Polkinghorne and Lord Habgood). It was this study that set me off on the track to analytic philosophy. I feel that this is still unfinished business. As you will remember, I intend to include a chapter on the metaphysical possibility of resurrection in my thesis (my view being that – on the assumption that substance dualism is false – resurrection is a metaphysical impossibility in most cases). Circumventing this sad prognosis is what drives Lynne Rudder Baker’s constitution approach (and van Inwagen’s rather desperate divine body snatching).
- So, I think a dose of Heythrop would allow me to follow up some loose ends. It’d also get me back into the discipline of regular study. Finally, as I’ll be taking the “ethics pathway”, it’ll give me another opportunity to look at ethics, which I’d tended to write off as bunk – even though (like religion) bunk of enormous practical importance.
Footnote 3: But I must email Jen to thank her. I would like to meet up to find out whether she thinks I ought to be pursuing my research in Personal Identity, rather than footling my time away on (what might seem to be) peripheral matters. But I think my declared approach of spending another couple of years on foundational work is sound – and Jen made no adverse comment when I expounded it above; nor did Barry Smith nor Anthony Grayling when in receipt of similar missives – though in their case absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (of misgivings), as they didn’t reply at all .
Footnote 4: I gave a fairly racy but inadequate account of my Parkminster days and the various motivators and problems at the time and subsequently.
Footnote 5: “Read”, may be a slight exaggeration, but I’d started to read :-
"de Vaux (Roland) - Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions"
"de Vaux (Roland) - The Early History of Israel: Vol 1 - From the Beginnings to the Exodus and Covenant of Sinai", and
"de Vaux (Roland) - The Early History of Israel: Vol 2 - From the Entry Into Canaan to the Perioid of the Judges".
Footnote 6: Question 1. What light does this text from John Henry Newman's Notebooks cast on the nature of theological language?
- ‘But as we do not know those truths as they are in their own nature, and are unable to interpret language which we use of them in that analogical sense in which alone it is true, the apparent antagonisms remain; and much more will they perplex us in the case of such characteristics of the Divine Mind, as are conveyed to us by purely metaphorical expressions, such as God's anger, grief, repentance, jealousy and hope, human infirmities, which are but mere symbols of unknown truths and have no resemblance whatever to any characteristics of the Immutable God.
- All our language about Almighty God, so far as it is affirmative, is analogical and figurative. We can only speak of Him, whom we reason about but have not seen, in the terms of our experience. When we reflect on Him and put into words our thoughts about Him, we are forced to transfer to a new meaning ready-made words, which primarily belong to objects of time and place. We are aware, while we do so, that they are inadequate, but we have the alternative of doing so, or nothing at all. We can only remedy their insufficiency by confessing it. We can do no more than put ourselves on the guard as to our own proceeding, and protest against it, while we do it. We can only set right one error of expression by another. By their method of antagonism we steady our minds, not so as to reach their object, but to point them in the right direction: as in an algebraical process we might add and subtract in series, approximating little by little, by saying and unsaying, to a positive result. We lay down that the Supreme Being is omnipresent , and yet nowhere; that He is everlasting, yet not for ages upon ages ; He is ineffably one yet he is exuberantly manifold. We draw lines, which seem to us parallel, because the point at which they meet is so distant; and we do not ever see that they do meet in it, we know only by calculation that they must.
- Such is the character of our knowledge in this world about the Supreme Being altogether; our knowledge of the Holy Trinity, as given us by revelation, is the same in kind as this; (1) as determinative and as obscure; (2) as logical, and as inconceivable (3) as dogmatic and as mysterious; -- but all this will become clearer, as I proceed with the argument which I have begun.' December 1, 1863
Footnote 7: We discussed the attraction of fundamentalism for “clever people”.
Footnote 8: Though maybe there is a similar “solve all life’s problems in one go” aspect to it.
Footnote 9: When discussing the preliminary reading (Click here for Note) – in the context of my testing whether I’d find the course sufficiently palatable – Dr Vardy’s books came in for some comment as really very elementary – for school use.
Footnote 10: I’m not sure what Dr. McDade had in mind – but maybe Central Themes in Christian Theology is a likely candidate. Currently I intend to take Bioethics and Sexual Ethics, for which Foundations of Ethics is a pre-requisite. That would seem to fill up my quota, but maybe I can argue that I’ve sufficient philosophical background to skip the Foundations course.
Summary of Notes Referenced by This Note
To access information, click on one of the links in the table above.
Summary of Notes Citing This Note
To access information, click on one of the links in the table above.
References & Reading List
| Author |
Title |
Medium |
Source |
Read? |
| Burrell (David) |
Aquinas: God and Action |
Book - Cited  |
Burrell (David) - Aquinas: God and Action |
No |
| de Vaux (Roland) |
Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions |
Book - Cited |
de Vaux (Roland) - Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions |
No |
| de Vaux (Roland) |
The Early History of Israel: Vol 1 - From the Beginnings to the Exodus and Covenant of Sinai |
Book - Cited |
de Vaux (Roland) - The Early History of Israel: Vol 1 - From the Beginnings to the Exodus and Covenant of Sinai |
No |
| Kerr (Fergus) |
After Aquinas: Versions of Thomism |
Book - Cited |
Kerr (Fergus) - After Aquinas: Versions of Thomism |
3% |
| Kerr (Fergus) |
Immortal Longings: Versions of Transcending Humanity |
Book - Cited  |
Kerr (Fergus) - Immortal Longings: Versions of Transcending Humanity |
1% |
| Kerr (Fergus) |
Theology After Wittgenstein |
Book - Cited |
Kerr (Fergus) - Theology After Wittgenstein |
2% |
| MacIntyre (Alasdair) |
After Virtue |
Book - Cited |
MacIntyre (Alasdair) - After Virtue |
5% |
| McCabe (Herbert) |
On Aquinas |
Book - Cited |
McCabe (Herbert) - On Aquinas |
No |
| Newman (John Henry) & Ker (Ian) |
An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine |
Book - Cited |
Newman (John Henry) & Ker (Ian) - An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine |
No |
Text Colour Conventions
- Blue: Text by me; © Theo Todman, 2026