Top 20 Celebrities with Degrees in Philosophy and Religious Studies

One of the teachers at my old school had in his classroom a set of posters of celebrities who studied History at university, including such luminaries as Gordon Brown, Michael Palin, and Shakira.

I thought the posters were a great idea, and was impressed by the amount of time my colleague had obviously spent putting the posters together. So, deciding that it was time for the RS department to step up to the plate, I set about creating my own set of posters of celebrities who'd studied Philosophy or Religious Studies. I was right about it being a time consuming business: It took me hours to track down the names and create the posters.

To my slight annoyance, my colleague later told me that he'd found all his posters on the internet. History teachers eh? Always cutting corners...

Anyway, I still think that knowing that there are a few celebrities who've studied Philosophy or Religion is a good way to help students think about the question "what could I do with a degree in this?" So in no particular order, my top 20 famous people who studied Philosophy or Religion at university are:

Win Butler - Musician (Arcade Fire). Studied Religious Studies at McGill University.
Bill Clinton - Former US President. Politics, Philosophy and Economics, University of Oxford.
Iris Murdoch - Author. Philosophy, University of Oxford.
Katy Brand - Writer, comedian. Theology, University of Oxford .
Ricky Gervais - Comedian. Philosophy, University College London.
Christy Turlington - Model and businesswoman. Comparative Religion and Eastern Philosophy, New York University.
Aung San Suu Kyi - Burmese politician and Nobel Laureate. Philosophy, Politics and Economics, University of Oxford.
Yvette Cooper - Shadow Home Secretary. Philosophy, Politics and Economics, University of Oxford.
David Cameron - Prime Minister. Philosophy, Politics and Economics, University of Oxford.
Miles Jupp - Writer, comedian. Divinity, University of Edinburgh.
Ed Miliband - Labour Party Leader. Philosophy, Politics and Economics, University of Oxford.
Martin Luther King Jr - Civil Rights Leader. Theology, Boston University.
Matt Groening - Creator of The Simpsons. Philosophy, Evergreen State University.
Bruce Lee - Actor and martial artists. Philosophy, University of Washington.
Moby - Musician. Philosophy, University of Connecticut.
Yann Martel - Author (Life of Pi). Philosophy, Trent University.
Justin Vernon - Musician (Bon Iver). Religious Studies, University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire.
Mike Brierley - Former England cricket captain. Classical and Moral Sciences, University of Cambridge.
JB Gill - Musician (JLS). Theology, Kings College London.
General Sir Richard Barrons - Commander, Joint Forces Command. Philosophy, Politics and Economics, University of Oxford.

There are a number of other names I could have added: There are dozens of other politicians with Oxford PPE degrees, but I'm not sure our current crop of MPs are the best advert for the study of Philosophy. Footballer Joey Barton is studying Philosophy at Roehampton University, but I've left him off my list because, well, he's Joey Barton. Another footballer, former Charlton Athletic defender Richard Rufus, apparently studied Theology, but doesn't appear because I can't find the details of where he studied or at what level. There  also seems to be a bit of doubt about whether Bruce Lee actually attended Washington, but the rule of cool keeps him on my list.

I'd be keen to hear about any other names I could add to my list, particularly if they are well-know in the UK, female (not enough on my list at the moment), or from a field that isn't currently represented.

The original set of posters I created can be downloaded here (you'll need a TES login).

A Suggestion for Neil Godfrey

Photo credit: sxc.hu

Neil Godfrey has written an interesting blog post about the inspiring story of Jack Andraka, a 16 year old high school student who, with a bit of help from Google, Wikipedia, and some open access journals, has developed a revolutionary new test for pancreatic cancer.

Andraka wrote to 200 established scientists asking for the help he needed to put his theory to the test. 199 politely declined, but one scientist, Anirban Maitra, a Professor at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, offered Andraka assistance, in the form of lab access and the support of a postdoctoral chemist.

Neil questions whether Andraka would have been taken seriously if his area of interest were Biblical Studies, rather than medicine. He writes: 

The ideological nature of [Biblical Studies] will never allow it… Andraka the Bible student would be scoffed at as not having qualifications, not having published, not being a “real Scholar”. And the one out of 200 who might be sympathetic to his views would probably have to remain silent for fear of ridicule and security of tenure. 

Now, having studied Religious Studies at degree level, having no job in academia protect or religious beliefs to defend, I have to say that I disagree with Neil’s assessment of Biblical Studies. However, I think that the story of Jack Andraka suggests a way of objectively testing Neil’s claims about Biblical Studies, and what's more, I’d be more than happy to work with Neil to do this.

Overall, it seems that Neil is offering a hypothesis about Biblical Studies, which is:

A) A proposal from a non-scholar requesting assistance from Bible scholars would receive a more negative response than the proposal from Jack Andraka. Therefore:

B) Biblical Studies is more ideological than the sciences.

I think that we could design a straightforward experiment that would test whether statement A is true, and as a consequence establish the validity of statement B. The experiment would work something like this:

1. We know that Jack Andraka received a positive response rate of 0.5% (one positive response out of two hundred requests), so an equivalent request to Bible scholars should be receive a lower response rate, assuming that statement A is true.
2. We could agree upon and outline an idea that we think has some merit and that might improve Biblical Studies in some regard. 
3. We would then contact 200 established Bible scholars, requesting as non-scholars some form of assistance necessary to develop our idea (e.g. translating a particular passage, help learning a language, access to a particular text or artefact.)
4. We would then compare the positive response rate of Bible scholars with the positive response rate that Andraka received (0.5%).
5. If our experiment resulted in a lower positive response rate from Bible Scholars than Andraka received (i.e. below 0.5%), then statement A would be proven and I think we would have good grounds to think that, by implication, statement B is likewise true. Conversely if the positive response rate were equal to or greater than 0.5%, then statement A would be false, and we would likewise have good grounds to doubt the truth of statement B.

Neil rightly points out that most theories or claims within Biblical Studies claims are not capable of empirical testing in quite the same way as scientific theories (which would equally apply most Arts/Humanities subjects). However, since we’re interested in how scholars respond to novel ideas from non-scholars, rather than the truth of those ideas, this wouldn’t really matter to the experiment I’ve suggested above. 

Of course, I’d welcome any suggestions to revise or improve my proposed experiment: Agreeing on an idea that we both think is worth investigating might prove tricky, as might establishing in advance what counts as a “positive response”. The way I’ve formulated Neil’s hypothesis in statement B might not quite reflect Neil’s actual argument, and need a bit of refining. We’d also need to check that the figure of 1 out of 200 scientists offering help is true rather than a piece of journalistic exaggeration. However, I don’t think that any of these issues are insurmountable with a bit of good will on both sides.

So how about it Neil?

Free E-book: Religion and Science

Mel Thomspon has made his A-level Religion and Science textbook available online and free of charge here. Very kind of him, I'm sure you'll agree.

It includes chapters on the origins of the universe, evolution, free will, and miracles, besides others on the history of science and the scientific method.

Religion and Science sells for £70 on Amazon, so getting it for free is like me paying you £70 to read a book, right?

Mel's website is also worth a visit, and contains summary notes for a range of A-level topics.

H/T: The Facebook Campaign to Improve AQA Philosophy.

Though Experiment #2: Hot Bricks and Wet Fur

Photo credits: sxc.hu

I came up with the following simple thought experiment that I used with my year 12s today:

Imagine that you are walking home one evening when you notice a fire in your neighbour’s house. Do you have any moral responsibility to try put the fire out (or at least call the fire brigade)?
 
Assuming that your answer is yes, is your duty to your neighbour or to the house itself?
 
The next day you are talking a walk along a nearby canal bank when you see your neighbour’s dog: it has evidently fallen into the canal and is unable to get out again. It is still swimming but seems exhausted and in danger of drowning. Do you have any moral responsibility to try to rescue the dog (or at least call the RSPCA)?
 
If your answer is yes, then once again: is your duty to your neighbour or to the dog itself?

The aim of this particular thought experiment was to illustrate the concept of moral status, and particularly how it might (or might not) apply to animals. Adapting a definition found here:

Moral status means that a particular thing matters for its own sake, so that we must pay attention to its interests when we consider actions that might affect it.

Moral status is different from moral goodness. Some beings may act in a morally good way, some may act immorally, and others may be incapable of moral action (e.g. new-born babies), but deserving consideration in others' moral reasoning is different from acting morally oneself.

When a thing has moral status, we may not act toward it in any way we please, disregarding its well-being, preferences, or continued existence. We owe some moral obligations to that being itself. As moral agents (beings capable of doing right or wrong), we must care to some degree about what it wants or needs, or simply what it is; this imposes some limitations on how we may act toward it.

In the first scenario, of the neighbour’s burning house, most people would agree that we have some duty to act, by trying to put the fire out or dialling 999. They would, however, be motivated not by any sense of duty towards the house itself, but instead by concern for the house’s occupant, because their life may be at risk, or because of the distress and difficulty they would suffer if they lost their home in a fire. Houses therefore, and I would say all inanimate objects, have no moral status. If we do consider such things in our actions, it is only because of their relationship to some being that does have moral status (in this case, our neighbour).
 

Photo credit: sxc.hu

In the second scenario, of the neighbour’s dog, if you would not act to try to save the dog, or your action to save the dog was motivated only by a desire to save your neighbour from distress caused by losing the dog or the financial inconvenience or buying a new one, I think that you would agree that animals have no moral status. Dogs, you would say, deserve no more consideration for their own sake than inanimate objects.

However, I suspect that most people would act to try to save the dog. Furthermore, I'd say that in acting, most people would be primarily thinking about the dog (recognising that it might be distressed or its life in danger) rather than the dog’s owner. That is, they would see their duty as being to the dog, not to some other being. 

If so, I think you’d have to conclude that animals do have a moral status. Of course this doesn’t tell us whether the moral status of animals is the same as or different to that of humans, but I’d argue that it would be morally inconsistent to rescue the dog in the above scenario, but then act as if animals have no moral status in ethical questions such as the use of animals for food, entertainment, or medical experiments.

My year 12s seemed to mostly agree with this line of reasoning, but as always I’d be interested to hear any feedback. How would you respond in the house and dog scenarios and why? Or do you think there are problems with the though experiment or the conclusions I’ve drawn from it?

Tweeting Jesus?

Was Jesus the world's first tweeter? Well, yes according to Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, President of the Vatican's Council for Culture.

Ravasi says that Jesus "used tweets before everyone else, with elementary phrases made up of fewer than 45 characters like 'Love one another' "

Firstly, the cardinal is just plain wrong here. Even leaving aside the considerable difficulties in figuring out exactly what he did and didn't say, Jesus was hardly the first person to express himself using pithy sayings - there are plenty attributed to the Buddha ("The mind is everything. What you think, you become") and Socrates ("The only thing I know is that I know nothing"), both of whom lived centuries before Jesus.

Secondly, am I the only person who finds all comparisons between ancient and and modern things somewhat grating? A couple of years ago, I watched a documentary in which a TV historian described medieval castles as being "the aircraft carriers of their day." Really? Did medieval castles float? Or cruise at 30 knots? Could you even use them to launch a squadron of F/A 18 Super Hornets?

Dover Castle: Cruising Speed 0 knots. (Photo: Wikipedia)

So in the case of our tweeting Jesus, I'm not sure how you can compare oral messages, heard and passed on by perhaps a handful of people at a time, to a mass medium like Twitter. In the few seconds it takes his publicist to type a tweet, Justin Bieber can tell 45 million people how exciting his breakfast was - a figure roughly equivalent to the entire population of the Roman world in Jesus' time.

There's also a hint of desperation about these comparisons, as if the person making it is hoping that the perceived coolness of the modern will somehow rub off on the ancient. In Ravasi's case, the logic seems go something like this: "Twitter is cool and trendy. Jesus is a bit like Twitter. So Jesus must be cool and trendy too. Please come back to church."

Anyway, don't all the cool kids use Snapchat these days?

Russell-Copleston Debate Linked and Mapped

I've found this link to a public domain audio file of the famous debate between atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell and Catholic priest F.C. Copleston (who, as far as I know, is unique in the history of philosophy for having a name that sounds almost exactly like a non-league football team).

Like other links I've found, the portion of the debate we hear covers a discussion on the cosmological argument, focusing on contingency and necessity. From Copleston's comment at the end of the clip, it seems that they then went on to talk about religious experience. I'd be interested to know if a link of the full debate exists anywhere?

Below, I've also shared a mind map I drew of the some of the key points in the debate.

Asking students who they think "won" the radio debate is always an interesting exercise. I'd say that overall, my students have tended to think that Copleston shades it. Any views or comments on this point are welcome!

Teen Exorcists

How could a TV programme called Teen Exorcists not be on some level awesome? This BBC show follows three karate-chopping all-American girls as they tour the UK, visiting churches, exorcising evil spirits and generally kicking demon butt.

Teen Exorcists. Photo: BBC

As you might expect from BBC Three, the focus is more on the girls and their unusual lifestyles than on the evidence for the reality (or otherwise) of evil spiritual entities. 

The show does raise some interesting questions about how popular culture might influence religious beliefs and practice: for a group who claim to reject much that the modern world stands for (they see Harry Potter as dangerous black magic), the three girls seem to have more than a hint of Buffy The Vampire Slayer about them...

The show is available on iPlayer until September 18th.