Since the publication of Before Religion in 2013, I have not really returned to the topic of conceptual problems in the study of religion. My attention shifted to early Christian manuscripts and, more recently, the development of the codex. But questions about the concept of religion still interest me, and back in 2022, I was invited by colleagues at Lund University to a dialogue with Kevin Schilbrack. For those who don’t know, Schilbrack is a prolific philosopher of religion who has written some classic articles in the field. See–for starters–the following:

• “Religions: Are there Any?” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 78 (2010) 1112-1138
• “What Isn’t Religion?” Journal of Religion 93 (2013) 291-318
• “A Realist Social Ontology of Religion,” Religion 47 (2017) 161-178

The idea for the meeting in Lund was for me to respond to Schilbrack’s criticisms of Before Religion. But it also served as an opportunity for the two of us to meet for the first time, which was very enjoyable. Even if we come to quite different conclusions, it was an honor and a pleasure to mix it up with Kevin.

After the meeting, we agreed to convert the talks we gave into articles to be submitted to Svensk Teologisk Kvartalskrift. These pieces have now been published and are available open access. My contribution is called “Imagining Science: Ancient Religion, Modern Science, and How We Talk About History.” Here is the abstract:

Disagreement about the trans-cultural applicability of the concept of religion has been a feature of the academic study of religion for decades. In a series of recent essays, Kevin Schilbrack has powerfully reframed these discussions as a debate between realist and antirealist philosophical orientations. Aligning himself with Critical Realism, Schilbrack argues that religion is a transcultural and transhistorical reality and that those who deny this are antirealists. As my own work is among his targets, this article engages Schilbrack’s critique. The first part of the article challenges some of Schilbrack’s readings of Before Religion. The second part queries Schilbrack’s use of examples from the physical sciences as analogies for the relationship between concepts and the real things they are said to designate. The third part models an alternative use of examples from the natural sciences to think about historiography, concluding that the realist/antirealist dichotomy is not a useful tool. The physics of the last 150 years has shown that our most fundamental ideas about the universe – what we think the “real” character of the world might be – can change radically in short intervals of time. Historians should take heed and approach their own engagement with the traces of the past with due humility.

I very much enjoyed digging into some topics in the history of science, especially the paths not taken, like phlogiston theory and vortex atoms. I think we have a lot to learn about method from these failed theories.

Schilbrack’s response is written up as “The Concept of ‘Religion’ as a Heuristic Device.”

I felt this was a very stimulating exchange, and I’m grateful to colleagues at the Centre for Theology and Religious Studies (CTR) at Lund University for organizing this meeting.