So, empirically speaking, “religion” does in fact make the problem…worse. …Recent research suggests that, statistically speaking, non-believers are not as anxious as believers are about being part of an in-group and are more tolerant of others. Please note: I did not say ALL atheists! But insofar as they have contested the evolved biases that activate the hyper-active detection of agents and hyper-active protection of groups, atheists have cleared the ground (of idols of transcendence, as I put it in Iconoclastic Theology) for moving forward toward constructing new modes of human life that I believe are more plausible and feasible in a globally interconnected, pluralistic society.”

Above is an excerpt of a blog post written by Leron Shults back in January of 2015. He wrote the post as a follow-up to an interview he did on Homebrewed Christianity where he discussed his newest book Theology After the Birth of God. Bill Walker wrote a blog post questioning some of Leron’s remarks after the initial interview, and Leron recently made another appearance on Homebrewed Christianity attempting to clear up any controversy he may or may not have inadvertently started.

I haven’t read any of Leron’s books, only essays and interviews, but he essentially seems to be using the bio-cultural study of religion–and it’s very narrow definition of religion: shared imaginative engagement with supernatural agents–to make an ethical argument for a particular brand of naturalistic atheism (and it’s a very challenging argument I might say). His bottom line claim, in a nut shell, to quote Kendell Cox (editor of the Syndicate Symposium for Leron’s book going on right now) is that “from an evolutionary biological perspective, humans are hardwired to look for intentional agency in the natural world and interpret it axiologically in a way that increases group cooperation and commitment thus promoting survival.”

Leron is clear that atheists still have these inherited in-group biases, but that when they are triggered atheists contest them far faster than believers.

On the blog post I linked to above, I had asked Leron what he thought of naturalistic forms of religion/spirituality, such as various types of pantheism or panentheism, wondering why a religious persons in-group could not just continue to expand to the point of the entire Universe being viewed sacramentally as God’s body? Leron replied:

Of course, a lot depends on what we mean by pantheism or panentheism. I used to happily consider myself a version of the latter. I now prefer to be as clear as possible about the problems associated with the idea of a god (theos), understood as a person-like agent in any sense (add whatever qualifications you like, including Whiteheadian ones, because an intentional Lurer is still person-like), and so I prefer to avoid any sort of “theism” – pan or otherwise.

Below was my response:

I think you’re right, though, about the discussion being terminological in part. My definition of religion is a little different than yours I guess. I’m fine with letting words, ideas, and concepts “evolve” or develop (so to speak), just like the Universe is. Religion, for me, is an activity primarily concerned with finding viable ways of relating to the pain and to the love of life, and also to the pain of love, and yes, to the love of pain…

As for your legitimate concern about the idea of a god (theos) being understood as a supernatural person-like agent, I would agree with you that we all should be concerned about this. I guess I just interpret your scientific data a bit differently, that’s all. To me it seems completely accurate to say that God is (and always has been) an interpretation, or a personification, of reality. But (other than those wacky Christians) is there really counter-evidence supporting the claim that people think God is an actual person? That is to say, I’m not sure saying “God is a personification” is the same as saying “God is a person,” is it? Yes if God is understood as an all powerful, all knowing supernatural person concerned with ones particular in-group, that’s a huge problem! But giving a reverential name to all of or some aspects of reality is one way humans historically have, and still can, come to know reality as a “Thou” to be related to—to be revered and sometimes feared. This makes me think of when Michael Dowd points out that Poseidon was not the god of the oceans, as if a supernatural entity separate from water were looking down from on high or rising from the deep. Poseidon was the personification of the incomprehensibly powerful and capricious seas.

So, I do think of myself as a panentheist in the process-relational sense. And as for the Whiteheadian Lure being person-like, I guess one could say that and be accurate. However, as Tim Ruggiero has written, The God of “coercive agency” is way more anthropomorphic and “considerably easier to believe in for the masses because there is little room for ambiguity: God is king.” The “persuasive agency” described by Whitehead “might mean little more than an ideal, or a collective conscience, or intimations of the eternal in nature, or an awareness of one’s finitude and the gumption to consider whether there is any continuity of consciousness with the demise of the body.” Ruggiero continues. “Persuasive agency” he writes, “might only mean a Platonic Form, say of Goodness or Truth, which is illuminated and revealed by works of charity, acts of love, moments of keen contemplation. Or maybe the notion is alive, as Whitehead says, in the simple and meager life of a self-abnegating man — a man in whom the ultimate paradox of “defeat become victory” was manifested.”