Reflections on the scientific study of religion after the first decade of Religion, Brain & Behavior A decade ago, Religion, Brain & Behavior (RBB) was still a dream in the minds of its founding editors, neuroscientist Patrick McNamara, anthropologist Richard Sosis, and philosopher of religion Wesley J. Wildman. No journal dedicated to the cognitive, evolutionary, and neurological study of religion existed at the time, and the editorial team had considerable difficulty finding a publisher who would buy into the idea (Sosis forthcoming). Eventually, Taylor and Francis agreed to publish RBB, and the first issue came out in April 2011, adorned then as today with William Blake's "Web of Religion," a painting that captures "the restless, promethean nature of religion," in the words of RBB's first editorial (McNamara et al., 2011). Today, out of 594 religious studies journals, RBB has the second highest CiteScore, a metric that ranks journals by the number of citations articles receive on average each year. With my curiosity piqued by this dramatic ascendancy, I asked to interview the current editors-Sosis, Wildman, philosopher and religious studies scholar Joseph Bulbulia, neuroscientist Uffe Schjoedt, and assistant editors Joel Daniels and Christopher Kavanaugh-about RBB and the scientific study of religion more generally. As the inside of every issue of RBB states, the journal's aim is to "provide a vehicle for the advancement of current biological approaches to understanding religion at every level from brain to behavior." Accordingly, the journal welcomes contributions spawned by a vast host of scientific disciplines from cognitive neuroscience, genetics, and physiology to evolutionary anthropology, archaeology, and epidemiology. Given the journal's scientific focus and the typically contentious relationship between scientific and humanistic scholars of religion, I was pleasantly surprised to learn that the editors shared a deep appreciation and respect for the humanities study of religion. As Sosis explained, As an outsider, when I look at what religious studies has accomplished, I'm sort of in awe. I read this stuff and I generally find that the humanities scholars within religious studies are extremely well read and fairly careful in their arguments. The reality is there's some sloppy science and there's some sloppy humanities research. But there's really good work going on that, frankly, those on the science side of the aisle ought to pay attention to. In my ideal world, we're open about engaging with all this work.

No abstract

Although it is rapidly growing worldwide, Pentecostalism is a relatively young Christian tradition and, in consequence, has not yet developed a thorough systematic theology. The most unifying aspects of Pentecostalism tend to be its emphasis on the Holy Spirit and its commitment to oppose what are deemed to be inappropriate and heretical theologies. While there are many theologies and theologians that Pentecostals resist, Friedrich D.E. Schleiermacher is almost universally opposed due to what Western Pentecostal theology views as his liberal, subjective, and academic theology. In this essay, I argue that these claims are misguided and that there is important common ground between Schleiermacher and Western Pentecostal theology, as seen through Schleiermacher’s theology on redemption, ecclesiology, and preaching. Thus Western Pentecostal theology can confidently adopt Schleiermacher as a theological ally, thereby allowing his theology to inform Pentecostal theology as it continues to develop.

No abstract

The Christian–Buddhist dialogue, though relatively new, has produced many important works by influential religious leaders. As religious communities continue to migrate around the world, further dialogue is needed, particularly as societies move more and more toward ostracizing the perceived ‘other’. For Pentecostals, interreligious dialogue is crucial since Pentecostalism is a global religious expression, movement, and tradition. Amos Yong has provided Pentecostals with a useful example of how to successfully dialogue with other traditions through his dialogue with Buddhism; nevertheless, Yong’s project invites additional perspectives and insights. Consequently, the author here proposes panexperientialism, or Process Philosophy, as a frame to enhance the Pentecostal–Buddhist dialogue and to aid other interreligious dialogues that extend beyond these two traditions.