This essay considers an exchange between ''new secular'' theologians in the US and a Canadian proponent of the scientific study of religion, about humanistic and scientific values in the academic study of religion, in relation to the character of contemporary universities and the scope of the humanities. It suggests that the humanistic study of religion is culturally normal in North American higher education and educationally important, but is limited as a program for the study of religion as social reality. The essay argues that systematic, integrated study of religions, incorporating contemporary knowledge about human behavior, is necessary for understanding actions of religious people in social and historical circumstances. To this end it proposes an integrated causal model, drawing on Michael Pye's concept of Religionswissenschaft and Talcott Parsons's general action theory.Ré sumé : Cet article considère un échange entre les « nouveaux théologiens laïques » des États-Unis et un promoteur canadien de l'étude scientifique de la religion, au sujet des valeurs humanistes et scientifiques de l'étude académique de la religion, en relation avec le caractère des universités contemporaines et la portée des sciences humaines. Il suggère que l'approche humaniste de la religion est culturellement normale dans l'enseignement supérieur en Amérique du Nord et importante du point de vue éducatif, mais elle est limitée en tant que programme pour l'étude de la religion comme réalité sociale. L'article soutient que l'étude systématique des religions, en intégrant les connaissances actuelles sur le comportement humain, est nécessaire pour comprendre les actions des personnes religieuses dans des contextes sociaux et historiques. À cette fin, Mots clé s étude académique de la religion, théologie laïque, sciences humaines, théorie d'action, science de la religion Is the scholarly, academic study of religion fundamentally an interpretive matter, an exploring and appropriating of distinctive meanings relating to human character and condition, an exercise requiring special sensibility? Or is it properly a descriptive and explanatory matter, treating behaviors continuous with human behavior generally, in the public domain shared by modern sciences? This familiar tension appeared anew, if not afresh, in a recent exchange between ''new secular theologians'' in the United States and the Canadian proponent of scientific study of religion, Donald Wiebe. The exchange evokes the mixed history of the field, comprising Hume's effort to account for religion in the natural circumstances of human life, Schleiermacher's counter-effort to derive religion from a distinctive perception, and efforts of confessing and erstwhile Christians to navigate in relation to these positions and avoid obscurantism while retaining religious credentials. Both parties offered prescriptions for the proper scope and conduct of the academic study of religion, bracketing a persistent tension in the field between promoting religious sensibility in a needy world and subs...